1909-03-09

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved that the name of Mr. Boyce be taken off the Committee on Mines and Minerals and added to the Committee on Forests, Waterways and Watercourses, and that the name of Mr. George Gordon be taken off the Committee on Forests, Waterways and Watercourses and added to the Committee on Mines and Minerals.
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  J. A.@: SEXSMITH (East Peterboro) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 100) to amend the Adulteration Act. He said: The object is to protect the farmers and others against the sale of comparatively worthless foods which are put on the markets. They have no means of detecting the difference between these foods and others of excellent value. When the Bill comes up for second reading, I shall explain the details and hope to make it clear that it is very essential.


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

Mr.  T. J.@: STEWART (West Hamilton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 101) to amend the Criminal Code. He said: The object of the Bill is to reach an undesirable class who are travelling through our country and are a source of great danger and
annoyance. It is against the law for a man to carry undesirable weapons of any kind, but no means are provided to ascertain whether he is doing so or not. The amendment I ask is to provide that a person suspected of carrying concealed weapons may be searched.


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

Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).: Before the orders of the day are called I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works again when we may expect the return with reference to the riding of Bonaventure. The order was made on February 1, and on one or two occasions since I have had more or less promising assurances, but nothing has come of them. We want these returns for use during the session ; and when hon. gentlemen talk of prolonging the session, I think there is no more effective way of prolonging it than by this extreme delay in bringing down important returns. We are hampered and delayed in the work of the House. There must be a great deal of matter to be returned if it requires six or seven weeks to prepare it. It is quite time that this return was made. I can do without it if necessary but I must say I think it is time this return was ready.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I have spoken to my deputy several times, asking why the returns have not been brought down. He informs me they are being attended to as rapidly as possible. I regret that in my department we have to use the ordinary staff, as we have no room to get in temporary clerks during the session, and under the law we cannot pay clerks for working after hours. We have to do the best we can. I spoke yesterday about the returns and I will see they are brought down as soon as possible. This remark applies to other returns as well.


Mr. FOSTER.: I hope that remark includes returns which were ordered on my own motion.


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: There are some of those that should not take much time.


William Pugsley: Except that they have to take their turn.


George Eulas Foster: That means the turn of the House and there are 220 members here.



MARINE DEPARTMENTAL INVESTIGATION.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he expects to be able

to announce to the House what action, if any, the government propose to take upon the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. The Prime Minister will remember that up to the present time there has been no information whatever given to the House upon this subject. I am not pressing for an answer to-day, but am merely suggesting the expedience of giving early information to the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The matter has been engaging the attention of council and I think some time next week we will be able to announce the final conclusion.



LEGISLATION RE GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC.

Robert Laird Borden: In consequence of a paragraph in the press yesterday, I beg to ask whether it is the intention of the government to bring down any legislation with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific at this session, and, if so, at what time we may expect the announcement of that legislation?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: Any legislation of that nature that may be contemplated will be put upon the Order Paper almost immediately.



SUPPLY-SOUTH AFRICAN BOUNTY ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["I cannot discuss that question now. But the Militia Department is called upon to contribute its quota to the reduction. I felt sure that the active militia throughout the country, which is composed very largely of the bone and sinew of the country, would be willing for one year at least, to forego a portion at least of the annual drill, in order that our share of the economy which is necessary should be carried into effect. I do not think that there will be any very serious difficulty in carrying out the annual drill as we hope to do it. I believe that by training the men this year to some extent at local headquarters, which is desirable once\n\nin a while, and which has not been done, at all events in the last thirteen years, and by restricting the annual drill to those regiments which have shown themselves zealous in the immediate past, and to which the *instruction would be particularly useful, and allowing those which have not shown much interest in their annual drill in the past, to rest for another year, until the coffers are refilled, we shall save a considerable amount of the cost of transportation.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Eecess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior to one feature of the South African Bounty Act. The Act provides that a land grant shall be made to the volunteer or in the event of his death between the date of his enlistment and a certain other date, to his legal representative. I have been inquiring in the department as to the issue of certain land warrants and there seems to be some confusion in the matter. I think that probably the regulations could be improved. The first intimation sent out to the parties making the application, as I understand it, is that there must be either probate or administration in the case of deceased persons. In the majority of instances these persons have no estate, they are generally young men and have absolutely no estate and in many instances they have made no will. In Ontario there is a provision of course for administration, but in the province of Quebec I am told there is no provision, no law by which there can be, in the ordinary sense, administration of the estate. In the case of a vacant possession, where there are no heirs at all, I am told a person called a Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
curator may be appointed who will take charge of the estate. In the case of ordinary heirs who are of age, they take charge of the estate themselves, and in the case of infants a tutor is appointed, but there is no such thing as administration in the ordinary way. I was speaking of a case that comes from Montreal the other day, and I was informed by an officer in the department that that condition arises in reference to administration in the province of Quebec. He had informed the party there would have to be administration but found in the meantime there could be no administration.
The point to which I wish to call the minister's attention is that where a person under twenty-one years of age who was killed in South Africa, had no will and no estate, it seems to be an unnecessary expense to put the parties to that they should have to apply, say in Ontario, for administration in a case of that kind. In fact there is a good deal of difficulty about getting administration, because as a matter of fact there could only be administration of an estate and there is no estate to be administered. Of course we can get around it by saying he had his clothing or something of that kind, but practically there is no estate. My suggestion is that in cases of that kind, where a person who would be entitled to a grant died before the Act was passed and so the land that he was to get did not even tentatively devolve upon him, the grant ought to be administered from first to last in the department. That an affidavit should be filed as to the parties entitled to that estate and the grant should be made to those parties or as would happen in the majority of cases that they would all transfer their rights to one person, four or five brothers would release their rights to another brother, or a father or mother and let the grant be made to that person. It seems to me to be absolutely unnecessary to put the parties to the expense of getting administration where they could administer the grant themselves. I was told by a gentleman in charge that in one instance a mother and son came in to the department and represented that they were the only parties entitled to participate in the grant, but it afterwards transpired that there was a son, another brother, living in the United States. That, however, would be easily liable to occur if administration was demanded, they would just as easily deceive the Surrogate Court judge as the departmental officer. What I urge upon the minister for the purpose of getting directly at the matter and avoiding expense, is that where the person dies before the passage of the Act and the Act therefore gives it not to him but to his legal representatives, where these legal representatives are of the full age of twenty-

9!m.
one years the matter should be dealt with without their being called on to obtain administration. I have no doubt the minister has been endeavouring to get it into the best shape possible and doubtless he has had some difficulty in working it out. I thought it desirable to bring it up in the House so that if anything should arise by which there might be a case of making a false affidavit or anything of that kind' the department could not be blamed if they adopted a suggestion of that kind made in the House.


Mr. OLIVER.: I am very glad the hon. member has brought this matter to the attention of the House. Although the instances to which he alludes are not numerous still they exist and have to be dealt with. It is true that for the protection of the department it is our rule to require that the responsibility of deciding who are the heirs shall rest upon the local courts or the legal authorities rather than upon ourselves. I think it is well for all parties concerned that, within reasonable limits, we should continue to take that view. At the same time, no doubt, there are some cases such as my hon. friend has mentioned, where to insist upon that view is really a hardship. I would not wish my hon. friend or the House to think that it is the desire of the government to impose any hardship, or to allow anything that can be avoided to stand in the way of those who are entitled getting the fullest possible benefit. I am glad the hon. member has seen fit to mention this matter in the House, so that the House may be aware of the difficulties that have to be met; and that when we think it is in the best interest of those who are entitled that we should administer directly, we may have the support of the House in doing so, or in doing the best we can under the circumstances.


Mr. D. HENDERSON (Halton).: I am glad my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has referred to this matter. I had occasion a short tim ago to present an application to the Department of the Interior of a somewhat similar character to that which the hon. gentleman has referred. A young man went away from my county and joined the forces to go to South Africa. Unfortunately he was taken ill and died there, and is buried in South Africa. He left a father and mother, and five brothers and sisters. On making application I was informed that letters of administration would have to be taken out. The father has since died and the remaining relatives are living, all of age. It seems to me that if the brothers, sisters and mother should all assign to one member of the family and that member of the family should be the one to make application, the department would have no difficulty, no
trouble, and no risk in dealing with him.
If necessary, a statutory declaration could be made by some one to the effect that these were all the members of the family.
I think it a pity that the department should insist upon putting the relatives of these veterans to the cost and trouble of procuring letters of administration. It all costs money, and the indemnity that is granted to the veterans is not so very great after all, and if you reduce the value of it by insisting on letters of administration, you are doing what, to say the least of it, is absolutely unnecessary. If the government chooses to make a gift to the relatives of a veteran who has sacrificed his life in the interest of the empire, I say give it to him, but don't make it any more expensive for his relatives to get it than is necessary. I hope the minister will revise what I understand is a rule of the department to insist upon letters of administration in every instance, and that where matters are made clear and the evidence can be furnished without doubt, he will not insist upon letters of administration where there is no will. Sometimes it is difficult. A young man goes out perhaps and leaves no estate behind him, nothing on which to base an application for letters of administration. The grant of land coming to the heirs cannot be used as a basis of application for letters of administration, consequently there are difficulties in the way. I think the minister should make the rule flexible, and deal with each case on its merits, instead of laying down an absolute rule to govern all cases.


Mr.  J. W.@: DANIEL (St. John City.) I would like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe who brought this matter up. It has been my fortune during the last week or so to take six or seven cases to the Department of the Minister of the Interior, where the legal representatives were called upon to take certain action in order to obtain the warrants. One of the worst features about the cases to which I refer was the fact that the parties who were endeavouring to get these applications put through, were left from the month of October last I think until within eight or ten days ago without any knowledge coming	to them as to
wliat the department required them to do in order to establish their claims. After I saw the deputy minister, I may say, there was no further trouble and word was sent to these people that letters of administration would have to be taken out. As has been stated this afternoon, many of these men are not in a position to take out letters of administration.	I understand that
in the city of St. John it costs at least $40 to take out letters of administration, and that applicants have to pay

that amount in order to fulfil the requirements of the Department of the Interior. I am not a lawyer, and therefore I cannot make any suggestion as to what course should be adopted. But the minister has a legal staff in his department, and I think he would be doing only right- and dealing justly by these men, if he would make such regulations as would relieve them from the expense of $40 in order to go through a probate court and get out letters of administration. I think he would be doing justice in that way, and make it much easier for a deserving class to get what they are entitled to.


Mr. H. GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: There is another^ thing I would like to draw the attention of the minister to in regard to the regulations which have been isued under the Volunteer Bounty Act. I do not refer to a deceased volunteer, but to volunteers who were so seriously wounded in the South African war that they are unable to comply with the homestead requirements which are necessary under the present Act and the present regulations. I have in thind the case of two volunteers who reside in the constituency I have the honour to represent, both of whom were seriously injured in Hart's river, one, Sergeant Wilkinson, losing his right arm and his left eye, and the other, Corporal Minchin, having been shot through the lung and otherwise seriously injured. Both of these men are to-day physically incapable of performing homestead duties. Now, of course, it may be said that they have the option of selling their warrant, or of taking scrip. No doubt they have, but if it becomes known that these two men, or men similarly situated cannot perform their homestead duties, they are bound to sell, and to sell at. a great sacrifice. What I would suggest is that volunteers who have been physically incapacitated through wounds or disease in South Africa should be entitled to get their land without performing homestead duties upon it. I think that it would be a very laudable and very proper thing to do, and I trust the regulations or the Act may be so amended as to permit its being done.


Mr. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin).: There is another matter to which I think the attention of the minister should be directed. It seems to be the practice of hi3 department in the case of a homesteader, that probate of his will or letters of administration should be issued from the judical district in which the land is situated. I have a case in point where a homesteader had fulfilled all the requirements to obtain his homestead, but he died in the province : of Ontario, where he left an estate, and i where he made his will.	,


Mr. DANIEL.: The will was probated in one of the surrogate courts in Ontario. He was notified by the department that it would be necessary to file an exemplification of the probate or the original probate itself. I think that was a mistake according to the practice of the department . However, he was notified later that it would be necessary for him to engage a solicitor at Saskatoon to prove, in the district where the land is, a will that has already been proved in the court of the province of Ontario. I cannot see any good reason why that should be required. It seems to me that the evidence of a court in the province of Ontario that a man has made a will, which will has been proved devising the land to his son, ought to be sufficient to warrant the department in issuing the patent to his son, assuming that all the settlement duties have been performed and I believe that satisfactory evidence has been submitted as to that. I do not understand why it is necessary to put the man to the expense of re-proving the will in the district where the land is. There might be some justification for it if the government of the province were issuing the title, but it is the government of the Dominion that gives him the title, and the evidence of the court in one of the provinces ought to be sufficient that the will was made and the proof of that fact ought to be sufficient to entitle the devisee to the patent for the land.


Mr. J. HERRON (Macleod).: I do not wish to repeat the statements that have been so well made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) with reference to the South African volunteers, but I wish to acquiesce in the statements that he has made. I have one or two cases in mind where men have been totally incapacitated from doing homestead duties on their land and I believe that this government would be adopting a prosper course and one which would commend itself to the people generally if they would grant these men their patents without requiring them to perform their homestead duties. I believe the people of Canada would uphold the hands of the minister and the government in doing that.
I would like to see a regulation adopted which would enable men incapacitated as a result of their service in South Africa to secure their homesteads without being compelled to comply with the homestead regulations of the departments.


Mr. G. H. COWAN (Vancouver City).: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the restrictions of the Volunteer Bounty Act are so numerous and so onerous that, taken alone, the name of the Act is almost a misnomer. I wish to draw the attention of the House and the

minister to the fact that the department has added to these restrictions. Take, for example, section 2 of the Volunteer Bounty Act which provides that the grant may be of Dominion lands available for entry. Turning to the Dominion Lands Act, section 3, you will find that the lands available for entry are lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, together with three and a half million acres in the Peace river district in the province of British Columbia as well as the land in the territories. But we find, on turning to the regulation of the department, that volunteers otherwise entitled to the benefit of the Act are not permitted to enter for lands in the Peace river district in the province of British Columbia, notwithstanding the fact that section 3 of the Dominion Lands Act, taken along with section 2 of the Volunteer Bounty Act, gives them that right. I think that the restrictions of the Volunteer Bounty Act are sufficient without the department adding further restrictions. The effect of that departmental regulation is that a volunteer a resident in British Columbia is bound to expatriate himself from British Columbia before he can get the benefit of the Act. It was surely never intended that that should be the case. It was surely intended that volunteers resident in British Columbia should be permitted to enter for Dominion lands in British Columbia. It is true that by a section of the Dominion Lands Act the forty-mile belt is not included as land available for homestead entry. It seems to me desirable that this too should be included and, at any rate, it is exceedingly undeeirablej that (volunteers, resident in BritL'b Columbia and having their occupations there, should be obliged to give up these occupations and go beyond the bounds of their own province to get the benefit of the Act, especially when the Dominion has a large tract of three and a half million acres in the Peace district and the forty-mile belt on either side of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Again, by section 4 of the Volunteer Bounty Act, it is provided that:
The volunteer, or his substitute, may select or enter for the land on or before the 31st December, 1910, and shall perfect his entry within six months after the 31st December, 1910.
But along come the regulations of the department and say that he shall be obliged to perfect his entry, not six months after the 31st December, 1910, but six months after entry. I think again that the department is imposing unnecessary restrictions upon the volunteer, especially in view of the fact that the intention apparently of the Act was that it should grant him a bounty. Away back in 1871 we know that the volunteers of the provinces of Ontario
and Quebec who had served at that time were given a grant of land each without actual residence being required. Here the homestead duties of the volunteers are almost exactly the same as those of an entrant under the Dominion Lands Act and they are more onerous in many respects.
I cannot help thinking that in view of the way this Act is being administered by the department the name of the Volunteer Bounty Act is a misnomer. It would be better for volunteers resident in British Columbia to abandon their rights under the Act and enter for homesteads under the Dominion Lands Act.


Mr. SPROULE.: Am I correct in understanding that in all cases where a volunteer entitled to this land grant dies, his heirs will be obliged to take out letters of
administration before they can take advantage of the bounty ?


Frank Oliver: That is the way we are administering the Act at the present time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, I should be inclined to agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) that the department should, by regulation or otherwise, provide for the acceptance of proof without putting the heirs to the trouble of taking out letters of administration.


Mr. S. HUGHES (Victoria).: Now that this matter is up, I think it well to bring before the House a matter which has been engaging the attention of some people for a considerable time. Under the present regulations, each volunteer, in order to settle upon his land, must personally visit the land office in the locality in which he purposes selecting his location. But certain persons have purchased large numbers of these land warrants, and, as I understand it, under these same regulations, these persons can locate these lands without this formality. The purchaser of land warrants has no intention of becoming a settler himself-he is a mere speculator. But the volunteer who proposes to settle on his land himself must personally locate his land. Many of these intending settlers, in order to get in early, are going up already, and others will go within the next few weeks. Each of them will have to incur an expense of $200 or $300 in selecting the land, making the location and paying the necessary travelling expenses. I appeal to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) if it would not be better and fairer to allow the warrant to locate the land instead of the man. The Minister of the Interior, some years ago, abolished and very properly-the old blanketing system which had worked such injury to the northwest, the system under which any person, through

an agent, could locate a homestead. That system was greatly abused. But the minister, in his desire to prevent the recurrence of that abuse, went to the other extreme and made every applicant personally go to the land office. Thus, a father who wanted to locate land for himself and his sons was unable to locate except for himself. Every one of the sons had to go to the west personally and locate his homestead. The minister did change the regulations so as to provide for such cases as this. In the case of these land grants to volunteers, a regulation should be passed, or, if necessary, an amendment to the Act should be made, so that the volunteer who holds a land warrant might be put down for his chosen location, or, if this were found to be located, he could be notified and be given an opportunity to select another. Many of these men have friends in the west, who would pick out lajjd for them. I think the hon. ministers to whom I have referred will see the justice of the claim that the warrant should be the identification and not the person. Those familiar with affairs in the northwest know that the location of halfbreed scrip was not attended with these restrictions. The speculators who held the warrant were not going to try to bring to the land office the particular half-breed in whose name the warrant was issued, and who might be living somewhere up near the Arctic circle. Any half-breed would do


Mr. KNOWLES.: Does the hon. gentleman say that that system of locating halfbreed script has existed within the last two years?


Samuel Hughes: I did not say so. But it did exist in previous years. If the hon. gentleman wants them, I can give him particulars.


William Erskine Knowles: No, I merely asked a courteous question and thought I should get an answer of the same kind.


Samuel Hughes: Since the present Minister of Justice has come into office, he has done his best to stamp out the iniquities that were rampant throughout the northwest-I give him every credit for that. I am glad to see that hundreds of volunteers are going upon their own lands, and I point out that it would save these men a great deal of expense if the change that I suggest were made, and would leave them with more money to buy their outfit when within the next four or five months, thev eo to reside on their land.


Mr. ADAM B. CROSBY (Halifax).: I am glad this matter has been brought up, for I have a case in my constituency, which, perhaps, is different from any of the others! There is a widow of a South African volunteer who lost his life in South Africa. This lady has made application for a land grant, lhe warrant was about to issue, and the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
deputy Minister of the Interior-whom I had the honour of calling upon, and who was very kind in giving all the information he could-had sent out the letter containing the questions to be asked of the applicant and on the answering of which the warrant was to issue. But, between the time that letter was sent to Halifax and the time of its return, as I understand it, some new rule had been issued by which the applicant would have to administer before she could receive the warrant. When she communicated with me, I asked her to call at the probate office in Halifax. As she is without means I thought she might be able to administer there at small cost. But they told her there that, in view of the fact that her husband had left no estate in Halifax, she could not administer there, but must administer where the land was granted. As the land was not granted as a matter of fact, this would be difficult to do. I trust the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) will be able to make some provision by which this poor woman will be able to get the land due to her. I think the widow is in a much different position from any other relative, and there should be special consideration for her. I do not know whether other warrants had been previously granted in similar cases, but I understand that this new rule, as I have said, issued between the time when the communication was sent to Halifax, and the time the answer was sent back.


Mr WM. M. MARTIN (Regina).: As one of the members from the west, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the objections which have been raised by hon. members on the other side to the methods of administration of the Land Department I was particularly interested in the point raised by the hon. member for South Sim-eoe (Mr Lennox) with regard to certain cases of hardship in connection with the administration of the land grants of deceased volunteers. Any person who is familiar with the conditions of the practice of law in the western provinces or with the conditions attending the administration of estates, would not wish to place on the government the responsibility of deciding in any particular case whether a man dies leaving heirs or not. Only a short time ago there came under my own notice the case of a man, recently married, who died in the province of Saskatchewan. Affidavits were sworn to by his widow to the effect that he died leaving her and three or four small children. Before the estate was administered, we learned by the merest chance that the man had been married in Germany previous to coming to this country, and had a grown-up family there. Similar cases must arise from time to time. The administration of estates in the western provinces is a simple matter, it does

not cost much; and why should not a man who is getting land from the government have his estate administered in the same way as he would have if he actually had the patent for the land? The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) spoke of the hardships attending certain men who were injured in the South African war. With those men I have every sympathy, as I believe has every member of the House; but I may call attention to the fact that the Act to authorize a bounty to the South African volunteers, passed in the last session of the last parliament, provides for the appointing of a substitute, and I believe the scrip at the present time is worth about $1,000.


Samuel Hughes: It will soon be worth


William Melville Martin: 1 believe that it soon "will be worth $2,000. Each of these volunteers has the right to take not only a half-section under this Act, but a halfsection under the Homestead and Pre-emptions Act as amended in the last parliament; so that the South African volunteer, if he wants to become an actual settler m the west, has an opportunity to acquire a whole section of land, and in three or four years, when he gets his patent, he will be a wealthy man. I know personally some South African volunteers who have taken up their land and are at present on the highway to wealth as a result of the bounty given to them by this government. The hon. member for Vancouver also raised the question of the time given for entry to the volunteers. I believe that western sentiment is that ample time has been given to them They are allowed up to the 31st oi December, 1910. The hon. member for Vancouver would allow them to have untd the middle of 1911 to complete the entry. The effect of that would be to have the land tied up for two or three years. What we want in the western provinces is men to go on the land and cultivate it, and increase the out put of wheat and thereby increase the wealth of the country.


George Henry Cowan: That is the wording of the Act.


William Melville Martin: If that is the correct interpretation of the Act, it should not be worded in that way, for I believe the South African volunteers have been given ample time to go on the land and perform the cultivation duties.


Mr GOODEVE.: May I ask the Minister' of the Interior to give the reasons for exempting the lands of the Peace River district from free entry under this Act? In the Bounty Act those lands are mentioned as being eligible, but in the regulations of the 1st of February they are exempt.


Hon FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: 
Mr. McKENZIE.: What right does the administration give over it?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's point is that administration is concerned with personal property.


Frank Oliver: I am not learned in the law, but I understand that there is the administration of real estate as well as the administration of personal property. The distribution of the real estate of a deceased person is one of the most delicate, difficult and expensive proceedings under the jurisdiction of our courts, but there are still cases where it would be too serious a hardship to insist on all the formalities of the law; and in such, we may be prepared to take the responsibility of deciding to issue the grant to the one entitled to it in our best judgment. But that is done only as a last resort m extreme cases; and should we make a mistake in such cases, we ask for the best consideration of parliament. But we do not want to be understood as lightly undertaking a responsibility which has not been

laid on us by Act of parliament and which it would be the height of presumption lor us to assume.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) as to the remission of residential duties in the case of volunteers who had suffered serious physical disabilities, I only wish to point out that, in administering this law, the Department of the Interior is bound by the terms of the Act. The Act was only passed last session, and after a great deal of consideration, parliament did not see fit to provide for the contingency suggested by my hon. friend except in the way in which it is provided as suggested by the hon. member for Regina. That is to say, provision is made for the transfer of i.e	of a volunteer who for reasons,
whatever they may be,.sees fit not to go on his land. The Act is framed so that the man who does not want to go on his land will be able to get the utmost value for his right to the scrip. That was the view of parliament last session, and in administering the Act the Department of the Interior must be bound by the authority of parliament. Parliament was moved to take the ground it did believing that while it was desirable to give reasonable- consideration for the services of the men who went to South Africa, it was also desirable that settlement- in the west should be thereby encouraged. The grant was essentially a bounty for the promotion of settlement in the west just as much as a recognition of services to the empire. And until parliament sees fit to reverse that policy, the Department of the Interior will have to continue as it is doing.
Regarding the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver, while the Act gives the volunteer at least six months after a certain date in 1910 to go upon the land, there was certainly no intention that there should be any such privilege as that of tieing up the land and holding it over from settlement until 1911. That, I take the responsibility of saying, was not the intention of parliament. The intention of parliament was that the settlement conditions should be such as are required by the Dominion Lands Act; and the Dominion Lands Act requires that within six months after the date of entry settlement shall take place. We are administering the Act in that light, and I believe that we are carrying out the will of parliament in so doing. Were the Act to be administered as the hon. member for Vancouver has suggested it would cause scandal and abuse in land speculation to which the western country would certainly not submit.
As regards the inability of volunteers to take up lands in British Columbia, it was not contemplated that there should be any land placed at their disposal except those in the prairie provinces; but if the people oi Mr. OLIVER.
British Columbia feel slighted, I do not know but that their views may be met in due time, and I can say without hesitation that if it were possible to transfer the privilege from the prairie provinces to the railway belt of British Columbia, I am quite satisfied every representative of the prairie provinces would be quite willing to have that done.
There is this to be said in connection with this volunteer scrip, and that is that taking advantage of the provisions framed for the express purpose of protecting the interests of those volunteers who, for one reason or another, were either unable or unwilling to go on the land, a very large portion of the issue has fallen into the hands of speculators. We hope that the volunteers who were entitled to all the rights and benefits to be derived under the Act have reaped due advantage from that transaction. We did our best for them in framing the Act, and if they have not reaped due advantage from it the fault is theirs and not ours. The condition is that the scrip is, as a matter of fact, very largely in the hands of men who have bought it not with the intention of settling on the land but for the purpose of speculation, and therefore the Department of the Interior being charged with the administration of this area of some two million acres of land, largely in the hands of speculators, is compelled, if the public interest in the settlement of the country is to be protected, to hold the lines very, very tight. We cannot allow the privileges in respect to the land held or taken under scrip that we have been used to allow in the case of land taken by homesteaders.
I think the members from the west will bear me out when I say that it is absolutely necessary that having made the law as it is, we must insist upon the letter of the law being fulfilled, not wishing to do any injury to the men who served the empire, but desiring to protect the public interest in the settlement of the west, which is if not of paramount of equal importance to parliament and the country.


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: How did it become possible for the various land agents throughout Canada to become possessed of either the nominal roll of every regiment serving in South Africa, or a list of some sort giving the name and address of each of these men? It is unfortunate that this has occurred because in a great many instances the first the volunteer knew of his being entitled to a South African grant was a letter from a land agent offering him at first $200 or $300 for his rights. That was often the first intimation received by the volunteer that he was entitled to any remuneration for his services in South Africa.
It would have been much better if either the Militia or the Interior Department had

notified each veteran that he was entitled to such a grant, and to have withheld the information from the land grabbers until such time as the soldier himself had a chance to consider the proposition.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to say how the rolls of which my hon. friend speaks came into the hands of the real estate agent. I would say that in my estimation once we permitted, as we did permit and as we intended to permit, the volunteer to sell his scrip, the greater publicity given to the fact that the scrip was issued, the better for the man who had scrip to sell and wanted to sell it. There seems to me to be no disadvantage to the beneficiary of the Act in the fact the man who wanted to buy from him knew that he had scrip to sell or which he could sell. The greater the demand for the scrip the better the price the man was going to get for it. It is to be regretted that in many cases the volunteer has disposed of the scrip at much below its actual value, but I think that those who are to blame for that are rather the men who have belittled the commercial value of the scrip, as it was belittled, very definitely and specifically and persistently belittled, in the columns of many newspapers not many months ago.
I take the opportunity of saying that the South African volunteers have suffered the loss of many thousands of dollars and the scrip sharks have benefited to a corresponding degree because of the misunderstanding that was persistently and deliberately caused throughout the country as to the commercial value of this volunteer scrip. The effort was made in the terms of the Act to prevent that by providing that no transfer of right was valid until after t.h& serin was issued. In every point we have done our best to guard the interests of the volunteers, It is still to be regretted that in many cases they have suffered very heavy financial loss, but it is not because of any action or lack of action on the part of this government.


Samuel Hughes: My experience is that a great many of the volunteers still hold their scrip, but perhaps the minister has data which would warrant him in stating that the great majority of them have sold their warrants. The great majority of my friends are still holding their warrants and I am pleased to say that a majority of that majority are going to settle on the land.


Frank Oliver: When I said a large proportion, I was speaking without the book. I have taken for granted from remarks I have heard that a large proportion had been sold. I hope it is not so, and would be pleased to know it is not. But there has been a great deal of talk about purchase of scrip, and a low price at which it was being disposed of made me feel very
strongly that a great many volunteers were not getting the benefit we hoped they would get from the Act.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: I would ask the attention of the Minister of Militia (Sir F. Borden; to a case in my constituency. A young Canadian medical officer went to London, England, enlisted in the British forces and served during his term about one year in South Africa. Part of the time he was on hospital duty and part of the time he was at the front, for about eight months treking the veldt and enduring all the hardships and dangers of the campaign in South Africa. It seems to me remarkable that nurses who never saw a bullet fired and many men who never saw South Africa are entitled to a warrant, a gift of this land, and this officer, a young Canadian officer in the medical corps, is deprived of his rights. I would strongly press on the favourable consideration of the minister the case of those who are commonly called civil surgeons. This young man was really subject and liable to all the orders of the ordinary volunteer and he was exposed to all the hardships of the campaign. If there was ever a man who deserved the scrip it is surely a man of this description. I understand the Law Department have decided against the claim of men of this class, and hold that they are not entitled to grants of land. I think this is rather a harsh ruling, and the minister might amend the law and regulations in respect to such cases, and allow this young man, who is certainly very deserving, a grant of land.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: If my hon. friend will bring the particular case to my notice, I will have it looked into. I do not remember the case.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: As I understand it, the South African civil surgeons were under military rule the same as regimental and army medical corps men, and in many instances were attached to regiments as regimental surgeons, though ranking simply as civil surgeons. I think it is right that a man who has lived in Canada and was domiciled here before the war, and serves the empire, either in England or South Africa, should be entitled to the grant, and more especially if he has returned to Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Every civil surgeon in any column with which I had anything to do in South Africa, was on the roll. T do not see how the case presented by the hon. member for North Ontario can have arisen.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Minister of the Interior, in answering the multitude of questions submitted to him on this matter .overlooked one that I raised. It seems that in the

case of a South African veteran, the minister accepts the finding of a court in any province as to the person entitled to the certificate. Why should that not be the case with a homesteader? If the minister accepts the finding of a court in any province as to the person entitled to the patent in the case of a veteran, why should that not be the case when the duties have been nerformed by the homesteader, or by his successor ?


Frank Oliver: In the one case, as I understand it-of course my hon. friend knows that I am skating on rather thin ice in undertaking to deal with the question without reference-in the case of South African script, it is not land, it is only a right to land, a right which has not yet been translated into land. But the right exists and accrues wherever the domicile was of the person who holds that right. In the case of land, the right accrues where the land is situated, that is to say, in the case of a homestead the right must necessarily exist where the homestead is, and therefore must be subject to the laws of that province.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Where will the probate be taken out? Does the minister require the probate to be issued in the province where the land is subsequently found to be situated? How can you tell in what province the probate should be taken?


Frank Oliver: We ask the probate to be taken out in the province in which the volunteer was domiciled, in the case of scrip ; but in the case of homestead, _ the probate must be taken out in the province in which the land is situated.



Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to a memorial that I had the honour to present to this House last Friday from the legislature of the province of Manitoba in regard to an extension of its boundaries. That memorial was rejected by yourself yesterday on the ground that it contained a paragraph referring to financial conditions, which, under the procedure of parliament, cannot be received by this House unless it is accompanied by the consent of His Excellency the Governor General. On this occasion I desire to draw the attention of the House to another memorial I had the honour to present on the same subject during the last session of parliament. I will refer to the latter part of that memorial, which concludes as follows :
Your memorialists therefore consent, agree and pray that the boundaries of the province of Manitoba be enlarged or extended so as to Mr. CROTHERS.
embrace and include the following territory, that is to say:
Then follows a description of the area of land which the province is desirous of securing. In addition, the memorial of last year proceeds as follows, regarding the financial considerations and the specific terms:
That supplementary and in addition to the prevailing provisions as to the annual allowance of the province by the Dominion for cost of government, and a per capita allowance of eighty cents per head of population, there be inserted in any Act of the parliament of Canada extending the boundaries of the province as above set forth, the following provisions respecting capital account and in lieu of lands, such provisions being in every respect similar to and identical with those respecting said matters as are contained in certain Acts of the parliament of Canada passed in the year 1905, creating the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta; and this House declares its willingness to agree to and approve of and does hereby and herein agree and approve of an extension by the parliament of Canada of the boundaries of the province in the manner and to the extent aforesaid, upon the said following terms and financial conditions (which terms and financial conditions are similar in all respects, as to the mabters herein referred to, as were extended to each of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and agreed upon between those provinces and the government of Canada, and as are contained in the said Acts creating those provinces as aforesaid), being, to wit, as follows, that is to say:
Inasmuch as the province of Manitoba is not in debt, it shall be entitled to be paid and to receive from the government of Canada by half-yearly payments in advance an annual sum of four hundred and five thousand three hundred and seventy-five dollars, being the equivalent of interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of eight million one hundred and seven thousand five hundred dollars.
Inasmuch as the said province will not have the public land as a source of revenue, there shall be paid by Canada to the province, by half-yearly payments in advance, an annual sum based upon the population of the province as from time to time ascertained by the quinquennial census thereof, as follows:-
The population of the said province being assumed to be at present two hundred and fiftv thousand, the sum payable until such population reaches four hundred thousand shall be three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars;
Thereafter, until such population reaches eight hundred thousand, the sum payable shall be five hundred and sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars;
Thereafter, until such population reaches one million two hundred thousand, the sum payable shall be seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars;
And thereafter the sum payable shall be one million one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.
As an additional allowance in lieu of the public lands, there shall be paid by Canada

to the province, annually by half-yearly payments in advance, for five years from the time this Act comes into force, to provide'for the construction of necessary public buildings, the sum of ninety-three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars.
For all the purposes aforesaid and such other or others as shall be warranted upon the statement of facts herein presented, this House prays for substantial relief and justice from the parliament of Canada, and desires to observe that any less arrangement than above set forth respecting said matters would be considered by your memorialists inequitable and unjust and firmly rests its claims upon an equality of treatment, in so far as area and financial conditions are concerned, with our sister provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
And your memorialists will ever pray.
This was the memorial I presented last year on behalf of the legislature of the province- of Manitoba. I find on looking up the votes and proceedings last session, a petition of the legislature of the province of Manitoba praying that the boundaries of the province be extended, was read and received on the 3rd day of February, 1908. No exception was taken to that memorial on the ground that it was unconstitutional, although it went specificially into details concerning the financial conditions of the province. That being a precedent, and having that in view, the legis-islature of the province of Manitoba, by a joint committee constituted of members of both sides of politics, a few weeks ago formulated a memorial and sent it down here through the clerk of the legislative assembly to myself, to be presented, and I did present it last Friday. That committee was a joint committee of the House, and the memorial passed the legislature unanimously. I hold in my hand the memorial which I presented, and the concluding paragraph is the one which was taken exception to yesterday when this petition was thrown out. It reads as follows:
Wherefore your memorialists respectfully request that further consideration be given to their contention as regards the territory above mentioned

This enumerates certain territory not included in the resolution that the right hon. Prime Minister introduced into this House last session.
-and pray that your hon. House may be pleased to grant to the province of Manitoba, financial terms at least equal to those allowed to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
You will see that the terms are very general in that they refer to no financial consideration in detail in the memorial which was rejected yesterday; whereas the memorial .presented1 last session entered specifically in detail into all the financial
conditions and notwithstanding that fact it was not rejected. I understand that the rule which was invoked was a Tule which has been well recognized in this House that no resolution can be introduced unless it has received the assent of His Excellency the Governor General. Bourinot says:
By the 54th sec. of the British North America Act, 1867, which is copied from the clause in the Act of 1840, it is expressly declared :
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended bv a message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or Bill is proposed.
I quite recognize that even after the receiving of this petition it is absolutely necessary, before it can be acted upon, or before a Bill shall be introduced, that a resolution shall be presented in accordance with the terms of the clause that I have just read, and that it shall receive the assent of the Governor General. I fully ex pected that procedure would be followed. But, with regard to accepting a petition, Bourinot, at page 349, states what the practice has been since confederation, as follows :
In the first session of the parliament of Canada the House of Commons initiated the practice of refusing to receive any petition for a grant of money out of the publio revenues unless it has been first recommended by the Crown.
That refers, of course, to the petitions that are presented to this House. Bourinot further states:
But whilst petitions that directly ask for any public aid or for any measures directly involving an appropriation of public money, are now never received, the House does not reject those which simply ask for legislation, or for such measures as the House may think it expedient to take.
As long as they are couched in general terms it has been the practice to receive such petitions, and I think that the memorial presented yesterday is couched in terms sufficiently general to come in under that rule. Certainly if this memorial is out of order by reason of the practice that has been in vogue since the first session after confederation then most assuredly the memorial which was presented here last year was not in order either. But what I particularly wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to is this: It is very important that this petition should be received inasmuch as the legislature of the province of Manitoba are about to prorogue their session. They have set forth their views in this petition. Before any Bill

can be assented to by this parliament with regard to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba it must receive the assent of the legislature, but the legislature will have adjourned in a few days and the only way that they can formulate their views^ or let this parliament know what their views are is by petition. If they send their petition down here and if this petition is rejected there will be no other way unless by a conference between the executives of the Dominion and the province during the recess in order to find out the views and feelings of the executive of the province of Manitoba. If this petition is rejected we will only have the matter delayed another year unless a conference is held in the meantime. I would ask the Prime Minister if he thinks, in view of the general terms in which this memorial is drawn, in view of the rule laid down by Bourinot, it should now be rejected especially when we remember that the same exception was not taken to last year's memorial. Last year's memorial did enter into specific details as to the per capita payment, the debt of the province, land, and so on, while there are no such references at all in the memorial that I presented the other day. It simply states that they would be pleased to see Manitoba granted financial terms equal at least to those granted to Saskatchewan and Alberta. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, for a reconsideration of your decision of yesterday, and ask the Prime Minister if he does not think it a very moderate demand at the present time in view of the circumstances which I have just related.


Right Hon.   S@: My hon. friend (Mr. Roche) and the House will be disposed, I am sure, to agree that it is better under all circumstances to adhere strictly to the rules of the House. The rules we have are the result of the experience of a great many centuries and it has been found that it is always better, as far as possible, to strictly adhere to what the rule is. The action, or non-action of last year cannot very well be held to be a precedent. The attention of the House was not called to the tenor of the provision or to its prayer, and therefore it passed unnoticed. I have no doubt that if the attention of the House had been called to that petition the ruling of the Speaker would have been exactly the same as your ruling, Mr. Speaker, this year. I do not think, however, Mr. Speaker, that any injury is to accrue to the province of Manitoba even if this petition is not accepted at this time. Last year the legislature of Manitoba sent a petition to the three branches of parliament, one to the House, one to the Senate, and one to His Excellency the Governor General. I presume that Mr. ROCHE.
the same course will be followed this year, that His Excellency the Governor General will receive the petition and that it can then be brought to the attention of parliament as last year's petition was brought down, although a similar petition had been presented to parliament. Moreover, the petition of the legislature of Manitoba is in contradiction of the terms which were acceded to last year as a basis for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. The House of Commons laid down a certain basis upon which it would consent to treat with the legislature of Manitoba for the extension of the boundaries of the province. I regret to say that the legislature reconsidered the matter and did not see its way to accept the offer made by parliament Though there is at this moment a clash between the will -of parliament as it was expressed last year and of the legislature of Manitoba as expressed in this petition I am not without hope that it will be possible to reach a conclusion upon this matter. I may say that I have information that on Friday of this week a delegation representing the executive of the province of Manitoba will be in Ottawa- to discuss this question with the advisers of His Excellency.


Robert Laird Borden: The rule to which attention has been called this afternoon and which is laid down in the British North America Act is designed for the purpose of preventing private members of parliament introducing Bills or resolutions favouring the expenditure of public moneys. A measure of that kind can only be introduced into this House with the assent of the Crown and for obvious reasons. That which is a part of the British North America Act and a part of our constitution, is, in Great Britain, merely a standing resolution of the House of Commons. The same prin ciple which led to the introduction of that rule, led, I presume, to the similar rule with regard to petitions. I do not imagine that it makes any very great practical dif ference, so far as Manitoba is concerned, or so far as this parliament is concerned, whether this petition is formally received or not. But it does seem rather discourteous to the legislature of Manitoba that, after we had accepted, last year, a memorial from that legislature contravening to a greater extent than the present one the rule which has been referred to, we should reject the memorial of this year. That is the only observation I have to make on that particular feature of the case. So far as its practical importance is concerned, I do not think it has any great bearing on what would ensue. I would not be inclined to concur in the concluding observation of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that this memorial should not be received because of a resolution which passed the

last parliament. That resolution is not binding on this parliament; in fact, it was not binding on the last parliament, because it would have been competent for the government of the day to introduce a measure differing from that resolution in many respects. It was a mere academic resolution looking forward to negotiations between the government at Ottawa and the government of Manitoba with a view to the settlement of this question. Therefore, I would not concur in the view expressed by the Prime Minister. I regard it as important, however, that the provision of the British North America Act to which I have allydcd, and the other principle deduced from the same salutary regard for the public revenue should be observed in every respect.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT.
George Eulas Foster: I called attention, some time ago, to the fact that the Civil Service Commissioners had not, as provided by the law passed last year and brought into force on September 1, sent in any report. The first minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) promised to look into the matter, but I have not since heard from him on the subject. It seems to me that, as the law is imperative that the report to the end of the calendar year should be laid before! parliament, the fact that the Civil Service Commissioners have been in office only part of a year does not make inapplicable the express provision of the law. But, and even if the amending law passed last year is not applicable, we still have section 107 of the Civil Service Act itself which was not repealed and still remains in force. This section provides:
The Secretary of State shall lay before parliament within fifteen days after the commencement of each session, a report of the proceedings of the board under this Act during the preceding year, which report shall include a copy of the examination papers, a statement of all examinations held and of the number of candidates at each, and the names of the successful candidates, and the rules and regualtions made during the year under the provisions of this Act respecting appointments, promotions, examinations, and all other matters appertaining to the Civil Service.
But this report has not been laid on the table. I think that both these Acts look to the laying of a report on the table, and I do not see how we can get away from these express provisions.


Wilfrid Laurier: When my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) called my attention to this matter, I told him that I would consult with the Civil Service Commissioners. Both these gentlemen informed me that, according to their reading of this Act, they were not held to
bring in a report this year. But when my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) called my attention to, it, I thought I would consult the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), who had charge of the Bill of last year. But that hon. gentleman was away, and the matter escaped my attention.


George Eulas Foster: But in connection with the old Act?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think there is something in that.


AMERICAN IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND THEIR TREATMENT OF
[Stage Direction]
m \T A TtT \ AT<3
Mr. F. R. LALOR (Haldimand).: I am sorry that the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) is not in his place, because I desire to call attention to a matter which, as I understand it, falls within his department. Yesterday, I was on the Grand Trunk train going to Buffalo. An American immigration officer passed through the train asking everybody-as he always does -whether they were Canadian or American citizens, where they were going and so on. He put these questions to a young lady on the train, a girl of fourteen or fifteen. She told him she was a Canadian and on her way to visit her married sister in Buffalo. The officer asked her how long she expected to remain, and she said perhaps a week, or possibly a month. He said, 'I think you had better come off with me.' So, he had the young lady take up her grip and wraps and took her off the train for the purpose of detaining her and deporting her back to Canada. A gentleman happened to'be on the train from the town of Dunnville, in which this young lady resides and where her father is a prosperous merchant and a good citizen. He followed the officer and the young lady and interceded for her, telling the officer that he knew the young lady's father and knew that she was going to visit her sister just as she had said, and thus there was no reason for deporting her. After some persuasion, the officer allowed the young lady to continue on her journey. I call attention to this case and would ask the government to correspond with the American authorities so that incidents of this kind may not take place, as I believe they do take place almost daily on every line on which Canadians cross to the United States.	I do not believe the
American government want their officers to act in this way toward any Canadian citizen, and especially to a young lady. In the case I have referred to, the young lady told the simple ^ truth -that she was going to pay a visit and did not know how long she would remain. I think the American government should be communicated with and should instruct



its officers not to act quite so harshly in the case of Canadians crossing to the United States.


Wilfrid Laurier: About twelve months ago and before that, complaints of this nature came to us very frequently. Representations were made to the American authorities, and these representations were received in a very courteous manner, and we agreed on both sides that if complaints of this nature were made they would be investigated by the officers of the two governments. Of late months, no such complaints have come to my notice. I should be glad if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lalor) would give the name of the young lady or other particulars on which the Secretary of State can call attention to the case.


Samuel Hughes: While we are on this subject, I desire to ask a question. Are American officers allowed to come on the Canadian side and do the sort of business described by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor)? A few months ago, I was on the Niagara Falls train, and, while we were still on the Canadian side, these officers came through the train questioning the passengers. They spoke to one young man and were going to turn him back. I promptly interposed and said that if, on the strength of a Yankee badge, they interfered with any person on Canadian soil, we would have an inquiry about it. I told them they were quite within their right in doing this on the other side of the line, but I disputed their right to act in this manner on the Canadian side. I do not know whether my words had any effect, but the officers allowed the young man to pass. I would like to know if these officers are allowed to act in this way on the Canadian side of the line?


Wilfrid Laurier: I know that there is a customs officer on the other side and a customs officer on this side-


Samuel Hughes: These are not customs
officers, the United States customs' officers are invariably very courteous and gentlemanly.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I wish to mention a circumstance that occurs every day on the train going from Winnipeg west which passes through the town of Morden, some twelve or fifteen miles from the boundary. It has always occurred to me as singular that an American officer should go through a train which does not touch the boundary at any time, and ask the passengers, both male and female, where they are going. I have been many times asked the same question that the hon. gentleman has asked to-day, if American officers have a right to interfere with our people until they have


Francis Ramsey Lalor: reacned the boundary and intend crossing the boundary.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid that the Prime
Minister has not heard very much lately about this practice, because it is so common. Years ago, when it first commenced, it was so new and the outrage so apparent that much was said about it. Representations have been made from time to time, but nothing has really occurred in the way of amelioration. Just the other day I had a letter from a friend, who detailed a circumstance just like the one we have heard of to-day, that occurred on the border in the western portion of the province of Ontario, and he asked me if anything could be done. Outrages of this kind jar upon the self-respect of any people, and Canada is large enough, and has made its character sufficiently good on this continent, not to be subject to that kind of discrimination. What could be worse in a case of that kind than the action of a man in taking away from the train, a young and unprotected girl, a respected citizen of Canada, and taking her out from her journey, without any protector, and in the end, I suppose, deporting her. Surely a white man or v/oman who is a Canadian has a right to some privileges on this continent. I call that a kind of conduct outrageous, whether at the hands of the United States or any other country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Department of Militia and Defence-salaries, $111,690.
Right Hon.   S@: I think it would be convenient that the few observations of a general character, which I have t. o, make, should be made on this item, rather than on each item separately. If the committee will agree in that view, I will proceed to make a statement with regard to the militia.
The reason for the existence of the militia in this country is well understood. The principal object is perhaps the upholding of the civil power in the different provinces of the Dominion. There is also the necessity for maintaining an armed fcrce for repelling invasion, in case any attempt of that kind should unhappily be made. The^ problem in this country is somewhat difficult and exceedingly expensive, relatively to smaller countries, because of the very great extent of Canada and the wide separation of the different centres of population, of industry and of provincial authority from each other. Sometimes comparisons or contrasts have been made, in regard to military forces or organizations and expenditure, between Canada and Switzerland. We have been told that Switzerland supports a citizen army of some
200,000	men for a very small amount of

money; while Canada expends a large sum of money to maintain something less than 60.000. If we reflect that the greatest distance across Switzerland is 150 miles, while the distance from the extreme east to the extreme west of Canada is something like 4,000 miles, and the distance from the international boundary northward in our settled districts is over 500 miles, or if we include the Yukon, about 2.000 miles ; we will see that the conditions in Canada are very different from those of Switzerland. I need not mention another reason which obviously affects the cost, namely, that in Switzerland there is compulsory service, while in Canada there is not. An armed force is necessarily an expensive thing, whether it be a regular standing army or a citizen army like our own; and unfortunately the balance is always on the wrong side. The credit side of the account does not appear in dollars and cents ; at any rate. But if we reflect for a moment on what the Canadian militia have done, even since the time of confederation, to go no further back-the work done at the time of the Fenian raid, the work done in the two Northwest rebellions, the aid which has been given on many occasions to the civil power in putting down riots, and last but not least, the work which Canada did for the empire in South Africa-we shall all agree, I think, that the balance does not stand so far on the wrong side. In the work of aiding the civil power alone, I feel confident, from what I know, that during my administration, more actual cash has been saved to the Dominion twice over, than the whole expenditure upon the militia during the last ten years.
We are all agreed that the first duty of a oung country is to take up the work-as as been done in Canada from the time of confederation down to the present-of developing its great resources, of which we have so many and are so proud. In my judgment this policy of developing the resources of a country, which was inaugurated many years ago, is one which may fairly be considered as of the greatest importance, not only to ourselves . but To1 .the empire. At the same time we must not forget our responsibilities ; and the greater the benefits we have received from a kind Providence, the greater are our responsibilities in defending, as well as developing, them. We hear a good deal said on the question of imperial defence. It is not necessary that I should discuss that question now, but there is unquestionably a duty imposed upon every independent people, the duty of taking steps to defend their own homes and firesides. And in this connection, if we are to speak of imperial defence at all, the very best way in which each part of the empire can contribute towards the defence of the empire, is to make itself strong. That would 711
make much easier the task of the mother country, the great centre of the empire, which is charged first with the duty of defending, and which task she has so patiently and efficiently accomplished for so many years. Local defence then is our first duty, and that is a duty with which all the successive governments of Canada have undertaken to deal. The country has grown and developed very much in the last few years, and of course the expense involved in carrying out any efficient plan of home defence is much greater than it was a few years ago.
In this connection, I would like to say a word as to a matter in which I am sure the members of the committee are interested and which has been discussed to some extent in the newspapers. I refer to the question of establishing an imperial general staff-a general staff for the whole of the empire, including this Dominion. The other day the papers were moved for in this connection, and despatches from the imperial government and the answers by this government were brought down, ana I hope at an early date will be printed, lne question of the establishment of an imperial general staff was under discussion at the imperial conference which took place in London in 1907, and I think I cannot do better, by way of introduction, than read the resolution which was passed unanimously at the conference of the premiers of the self-governing colonies, with the Colonial
Secretary in the chair:
General Staff for the Service of the Empire. That this conference welcomes and cordially approves the exposition of general principles embodied in the statement of the Secretary of State for War, and, without wishing to commit any of the governments represented, recognizes and affirms the need of developing for the service of the empire a general staff, selected from the forces of the empire as a whole, which shall study military science in all its branches, shall collect and disseminate to the various governments military information and intelligence, shall undertake the preparation of schemes of defence on a common principle, and, without in the least interfering in questions connected with command and administration, shall, at the request of the respective governments, advise as to the training, education, and war organization of the military forces of the Crown in every part of the empire.
I have in my hand a copy of a despatch sent to this government on this subject within the last few weeks, which I would like to read because I am sure its language is much clearer than any words of mine would be and more authoritative. I would ask, therefore, that the committee allow me to read some extracts from a despatch sent from the War Office, through the Colonial Secretary and the Governor General, to this government.


Robert Laird Borden: That is one of the papers laid on the table?


Frederick William Borden: country. Local defence schemes will be studied, and will be as well understood in the mother country as they are here; and what an immense advantage it would be, in the event of any serious trouble, for the armies of the mother country to co-operate with our own forces in Canada, on Canadian _ territory; what an immense advantage it would be to the officers who have studied all these conditions to have complete co-operation between the forces of Canada and the forces of the mother country. So much then for the imperial general staff.
There is one other general observation I would like to make before proceeding to the discussion of the estimates now before the House, and that is the question of physical training in the schools. On several occasions in this House I have had the honour to bring up this matter, and to say that I hope the time will come when, in all the schools of Canada, there will be undertaken by the respective provincial governments, which of course control education, a uniform system of physical training for younger children, of elementary drill for the older ones, and of rifle shooting for those still older. I am happy to say that this policy, if it may be dignified by that name, has been very generally discussed throughout the Dominion; and so far as I have observed, all the best newspapers which more correctly indicate the trend of public opinion, have favoured this idea almost without exception. I have on one or two occasions quoted from newspapers, but I will not detain the committee by such quotations at present. But there are one or two observations which have been made by no less an authority than Mr. Goldwin Smith, whom no one will charge with any particular fondness for militarism, and which I think I might properly give to the committee. Mr. Gold-win Smith, so late as February 2, 1907, writing a letter I think to the president of Cornell Universitv, used the following language:
I cannot help expressing my pleasure on finding that military drill is not to he abolished at Cornell. Military training is and always is likely to be indispensable to those who are charged with the defence of public order and the defence of the commonwealth. I always advocated it at Oxford. Tn our case it was the sinister attitude of the French Emperor that produced a national call to arms. In your case, there is no special call, but there is a general and permanent necessity. You are receiving a vast inflow of alien immigration, some of them from questionable sources. Apparently you feel unable to close your gates. Your great cities_ will soon be hardly American. A large and increasing number of immigrants now bring with them from the scenes of political and social conflict in Europe, tendencies adverse to the principles of American civilization. At more than one point there have have been disturbances arising from that source.


Frederick William Borden: It is surely to be desired that at a critical moment calling fox military action in defence of the public order the republic should feel safe under the protection not only, of paid soldiery, but of her loyal citizens at large.
I also have here an article written by President Hadley, of Yale, a very noted man and educationalist, from which I will read just a few words:
The man who would fully prepare himself for public service must not only do his duty in time of peace, but must be ready for the possible exigencies of war. The fact that for forty years we have not had a war which has seriously strained the powers of the nation should not blind us to the need of preparing to meet the dangers of international conflict from without and the still greater dangers of anarchy and lawlessness from within. If in the places where you settle there is any militia organization really worthy of the name, identify yourselves with it.
This is an address to the young men of the college.
If there is not, try to establish one. It may be that yon will not be called upon for anything heroic in the way of military service. I certainly hope you will not. But if you are ready to meet the danger in advance you will lessen the liability of its coming; and if it does come you will have prepared yourselves for the performance of the most vital of all public duties-the duty of protecting your country against imminent destruction.
Now, something has been done in this regard. An order in council, after correspondence had taken place with many of the premiers of the different provinces, and after I had seen, I think, all of them but two, was passed carrying into effect an agreement which had been entered into between the Militia Department, acting for this government, and the province of Nova Scotia. I will not detain the committee by reading that; but, in a general way the basis of the agreement is this: The Dominion government, through the Department of Militia and Defence, shall undertake from its permanent force to supply instructors who will go to the normal schools and to the different institutions in the various provinces where teachers are taught.


Samuel Hughes: Why not take expert men from the ranks of the ordinary militia?


Frederick William Borden: There would be no objection to that except that we have a permanent force now. We are paying them and it seemed to me that the proper thing was to use that permanent force as instructors ; in fact, it would be a very useful thing for the men of the permanent force themselves. A special teaching body will be established. It will be something

for the men to look forward to, because, of course, they will receive, later on, a higher rate of pay and their position will be more important. On the other hand, the province will undertake to make it obligatory upon the teachers to receive this instruction, and, as a matter of fact, upon all teachers, to pass an examination and become qualified in physical training, which will apply to both sexes, and in elementary training in the use of the rifle which, of course, will only apply to the men.


George Eulas Foster: Do you not think the women can shoot straight?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, there is no Teason why not, but it is not so much in their line. The lady teachers will teach the physical training in the school, and it is just as important that the young girls in the schools should be taught physical training as the boys. If we are going to build up a strong nation, we want healthy and strong girls and women just as much as healthy boys and men.


Samuel Hughes: Is it not the intention that the lady teachers shall teach the rudiments of military drill? They do it in England, even in the Quaker schools.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, under the age of 12. After the age of 12 or 13, of course, the boys will be advanced to the higher grades in the schools and will come under the control of the male teachers. As far as the male teachers are concerned, thev are the men who teach the boys of 13 and upwards and they will be given commissions in the militia and a small bonus will be given to them according to the amount of work they do and the character of that work.


George Eulas Foster: By proficiency they get that?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, and an inspection will be provided through the permanent force of the Militia Department. Inspectors will go through certain sections of the country set apart, visit these schools, see what is being done, make notes and report, and the bonus, such as it will be, and it will not be a very large amount, will be bestowed, as my hon. friend suggests, upon proof of efficiency and work done.
I do not know that I need detain the committee longer, because I have a good many other things to go into, but this is an extremely interesting branch of the subject, and it sems to me that there is a great opportunity herein to do important work for this country.	.
Private citizens are spending money in order to do something to try and remove or overcome the scourge of tuberculosis. I believe that this will afford a very excellent
means of acting as a preventive measure. Tuberculosis, as we all know, can be prevented; we all know that it is very largely due to the want of proper exercise, and that if every boy and girl in the country is taught to stand and sit erect, take proper exercise, get the proper amount of fresh air, and the importance of all these things, it seems to me that the effect upon the next generation will be very advantageous indeed; to say nothing of the asset which will be built up in that way, and the means of defence, in the event of any trouble ever coming to this country which would make it necessary to resort to arms. Take the boys of 13 to-day; in five years time, under this system, every boy who is physically fit will come out of school more or less trained and, if his eyesight is good, a fairly good rifle shot. _ I hope that in the militia of the not very distant future, instead of having to hunt about for recruits to go to camp, of a rather undesirable character, we will be able to_ fill up the ranks of the active militia with the young men who have come out of school at the age of 18 or 20, allowing them to enlist for three years, have three years in camp and then go on the reserve and organize that reserve so that it may be turned out perhaps for one day each year. In the next ten years, if this scheme is taken up by the provinces, as I hope it will be, and as I have every reason to believe it will be, we will have a uniform system of physical training, of elementary drill and of rifle shooting in existence from one end of this country to the other, and we will have tens of thousands of young men who will form a tremendous asset in the matter of defence.


Samuel Hughes: I understood the minister to speak of some of these young men being qualified as officers-


Frederick William Borden: I mean the teachers, that is, the teachers of the schools would be given commissions.


Samuel Hughes: That's good.


Frederick William Borden: In fact, that is the only means by which they could be paid. And, before leaving this subject, perhaps I should say that it is intended, so far as there is any expense, that it shall be paid out of the vote for annual drill. The amount will be small and will not require a very great addition to that vote.
Now, the present estimates show a reduction as compared with those of last year. But I find that I have been criticised almost as much-I think even rather more because these estimates have been reduced, than I ever was for any increase that I have proposed to the House. I do not refer to my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes), though, from an observation I heard him make here not very long ago, I am some-

what in dread of the criticism he is going to make.


Samuel Hughes: I shall not be able to stay and offer any criticism to-night.


Frederick William Borden: I speak rather of the newspaper press. It seems to be a case of being condemned no matter what you do.


George Eulas Foster: Referring to the 'Globe' now, are you?


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is somewhat interested in that organ. I suppose he watches it pretty closely. I had in mind the 'Globe' among other newspapers. I had not intended to mention it specially as I did not wish to advertise it. But it has referred, in a way that I think not very creditable to its intelligence, to the present vote. It seems to imply that it would be the easiest thing in the world to make a saving of half a million or so, by striking off that amount from the permanent force, or from the headquarters' staff or from the district staff, or from some other vote than that for annual drill; and goes on, apparently without the slightest notion that a staff and a permanent force are the vital part of our militia system, and that it would be absolutely impossible to carry on our plan without such a staff and such a permanent force. The scheme of the organization of the militia is not a haphazard matter, it is a matter that has been thought out patiently and carefully, and is the result of development during the last forty years. I have inaugurated no new system, but new things have been added to make the system which already existed more nearly perfect, and I think that much has been accomplished. Yet, critics who know absolutely nothing about the subject, and who appear to me to act as if they did not want to know anything about it, for fear they would not be able to make such absurd criticisms as they do, rush in and tell the Militia Department and the expert officers, who are men of the greatest ability and experience, that they should take half a million off here or there instead of some other place. Now, the scheme of the Militia Department, as I have stated over and over again in this House, is this:	We
should have as a first line of defence, if necessary, 100,000 men who would be able to take the field; and, some time in the future, we should have a second line of 100,000 men. But the wiseacres of the Civil Service Commission told us of a great discovery that they had made. Why, they said, the Militia Department has enough headquarters staff and district staff, and enough permanent force for an army of 100,000. Of course we have


Frederick William Borden: 


George Eulas Foster: The Civil Service Commissioners were your own creation.


Frederick William Borden: Not mine. Of course, I am responsible. They made that discovery. But if they had taken the slightest trouble to read the reports laid on the table year after year, or to question any of the officers, they would have been told what the scheme of the militia was. To carry out this general plan, there is required a well defined scheme of organization. And do you suppose that it is possible to strike off half the headquarters staff one day and get it back in a year or so when there is a little more money in the treasury? Or do you think you can dismiss your permanent force, with whom you have made a solemn contract to pay, feed and clothe them for three years?-to tell them to go about their business because you want to save half a million dollars? No man who stops to inquire, or who knows what he is writing or talking about, would make such an absurd proposition. What you must do is to find out the thing that would be least injured by an economy of this kind and take the money from that. And that is precisely what has been done. I regret very much that it was necessary to make this reduction.^ I regret it not so much for my own estimates but because of the general business of the country and because of the check to the development of the country indicated by the falling revenue of the last year. I hope this state of affairs will not continue long, but that the normal condition of the revenue will soon be restored. But we had to face the fact that there was a falling revenue, that the revenue for next year would probably be twelve or fourteen millions-if that was the figure, I leave that to the Finance Minister-less than last year. I accept the Finance Minister as authority, and he said it was absolutely necessary that there should be an extensive pruning in our department.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister (Sir Frederick Borden) endorse the policy of the government in still further creating distress in the country by curtailing the government expenditure?


Frederick William Borden: I cannot discuss that question now. But the Militia Department is called upon to contribute its quota to the reduction. I felt sure that the active militia throughout the country, which is composed very largely of the bone and sinew of the country, would be willing for one year at least, to forego a portion at least of the annual drill, in order that our share of the economy which is necessary should be carried into effect. I do not think that there will be any very serious difficulty in carrying out the annual drill as we hope to do it. I believe that by training the men this year to some extent at local headquarters, which is desirable once

in a while, and which has not been done, at all events in the last thirteen years, and by restricting the annual drill to those regiments which have shown themselves zealous in the immediate past, and to which the *instruction would be particularly useful, and allowing those which have not shown much interest in their annual drill in the past, to rest for another year, until the coffers are refilled, we shall save a considerable amount of the cost of transportation.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS-SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 78) to incorporate the Superior and Western Ontario Railway Company.- Mr. Conmee.
Bill (No. 92) respecting Patents of the Hart-Otis Car Company, Limited.-Mr. Geoffrion.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed In Committee of Supply-	,
['Continue in supply, taking up, the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.']
Frederick William Borden: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock, I was referring to the reduction of the vote for annual drill and I only wish to add one word to what I said for fear I may have given the impression that there would be no annual camps. Such an impression would be entirely wrong, as there will probably be the same number of annual camps held this year as usual, but the number to be assembled in these camps will not be as large, and a certain number of the regiments will probably train at their own regimental headquarters. In order to save time and also in order that the present position of the militia may be placed in the clearest possible way before the committee and before the country I have had a memorandum prepared which has been distributed among hon. members and which deals with the whole question of the militia and its present status. As I proceed I propose dealing especially with a few of the points which are discussed at considerable length in this memorandum. The memorandum has been prepared bv the very ablest man, perhaps, in this country, or living for that matter, who can deal with such a subject. It has been read over carefully by me, together with him, on five or six occasions, and somewhat revised and changed. I think it will be found to be very instructive and I sincerely hope it will be read and studied by every hon. member of this House and
that the press throughout the country will consider it to be its duty to copy it very largely. In order to shorten the statement which I have to make, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that, with the permission of the committee, this memorandum may be published in 'Hansard' as a part of my statement. It will enable me to get on more rapidly and save time by referring to the several paragraphs to which I wish to refer without reading the whole of them:
Militia and Defence.
Memorandum Respecting Estimates for 1909-19
(Including Supplementary Estimates for 1908-09 to be brought down. See Paragraph 6).
1.	Like all other branches of the public service, the Department of Militia and Defenos has found itself forced bv circumstances to frame its estimates for 1909-10 under the limitations imposed by falling national revenue.
2.	While the present financial stringencywill, it i9 hoped, prove to be only temporary, it is, nevertheless, wise to face the possibility of its continuance. It has, therefore, anneared to the Minister of Militia to be desirab'e to deal somewhat more fully with the Militia Estimates in this explanatory memorandum than has hitherto been usual.
3.	A point which has, perhaps, escaped the notice of a not inconsiderable number of members of parliament, and which has certainly been ignored by the critics of the Militia Department in the Press, is the fact that, since the expenditure entailed by the assumption of responsibility for the defence of Halifax and Esquimalt has been fully provided for in estimates-that is, since and including the estimates for the financial year 1907-8-there has been no increase, but on the other hand, a decrease in militia expenditure.
4.	That this is the case will be clear from the subjoined table, which shojys the estimates in detail, under the various heads voted by parliament, beginnin" with the year 1904-5 and ending with the estimate for the present financial year 1909-10. It will be remembered that the year 1904-5 saw the beginning of the present system of militia organization. The militia council was constituted in November, 1904, and the re-organization entailed by the modelling of our staff and administrative system upon that of the imperial army was not fully inaugurated until .Tune 30, 1905.
5.	In the financial year 1905-6, the Dominion assumed the responsibility for the defence of Halifax and Esquimalt. and the taking over of the fortified places from the imperial government was commenced. The transfer was practically completed in the financial year (a vear of nine months only) 1906-7, and the full financial effect of that measure upon revenue, including the discharge of all liabilities to the imperial government under the agreement for that transfer, was first shown and provided for in the estimates for 1907-8.

Head of Service.	1904-5.	1905-6.	Nine months, 1906-7.	1907-8.	Voted 1908-9.	Re- quired 1909-10.$	$	$	$	$	$Annual drill	669,724	809,924	924,378	1,084,499	1,305,000	860,000Clothing and necessaries	179,943	429,727	274,510	399,919	450,000	375,000Contingencies	10,440	14,191	13,694 71,803	21,643 143,622	31.000 115,000	25,000 100,000109,987 150,563	179,256 215,037	Dominion arsenal	224,401	341,083	290,000	300,000Engineer services	
...	205,800	254,427	275,587	325,913	310,812	275,00049,100 49,854	45,825 50,523	45,240 38,433	49,278 70,062	55.000 75.000	55.000 75.000Maintenance military properties	
Pay and allowances-	Headquarters staff	46,519	46,991	33,782	58,797	60,923	60,923Command and district staff	45,551 477,571	73,119	64,234	77,271	83,077	83,077Permanent force	*1,055,099	845,504	1,401,271	1,378,000	1,350,000Active militia attached	42,552	42,593	27,913	40,127	42,000	44,000Active militia allowances	56,760	122,864	44,235	70,239	100,000	102,000Guards of honour, &c	8,911	5,829	4,543	6,025	6,000	6,000Total pay and allowances..	677,864	1,348,495	1,020,211	1,653,739	1,670,000	1,646,000Printing and stationery	24,541	25,805	26,306	47,570	45,000	40,000Provisions and supplies	
Royal Military College..	165,190	463,668	274,941	424,987	430,000	400.00086,478	86,243	68,897	92,145	108,500	96,000Salaries and wages	64,984	72,003	67,063	98,979	100,000	80,000Topographic survey	11,246	15,518	17,760	23,716	30,000	25,000Transport and freight	54,783	84,856	54,965	109,980	112,500	100,000Warlike stores	74,708	174,980	124,912	$554,200	285,000	335,000Sundry small votes	21,240	2,046	8,401	35,257	8,863	4,5502,636,445	4,272,524	3,331,504	5,476,583	5,427,675	4,791,550Pay of I.G. and others	
Capital Account-Arms, ammunition,	14,699	21,600	16,200	21,600	21,600	21,600&c	1,299,964	1,299,876	975,283	1,297,905	1,300,000	1,300,000Total	3,951,108	5,594,000	4,322,987	6,796,088	6,749,275	6,113,000
* Including 8200,000 for pay of Imperial troops, f Including $250,000 stores transferred from Imperial troops.
Noth.-The amounts shown in the last column but one as ' Voted in 1908-9,' give the totals of the several votes after amendment in accordance with the Supplementary Estimates for 1908-9 to be brought down.
These Supplementary Estimates will not increase the total estimate, but will reduce the votes for Customs dues by $85,000, Dominion Arsenal by $60,000, Engineer Services by $90,000, and Warlike Stores by $65,000, while they will increase the votes for Annual Drill by $105,000, Pay and Allowances by $170,000, Royal Military College by $12,500, and Transport by $12,500, the totals of reduction and increase balancing each other.
6.	While the foregoing table gives, in detail, the estimates as voted year by year, and therefore shows the financial effect of the additional burden imposed by the transfer of Halifax and Esquimalt from Imperial to Canadian garrisons, the fact remains to be noted that the full effect of the change of administrative system commenced in 1901-5 is only now making itself felt. The system previously in force made it a matter of great difficulty to compute exactly, in the estimates for any financial year, the sum which would be required to meet the different militia expenditures for that period. The change of system has made a much closer measure of supervision and audit of expenditure possible. The effect of the change is seen in the fact that, whereas the supplementary estimates for 1906-7 amounted to $505,733.35 (9 months only) and those for 1907-8 to $1,614,401.11, the estimates for 1908-9 will only need readjustment to the extent of $300,000, which will be met, Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
not by asking for additional sums, but by readjustment of sums already voted. In the estimates for the year 1909-10, the only item in which it is thought possible that any supplementary estimates might prove unavoidable, is the item for annual drill. It is obvious that the sum required to pay for the annual drill of the active militia depends upon the precise number of men who turn out for drill. It is equally obvious that it must be the policy of the department to induce the full establishment, if possible, to train each year. It is, therefore, impracticable to calculate exactly the amount that will be required, until it is exactly seen how many men have attended drill and earned their drill pay. Hence, it is unavoidable that, on the vote for annual drill for any year, notwithstanding the adoption of every precaution against exceeding the estimate, and, although for 1909-10 certain measures are contemplated which ought to result in substan-

tial economies as compared with the system hitherto in force, yet some supplementary estimates may, after all, prove to be necessary.
7.	Dealing with the estimates as shown in the table ' A ' above, it will be seen that the main increases since 1904-5 have been in the following items-annual drill; clothing and necessaries; customs dues; Dominion arsenal; engineer services; military properties; headquarters and district staff; pay for the permanent force; active militia allowances; provisions and supplies; transport and freight, and warlike stores.
8.	Taking these items in succession, the increase in the amount necessary for annual drill has been simply due, first, to the large inorease in the numbers of the militia attending annual drill; secondly, to the grant of efficiency pay; thirdly, to the addition of four days' extra drill for the artillery. It should, however, be noted that, in the amount *required to pay for annual drill for the current year (1908-9) viz:-$1,305,000-is included a charge of about $230,000 which was directly due to the bringing to Quebec, for the Tercentenary in 1908, of between 10,000 and 11,000 troops, who performed their ordinary annual drill elsewhere, and were additional to the
2,000	troops belonging to the Quebec Command which performed their annual drill at Quebec at the same time. If this $23,000 be deducted from the vote, as not realiy an annual drill charge, the amount chargeable for annual drill for 1908-9 will be seen to be $1,075,000.
The steady increase in the number of men trained each year is most gratifying. In 1895-6, only 19,000 men and 1,125 horses trained; in 1898, 25,296 men and 2,478 horses; in 1903-04,
32.500	men and 7,892 horses; while in 1908-09, no less than 47,500 officers and men, with
8.500	horses, were trained.
9.	From the foregoing it will be seen that,
supposing the same number of active militia should train in 1909-10 as trained in the present financial year, and at the same camps, there would, apparently, be a shortage on this vote of $215,000. With a view to economy, however, it is intended, in the coming drill season, to try the experiment of training certain corps of active militia, not at central camps, but at their local headquarters; more particularly those corps which have their headquarters furthest from the camp which they usually attend, and whose transport is, consequently, the most expensive. There can be no question as to the general advantage of the training of the troops which results from the assembly of the different corps in large camps. The men get the advantage of seeing other troops, of good rifle ranges and of better instruction as regards training and drill; a spirit of emulation is called forth, and more general improvement results. Oh the other hand, the display, from time to time, of the local regiment in its own neighbourhood tends to encourage recruiting and to develop local pride. The experiment will be tried this year of seeing how far local training may have this effect.	.
Certain corps, also^ which are, at present, m a somewhat disorganized condition, will not be allowed to train, until they have shown that they are in a condition to profit by it. And steps will, also be taken in all oorps to ensure that only reliable men are taken to camp. These various measures, with other savings
which are in contemplation, ought to bring the expenditure within the estimate.
10.	As regards clothing and necessaries, it is obvious that, while the amount taken in this vote fluctuates to some extent from year to year, its total must be affected by the increase in the strength of the militia generally and the number of men trained.
11.	The increase under the head of customs dues may be set aside, as it is merely a transfer of money from one pocket of the government to another.
12.	The increase to the vote for the Dominion arsenal is due to the increased requirements for rifle ammunition, and to the fact that the arsenal now manufactures 12-pr. gun ammunition, which formerly had to be purchased in England.
13.	The increase in engineer services and the maintenance of military properties is simply due to the steady increase in the number of those properties, especially rifle ranges and camp grounds, and the extra care and attention which is now bestowed upon military buildings, in carrying out repairs as soon as they become necessary, instead of the somewhat wasteful system which previously obtained, of deferring repairs until they could no longer be avoided-a system which was forced upon the department by the smallness of the number of engineer corps.
14.	One of the increases in the militia estimates most criticised in certain quarters, is that for the headquarters and district staff- from about $92,000 in 1904-5 to $144,000 in the present financial year. The explanation of this fact is to be found by a reference to the conditions which obtained previous to 1905. The staff, founded on a system long since obsolete, had never been remodelled to conform to modern conditions, and was quite inadequate in numbers and training to deal with them. Successive general officers had pointed out the absolute necessity for a numerous trained staff, and over and over again had reported that, for militia troops which could only train for short periods, it was essential that the staff duties should be performed by trained officers. As the result of the weakness in numbers of the staff, regulations of all kinds had fallen into arrears, while wasteful expenditure was known to exist, but could not be controlled. It was practically impossible to deal promptly with correspondence at headquarters and in district offices, and there were numberless questions connected with training, with the equipment and the organization of the troops, which demanded settlement, but which could not even be considered.
15. The increase referred to in the headquarters and district staff has been consequent upon the need felt for reform in these respects. It was obvious that no force with such paucity of staff officers as existed before 1905 could ever take or which is far more difficult and important, be maintained in the field in the presence of an enemy, and when the removal of the imperial troops from Halifax and Esquimalt deprived us of that source of supply for staff officers on emergency, the case became urgent. The staff officers were too few to work staff duties upon any definite system, still less to work upon any system in accord with that which obtained in the Imperial army though it was evidently imperative that,

if Canadian troops were ever to serve side by side with imperial troops in a great national danger, such as one which might threaten the integrity of Canadian territory, they must be organized upon the same lines and with the same staff system. Hence, immediately upon the organization of the militia council and the staff at headquarters, the task was taken up of changing the system of staff work in commands and districts. The staff work is now performed upon a system almost identical with that pursued in the imperial army, the differences between the two systems being merely such as are due to the smallness of the Canadian force in comparison. There can be no possible question but that this extra expenditure in regard to the staff-which is maintained, he it remembered, almost entirely in the interests of the active militia as distinct from the permanent force-has been fully justified by the resulting capacity of that militia force to maintain itself in the field, if required. It is perhaps, desirable to note that, in the existing pay vote are included many charges which, in previous estimates, appeared under other votes. For example, many staff duties in camps were formerly allotted to active militia officers temporarily employed, whose pay was drawn under the head of anual drill, who did their beet, hut who knew little more than the troops they were supposed to instruct. Again, all pay duties and all clerical work in military district offices were performed by civilian clerks, who were paid for out of civil votes, and who have since been replaced by military men liable-as the others were not-to go into the field in case of war.
1G. A point invariably forgotten by critics of the increase in the number of staff officers is that, on the occasion of any great emergency which might require the Dominion troops to take the field, the ranks of the various corns of the active militia would be at once filled up b.v fresh men and the units raised from the skeleton peace establishments to that required for active service.	1
17.	Thus a battalion of infantry would he raised from about 400 to 1,000 of all ranks, a regiment of cavalry from about 320 to 600 all ranks, and so on with the other arms. The result of this is, that the existing militia cadres, instead of numbering some 57,000 only, as thev do in ordinary times, would reach a total of about 100,000 men.
18.	It is evident that a fairly numerous and v ell trained staff would he absolutely necessary if such a body of men was to he handled efficiently and that, to confine its numbers in peace-time to the hare minimum, just able to deal with the peace strengths, would be the best way to insure that everything should go wrong when the occasion arose for taking the field in full force. This is the reason that all general officers commanding in Canada for the last seventeen years have, without exception, urged the necessity of an increase to the staff.
19.	The staff in 1904, exclusive of four staff lieutenants employed on survey work, numbered 39. The staff on January 1, 1909, exclusive again of 3 staff lieutenants employed on survey work, numbered 51, which included all headquarters, command and district staff officers. As the establishment of the


Frederick William Borden: militia, including the permanent force, rose in the interval from 47,423 to 57,718, and the assumption of the duty of maintaining Halifax and Esquimalt rendered at least three additional staff officers necessary, it will be seen that the increase of staff is very closely proportional to the increase in the militia as a whole, for whose administration it is maintained.
20.	The next item of importance, in which an increase has taken place since 1904-5, is the ' pay of the permanent force,' which, from $477,571 in 1904*5, rose to $1,401,271 in 1907-8, is $1,378,000 in the current year (1908-9) and will be $1,350,000 for 1909-10.
21.	This increase is entirely due to three causes-(a) The increased rates of pay granted to all warrant and non-commissioned officers and men of these corps in 1904-05, but only partly provided for in the estimates for that year. This increase had been proved by experience to be absolutely necessary if the ranks were to he kept filled, (b) The increase establishment of the permanent force, made necessary by the transfer of Halifax and Esquimau to the Dominion and the need of providing garrisons for them.
The additional number of officers and men required for this purpose may be placed at about 1,500 with certain consequential additions to the numbers maintained at other places, in order to provide drafts, &c., which brings the total up to about 1,000 of all ranks. It may he noted that we maintain considerably smaller garrisons than did the imperial government, who expended about $1,751 000 a year on the two fortresses, (e) Increased establishments of engineers and the subsidiary corps, such as army service corps, medical corps, ordnance corps and pay corps, which are needed to meet the requirements of the increased strength of the active militia, both for instructional purposes and to promote its efficiency for war.
22.	To carry out the duties imposed up~n the permanent corps required a total establishment of 3,311 of all ranks for 1908-09, but it was not found possible to provide enough money in the estimates and the strength was, consequently, confined to about 3.000 of all ranks. For 1909-10, the provisional establishment is still further reduced to 2.905, showing a reduction in pay, &e., of $51,000 on 1907-OS, and $28,000 on 1908-9.
23.	The position of the permanent force in relation to the active militia has been much misunderstood in and outside parliament, end it is perhaps desirable, therefore, to refer somewhat more at length to its duties.
24.	The permanent force exists for four purposes
(1)	For the support of the civil power in case of internal disturbances.
(2)	For the instruction of the active militia.
(3)	For the garrisoning of the defended places in Canada-Halifax, Quebeo, Esquimalt.
(4)	For the equipment, supply, transport, &c. of the active militia when it takes the field.
25. As regards (1), this is a duty which it shares with the rest of the militia force to which it belongs, though of late, nearly the whole of this work has been thrown upon it.
26.	As regards (2), the instruction of the active militia, it is evident that this duty is of the highest importance, and it is recognized to be so by the force itself. The real difficulty

is that, owing to the large area of the Dominion, the force has to be split up and sent to many separate stations, and, with the small total establishment hitherto possible, the several units have necessarily been so weak in numbers that it has been difficult for them to carry on their duties in the manner and to the extent expected of them.
27.	For example, a company of infantry or a squadron of cavalry, of a total strength of less than 100 men is called upon not only to provide for the various details which make up the interior economy of, so to speak, a military household for the accommodation of officers and. men of the active militia, but it is further expected so to train its members as to be able to afford to the attached militia efficient instruction in all the military duties of an infantry or cavalry regiment, respectively, including the command of such a corps-duties which that company or squadron itself has never been in a position to practise. It is perhaps hardly realized by the militia force generally, how difficult it is for an officer, who has never had command of as many as 100 men himself, to instruct another officer as to how he should command and handle, say, a regiment, which in war, would in the infantry, consist of 1,000 men, and, in the cavalry, of 600 men, and which, in peace, numbers from 300 to 400; but this is what the officer of the permanent corps is obliged to attempt.
28.	The active militia has constantly been eager for additional military instruction and especially for more accessible instruction. This has been manifest from the frequent request-^ for provisional schools at local centres; and it is evident that it must often be difficult for a busy man, who would otherwise make an efficient officer, to spare time from his business to go to a distant centre for his military instruction. Every effort has been made by the permanent units to meet this requirement.
29.	It is clear, therefore, that that portion of the permanent force which is maintained for purposes of instruction cannot be reduced if it is to fulfil its duty satisfactorily. It ought rather to be increased.
30.	As regards (3), the garrisoning of the places named, it is to be remembered that, in 1905, Canada gave a pledge to the empire that she would be responsible for the defence of Halifax and Esquimalt in case of need. More than half of her whole permanent force, i.e.. 1,600 out of about 3,000, is maintained for this purpose alone. The troops in these garrisons are, of course, also utilized for the instruction of the neighbouring corps of the active militia. There is no suggestion that the Dominion desires to recede from the position she then took up.
31.	As regards ](4), it is evident that, if the militia as a whole had to take the field, it would require a very large accession of strength to those services which equip, sup-plv. transport and pay the troops and nurse them when sick and wounded. Of these services the Ordnance Corps, which deals with equipment, and the Army Pay Corps, which deals with pay, are not represented in the ranks of the active militia; and the active militia units of the remaining services, while they have shown themselves very efficient at their work, would be the first to admit that they are totally inadequate in numbers. To
provide for this need alone, the Permanent Army Service Corps, Permanent Army Medical Corps, Canadian Ordnance Corps and Canadian Army Pay Corps ought to be maintained at full strength.
32.	Besides all this, there are duties to be performed wThen an army takes the field, which are not required in peace, and which can only be performed by trained soldiers. Such are the military police, both mounted and foot, organization of depots and training of recruits, remount depots, batmen and so on.
33.	Sufficient reasons have been adduced to show why it would be wrong to reduce the numbers of the permanent force. Outside of the additions to that force required to provide for the garrisoning of Halifax and Esquimalt, and to meet the service requirements of the active militia, no additions to it have in point of fact, been made for some years past.
34.	Quite as much misapprehension exists upon the question of the actual cost of the permanent force as upon the subject of its duties. It is the habit of hostile critics, especially when writing in the public press, to quote the whole vote for pay and allowances as applicable solely to the permanent force, or to the permanent staff and permanent force, and not to the active militia at all.
35.	If the vote as detailed in the table be referred to, it will be seen at once that, of the total amount of $1,646,000, no less than $152,000 is payable solely to the active militia, while an additional $144,000 represents the cost of the permanent staff, of which by far the greater part is, of course, maintained to meet the requirements of the active militia. Military districts 4, 5, 12 and 13 contain no permanent unit at all. Even where permanent units .a re also stationed in the same area, experienced staff officers report that at least four-fifths of the work which passes through their offices is the result of questions concerning the active militia as distinct from ihe permanent corps.
36.	If the two sums above named be deducted from the total, it will be seen that $1,350,000 represents the total pay and allowances of the permanent corps.
37.	But critics consistently ignore the fact that the permanent so-called 'departmental* services, i.e., the Permanent Army Service Corps, Permanent Army Medical Corps, Canadian Corps, Army Pay Corps, Military Staff Clerks, are maintained principally to meet the requirements of the active militia, and these corps together cost at least $350,000 per annum.
38.	If these points be considered, it will be seen that, apart from the additions due to the necessity for garrisoning Halifax and Esquimalt, the increase to the permanent force has, if anything, not kept pace with that of the active militia which it has to instruct and otherwise to assist to maintain.
39.	The next items of the estimate, are pay of officers and men of the active militia attached for instruction, and active militia allowances. These both show increases, in the latter case considerable ones, due to increases made two years ago in the allowances for the care of arms, drill instruction, &o.
40.	The increase in the vote for provisions and supplies has been almost entirely due to, and in proportion to, the increase in the strength of the permanent force.

41.	Salaries and wage9 show an inorease due directly to the increased number of military properties, buildings and rifle ranges on oharge.
42.	The rote for transport and freight is one which, for many years past, has been frequently, and perhaps unavoidably, underestimated, with the result that many oharges incurred during one financial year have had to be defrayed out of the vote for the next, though this has been partly due, no doubt to the fact that the great carrier companies often delay sending in their bills for services rendered until after the votes for the financial year concerned have lapsed.
43.	It is now hoped that arrears have been cleared off and that the same difficulties will not seriously recur. At the same time, the increase in the vote has been due to increased transport, both for equipment, stores, &o., issued to active militia corps, and for the permanent garrisons.
44.	The last increase in the votes chargeable to revenue is that for warlike stores, and this is practically entirely due to the transfer of Halifax and Esquimalt and the increase in the numbers of the active militia. It would obviously be absurd to maintain troops without providing for their equipment with proper arms and munitions of war.
45.	Nor should it be forgotten, in considering the increases to which reference has been made, that nearly every case has been affected, in a greater or less degree, by the general rise in the wages paid to labour and in the cost of commodities throughout the Dominion.
46.	A word may here profitably be said in regard to the vote on capital account. This vote is rendered necessary by the re-armament of the force with new and up-to-date guns and rifles-a re-armament which could not longer be deferred-by the purchase of rifles, ranges and grounds for camps, and by the necessity for providing a reserve of clothing, saddlery, equipment, &c., for the outfit of the additional troops which on an emergency would have to be mobilized.
47.	Ee-armament is costly, but absolutely necessary. It is now in progress and it should be completed and the transition stage passed as rapidly as possible, but it is not likely that this portion of the vote can be dispensed with for several years to come.
48.	It is believed that it will be agreeable to the House if this memorandum concludes with a short summing up of our military position as it presents itself to the government.
49.	It will be within the recollection of the House that it has been, on several occasions, stated that, in the opinion of the government, the standard of defence at which we should aim should be the power of placing in the field a force of 100,000 men, properly organized and equipped, in first line, while behind it we had the necessary equipment and machinery for raising an additional force of 100,000 men in second line. That standard has apparently met with the approval of the House, and has, at any rate, never been openly questioned.
50.	It will probably be of interest to the House if a short explanation be given as to how this force of 100,000 men in first line is to be composed, how it is to be organized and how far it satisfies the conditions which an armed force should fulfil.
51.	Deducting from the total those troops Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
who would be required to garrison places like Quebec, Halifax and Esquimalt, to hold certain important points, and to perform other special duties, there remains for the active defence of the country in the field a total force of about 90,000 men, of whom at present some 80,000 belong to Canada east of the great lakes, and 10,000 belong to the west.
52.	In accordance with the agreement accepted by the representatives of all the selfgoverning Dominions at the Imperial Conference of 1907-that all forces of the empire should be organized as far as possible upon the same system, these 90,000 troops have been organized into divisions and brigades, which, subject to the modifications imposed by Canadian conditions, resemble closely sim-lar organizations in the imperial army.
53.	It will be well perhaps to recall to mind the fact that the organization of an army has two main objects, first, to enable the whole body, equipped with the proper proportion of each arm, cavalry, artillery and infantry, to work in unison in carrying out the orders of the commander, and secondly, to enable it to be fed, moved where required, supplied with munitions of war, medically treated, and paid, in such manner as to maintain its efficiency as a fighting force at the highest point -this second object being, of the two, the more diificult to attain.
54.	In the west, the development of the force has been so rapid that its organization has not yet been fully worked out.
55.	But in the east, the 80,000 troops which compose the field force have been organized ir. six divisions and three cavalry brigades.
56.	A force of about that strength thus organized ought to consist of some 60,000 infantry, 7,000 cavalry, 15,000 artilery, and 3,000 engineers, or in other words, it ought to have 64 battalions of infantry, 12 regiments of cavalry, 69 batteries of artillery, with 276 guns, and 18 companies of engineers-in addition to the requisite number of Army Service Corps and Army Medical Corps units. Unfortunately, though we have the proper number of infantry and cavalrv units, we are only at present in possession of 31 batteries of artillery, with 124 guns, and we have only four companies of engineers, while we are somewhat deficient in the Army Service Corps and Army Medical Corps services.
57.	Artillery is an arm so expensive to equip that its increase, though considerable in the last few years, has necessarily been slow and can only be carried further by degrees; yet a sufficient proportion of guns is specially needed for a force composed of citizen soldiers.
58.	As regards engineers, Canada possesses, in her large telegraph, telephone and railway organizations, and her great lumber interests, an especially good supply of men admirably fitted for engineer duties. As she possesses, so to speak, a reserve in this arm, with her Royal Military College graduates also_ in reserve for engineer officers, more attention has been so far given to the raising and equipment of other units than of engineer corps.
59.	It is, however, no doubt the case that the organization of additional units should proceed as opportunity offers.
60.	As regards the supply of the forces with arms and munitions of war, it may be said that we possess sufficient guns for the existing number of batteries, and that, as the re-
2261)

armament with the new 18-pr. guns progresses, more guns will be made available wherewith to arm additional batteries.
61.	And it must be added that, at present, we have not a sufficient number of small arms available, nor an adequate reserve of ammunition. But the situation in these respects is improving from day to day.
62.	Another important point is the supply of munitions of war, which comprise, besides ammunition, military equipment of every kind. A great deal of this is required, and it would be a mistake to suppose that it can easily be obtained or improvised on mobilization. Further, to avoid the oonfusion and delay which would otherwise occur, this equipment must be decentralized so that every unit, on being called out for service, should find its equipment.
63.	But mobilization equipment, even for the first line, is still far from complete; what there is cannot be properly decentralized owing to laok of storage accommodation; while, for the second line, the deficiencies are, of course, greater.
64.	All that can be said is, that steady efforts are being made in (the direction of its provision, and equipment for a considerable proportion of the force is already in store, though it must be some time yet before the Minister of Militia will be able to say that complete or nearly complete equipment for the first line of 100,000 men is on hand.
65.	Mobilization, it is to be feared, would also be delayed by difficulties in connection with the supply of vehicles and horses, especially riding horses.
66.	As regards transport vehicles, some good work has been done, and a certain amount of transport has been registered-especially in certain districts of Ontario where owners have patriotically come forward-but, so far, it has not been found possible to introduce nny general or sufficient system of registration, either of transport or remounts. Owners in many parts are suspicious as to what registration may entail; registration costs money; and money is required, even more urgently, for other services.
67.	As regards riding horses, the situation is particularly difficult, for there -can be no doubt that the riding horse, as such, exists in Eastern Canada only in decreasing numbers. This matter will receive attention, but, meantime, the mounted troops w-ould have, as hitherto, to make the best of the stamp of horse available.
68.	Such is, in general terms, the present position in regard to our military forces. In view of the necessity for finding money for the development of the Dominion, it has not been possible to spare sufficient money for military purposes to enable progress in the development of our forces to be as rapid as might otherwise have been desired-and, indeed, it might be said that, until a body of officers had been trained, capable of efficiently organizing and training the military forces, it was not desirable to create those forces too rapidly.
69.	Much remains still to be done towards the perfecting of our first line forces, more than at present is financially possible-and nothing has yet been attempted towards the organization of the reserve in second line. But the points of weakness are known; the direction in which effort should be applied is recognized; and, though perhaps it is not so rapid as would appear desirable from a purely military point of view, general progress is, nevertheless, being made, and there can be no doubt at all but that the size of the force which the Dominion could, in case of necessity, place in the field, and, what is even more to the point, feed and maintain when there is an efficient state, has largely increased of late years.
70.	To sum up. the points to which it has been desired in this memorandum to draw attention may be recapitulated as follows:-
(a)	That evnenditure on militia services for 1908-9 shows a decrease of $46,813 as compared with that of 1907-8, in which year the financial effect of the transfer of Halifax and Esquimau was first fully felt, while the estimates for 1909-10 show a still further decrease of $636,275.
(b)	That, while the expenditure for annual drill of the active militia rose from $699,724 in 1904-5 to $1,075,000 (exclusive of the cost of the Quebeo celebration) in 1908-9, and is, for the year 1909-10 estimated at $860,000, the increase in cost has been accompanied by a large increase in the number of both men and horses trained, viz.: from 32,000 men and 7,892 horses in 1903-4, to 47,500 men and 8,500 horses in 1908-9.
(c)	That the increases in the votes for clothing and necessaries, provisions and supplies, transnort and frel~ht, and warlike stores are directly consequent upon the increase in the numbers of the active militia and of the permanent force, due in the latter case to the garrisoning of Halifax and Esquimalt, and to additional requirements of the active militia.
(d)	That the increases in the votes for engineer servioes and maintenance of military properties, are directly due to the increased number of military rifle ranges, buildings and properties on the charge of the Militia Department.
(e)	That the increase in the numbers of the permanent staff of the militia force, at headquarters and in the military districts and commands, has been in accord with the views of all the general officers who have served in Canada during the past seventeen years, has been largely forced upon us by the withdrawal of the imperial troops from Halifax and Esquimalt, is absolutely necessary if the militia force is to be able to take and maintain itself in the field, and, lastly, is closely proportionate to the increase which has taken place in the militia force.
(f)	That the increase in cost of the permanent force is (outside the higher rates of pay granted in 1904) due to the additions to its establishment rendered necessary by its having to provide garrisons for Halifax and Esquimalt, when transferred to Dominion control; by having to provide instruction for largely increased establishments of active militia, and by having to provide for the organization of the subsidiary services required to enable the militia force as a whole to take the field.
That, further, no reduction is possible in the permanent force without either seriously weakening the garrisons of Halifax and Esquimalt (which would be contrary to Canada's undertaking to the empire), or rendering the force incapable of fulfilling its duty of in-

structing the active militia and organizing it so as to enable it to take the field in case of need.
That, further, the expenditure on the permanent force is $51,000 less for pay and allowances than it was in 1907-08.
(g) That the vote on capital account is indispensable if the militia is to be properly armed for war, and if rifle ranges are to continue to be provided, and that this vote is likely to be required for several years to come.
71. Lastly, a short resume of the present military situation has been given, from which it will be seen that the policy of the Militia Department has been directed steadily towards the attainment of a standard accepted by parliament, and with the single end in view of fitting the militia force as a whole to take the field in such a condition of efficiency that the people of Canada may feel safe in entrusting to its keeping the honour and security of the nation.
A good deal has been said during the last year or two about the increase in the total expenditure on militia account during the past three or four years, an increase amounting to in the neighbourhood of $3,000,000. I have stated on several occasions in this House in the last parliament the reasons which accounted for that increase. These reasons are set out very fully in this memorandum. The taking over of Halifax and Esquimalt which involved an addition of about 1,600 men to the permanent force of this country and very considerable additions to the expenditure for care of buildings and all expenses attendant on the keeping up of such a large force, has probably involved an expenditure of $1,250,000. The force which we are maintaining is not as large as the force which was maintained by Ithe imperial authorities. Their expenditure in maintaining these two forts was about $1,750,000 a year. We voluntarily undertook to assume that responsibility. I do not suppose that any one in this House, or any one in Canada, would, for a moment, desire to recede from that position. We took the position that while we could not do certain things at the time it was suggested that we should do them in the way of a cash subscription to the navy, or the maintenance of a separate force for foreign service, we should relieve the exchequer of the mother country, the overburdened tax payer, at any rate, to the extent of paying for everything in the way of defence which might be required in Canada. So, that offer was made anid gratefully accepted, and, as I say, nobody for a moment would think of receding from that position. We have increased the strength of the active militia within those years-


George Eulas Foster: Have you increased the strength of the permanent force?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, I was just explaining; we increased the perman-Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
ent force by a matter of 1,600 men for the purpose of taking over, equipping and maintaining the garrisons at Halifax and Esquimalt, the cost, together with the attendant expense connected therewith, amounting to between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000. Referring to paragraph 8, we have increased the numerical strength of the active militia, including the permanent force, which includes the garrisons at Halifax and Esquimalt, to about 57,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is the number of men drilled annually?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, in cities, in camps, and in the permanent force. We have increased the pay of the militia. By an Act of this parliament of 1904, the pay of the active militia was practically doubled. That is to say the old pay of 50 cents remained but a further sum of 50 cents was given in the form of what is known as efficiency pay, so that the average pay of the men going into camp is from 75 cents to $1 instead of 50 cents as a fixed maximum. All the officers of the active militia agree in stating that the granting of that efficiency pay has been of the greatest possible advantage to the militia. It has promoted discipline and good order, and good rifle shooting, because that pay is not given to any soldier who is disorderly or who misbehaves during camp, nor is it given to any one who does not make a certain percentage of marks in firing at the target. Then the increased cost of living has added to the expenditure. It costs more to-day to feed a man in camp than it did 10 years ago. It costs rather more to clothe him, the blankets and camp equipment are more expensive, and the rations given in the camps are more liberal. The increased cost of living has of course rendered the cost of maintaining the permanent corps greater.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Referring to paragraph 9, will the regiments which are not brought to a central camp go into camp at their regimental headquarters, or will they be drilled at company headquarters?


Frederick William Borden: Oh, I think at regimental headquarters as regimental units.


George Eulas Foster: The customs would not be $200,000. It was $115,000 last year.


Frederick William Borden: I am speaking of the estimates, not of the actual amount expended. I think it is more than that this year.
Thirteen years ago the annual output of the cartridge factory was less than three-quarters of a million rounds of ammunition cartridge; last year I think it was in the neighborhood of twelve or thirteen millions. So there has been an ' enormous increase, an increase in the cost

as well. We require to build up a reserve of ammunition. We have actually turned the corner, and we are making more ammunition to-day than we use, and are beginning to lay by a reserve. We should have by rights a reserve of at least 500 rounds for every man in the militia. Assuming there are 50,000-and according to our scheme suppose there are 100,000 or 90,000 using rifles-you will see what a large amount of reserve ammunition that involves, forty million or fifty million rounds.


George Eulas Foster: How long does the stuff keep good.


Frederick William Borden: A long time. But we have a system by which we use the oldest manufactured and keep the newest, so there is none of it kept a very long time.
Then he refers to the increase in the engineering service and the maintenance of military property. Well, we are getting more rifle ranges, and military properties and camp grounds; and of course these have to be maintained. There was no engineering staff twelve years ago, there were no engineers.


George Eulas Foster: Do your engineers take charge of the armouries?


Frederick William Borden: No. The armouries are in charge now of enlisted men, as a rule, of soldiers who have to pass a certain examination to qualify them for taking charge of rifles and equipment of all kinds, and in the case of artillery, men thoroughly conversant with guns and ordinance.


George Eulas Foster: What buildings do your
engineers have charge of?


Frederick William Borden: That refers to the engineering service which controls all the construction and repairs of buildings. When a building is completed, like an armoury, which is done by the Public Works Department, it is handed over to our department, and I think it is under the control of the Quarter-Master General.


George Eulas Foster: For instance, the cottages you built at.Kingston, were the plans prepared by your engineers?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. In that case of course the work is done by the Public Works Department. The engineering branch of the Militia Department prepares plans, and these plans are sent to the Public Works Department. I have endeavoured to establish a joint committee of the two departments, an inter-departmental committee, and thought I had succeeded; but unfortunately, I do not know whose fault it is, the officers committee was interrupted, and they are not meeting at present. I hope to be able to re-establish 72
that committee. If that could be done, and a meeting held once a month or once a fortnight of two or three of the leading
officers of the two departments, it seems to me a good many things which have happened-I am not referring to anything in particular-but the clashing of the two departments would be avoided. There has not been as good results from the working together of the two departments as there ought to have been, and as I would like to see.
Now one of the increases in the militia estimates most criticised in certain quarters is that for the headquarters and district staff. I will not detain the committee by reading the memorandum on these various points, because it is in the hands of the members of the committee, and they will have an opportunity of reading it at their leisure.


George Eulas Foster: In connection with paragraph 52, does the hon. minister mean to say that if war actually took place, he is able now to call out 90,000 men and equip and feed them at a moment's notice?


Frederick William Borden: That subject is fully dealt with. It would not be possible perhaps to-morrow to do that, but it is expected to be able to do it within the very near future. For instance, we have not enough rifles in the country to-day. One does not care to make these admissions, but as a matter of fact there is not at the moment sufficient, but soon will be. The artillery is not anything like the strength it should be, but still is efficient as far as it goes, and steady improvement in all these respects is taking place. As I have already said, I would commend this memorandum to the careful consideration of every hon. member of this committee who is interested in this question.
Now, the question may be asked: Is this system that we are pursuing the wisest and the best? As I have already said, it is a system that has been evolved by experience. We have not changed suddenly-it has been against our policy to do so-the conditions which I found in existence in 1896. We have had the good fortune to have with us during several yeaTS of my regime one of the ablest officers in the British army. I refer to General Sir Percy Lake. I found him here when I came into office. He had been here, I think, two or three years under the late administration. He remained until his term of five years' service was completed, when he went back to his regiment and served in India, and then was brought to the War Office where he performed distinguished service during the war in South Africa. He came here again, four or five years 8-go, to take the position of chief of the general staff. He is absolutely familiar with the working and development of the militia in Canada for the last fifteen or six-



teen years, and, whatever credit is to be given for the position which the militia has attained to-day as a well organized and efficient force is more due to General Sir Percy Lake than to any one else. I cheerfully accord to him the justice of making that statement.
I was saying that we have not introduced any abrupt changes, that we have rather taken the course of building up that which existed, which, I think, is the sound course to pursue. I believe that Jhe_ results ha,ve been good in the main. I believe that, in the main, the country has got the full value of the very considerable amount of money it has spent. When you come to think of it, after all, we are spending less than $1 per head of the population. In the United States they spend $3 or $4 per head of the population, even without taking account of the enormous pensions. If you go to Europe, you find that even the mother country spends $7 or $8 per head.
I believe it is possible to carry on the development and maintenance of the militia with very little increase over the amount that is now being expended. If the estimates of the current year-there have been considerable reductions for the year 1909-10 -could be maintained (and that is less than $1 per head of the population), I should be inclined to think that would be sufficient, at any rate for the present needs, and perhaps for a long time to come. And, when I speak of $1 per head of the population, I do not mean that the expenditure should in-crease_ as the population increases. I do not think that will be necessary. Some additional expenditure will be necessary of course. You cannot increase the strength of the militia without increasing the money you spend. If you send 60,000 men into camp it will cost you twice as much-or nearly so-as if you sent 30,000. You have to feed and clothe and transport these men. Then, we have the great northwest country in which the militia has scarcely been developed at all. _ A few years ago, the question of defending that great country was scarcely considered. The conditions have changed entirely in ten years, and whoever has to administer the militia of Canada during the next ten years will have to consider very carefully the question of putting the militia of the west on the same basis as the militia of the east.
Now, I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the financial side of this question. I do not mean the amount of money being expended, for I have discussed that to some extent and will not deal with it further until we come to the items of the estimates. I desire to discuss the question of how the money is dealt with, _ which is an extremely important question, and one which, very properly, has engaged the attention of public men and of the people for some time past.


Frederick William Borden: Are due precautions taken and safeguards provided for the expenditure of this money? Is due forethought taken in framing estimates as a basis of this expense? I believe it is. At any rate, the course pursued is something like this:	The officers in the
districts and at headquarters who are responsible for carrying on the various services of the militia, are required at a certain period of the year, to send in to headquarters a statement of their requirements for the next year. These requirements are carefully scanned by the officer in charge of the particular branch interested. Eventually, these estimates are brought together and are considered by the deputy minister and by _ the minister, and usually they are considered in very considerable detail by the minister, with the assistance of the members of the Militia Council. We cannot know, of course, what the Finance Minister's position may be. It is difficult to get a statement in advance- perhaps six months before the estimates are made up-of how much money will be available. So, the estimates are made up and are sent to the Finance Minister, under the signature of the Minister of Militia, and, after due consideration-as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) would know-and after queries and so on, it is decided whether these estimates can go through as they have been sent in, or will have to be sent back. It is no breach of confidence to say, with regard to our present estimates, that the estimates which we sent in were not accepted, and that we had a good deal of difficulty in trv-mg to reduce them at rather short notice. It may be that some of our estimates may not come out as we had hoped or expected, but there will not be any very great divergence. Well, what happens next? The money is voted to the different departments, and requisitions are made out, coming chiefly through the Quartermaster General, who has charge of all the stores, and the Master General of Ordnance, who is responsible for the arming of the militia and these in turn are sent to the deputy minister, by whom they are brought to me, and then, if they are approved, they are handed over to the Director of Contracts; because we have in the Department of Militia, and have had for a considerable time, a purchasing branch under the control of that officer. The Director of Contracts then proceeds upon certain lines to ask for tenders. With regard to all the provisions and supplies for the camps and for the permanent force, including fuel and forage, tenders are invariably asked by public advertisement or by public notice posted up.


George Eulas Foster: In your department do you make a discrimination in this advertising between Liberal and Liberal-Conservative newspapers ?


Frederick William Borden: The price is fixed by the Printing Bureau, and the name of the paper, I am told by the deputy- which shows how little notice I have taken of that-is supplied by the department. So far as we can possibly keep down the expense of advertising in the newspapers, we do it. When I came into the department,
I found that for all the camps and for most of the depots, the supplies were asked for by posters posted up in post offices and other public places. A year ago or so some exception was taken to that. It was alleged that the posters were not put up; somebody who wanted to tender said that he had not seen the notice. Therefore we tried advertising in one or two newspapers in each town, in addition to the posters; and we have come to the conclusion that the money spent in advertising in the newspapers is wasted, as we get no more tenders, and that the old system of posters is really sufficient and probably the best. But I have not answered the question. I think it is more than probable that the ordinary course would be to advertise, for instance, in the city of Toronto, in the ' Globe,' and perhaps in the ' Star.' I do not think the ' advertisement would be sent either to the ' Mail and Empire ' or to the ' News '; but I do not think I would go the length of sending an advertisement to an obscure newspaper because it happened to be on my own side of politics.
I have had the Director of Contracts supply me with a memorandum as to the course pursued by him. I have asked him to ascertain the course followed by the War Office and the Admiralty in England, and I will read a few extracts:
Here is an extract from the report of an investigation that took place in England into the letting of contracts during the South African war:
Q. When you receive those requisitions for the purchase of supplies you issued advertisements to the trade?-A. We issued tenders to the trade as a general rule. There is an annual advertisement issued to the trade in order to invite people to come in for competition, and certain requirements are specially advertised from time to time, but as a general rule we issue tenders only to those people who are on our list.
In that connection I want to say that I caused a very careful examination to be made of several English newspapers, including the London 'Times', for a great many years back, and I failed to find one advertisement for any stores, except this kind of an advertisement, which appeared in the London ' Times ' :
Annual notice of army contracts. Notice is hereby given that tenders for specified quantities of the undermentioned articles of manufacture are invited from time to time as required.
Then there is a long list beginning with 'A' and ending with *W'.
72i
Manufacturers who may wish to be invited to tender for army requirements should state the particular articles which they manufacture and the names of at least two well-known firms or publio body who have purchased from them and are in a position to certify as to the quality of their production. The services of an intermediary are unnecessary in approaching the department for this purpose. No ap-lication is neoessary from firms whose names are already on the War Office list. All applications should be in writing and addressed to the Secretary, War Office, London.
From which it appears that the invariable practice of the War Office and Admiralty is to1 issue forms of tenders to people selected who are on the list and not to ask in a general way for tenders for a specific thing.


Mr. MONK.: That is done every year in England. They begin by inviting tenders for all the supplies and every one is given an opportunity to tender.


Frederick William Borden: Not at all, my hon. friend did not catch the point. An advertisement is put in the 'Times' informing those interested that contracts will be let and asking any one who wishes to be put on the list to make application, and he will be put on, provided he can show that he has ever done any work, and gives the names of people who can certify that he is fit to be put on. If he does this, his name will be put on the list, and then forms of tenders will be sent to him.


George Eulas Foster: Is that what is done in your department?


Frederick William Borden: While that has not been done, I have been considering seriously the advisability of doing it. I have only been studying this branch of the subject within a short time and was not fully aware of the course pursued. But I think it is a very desirable course and would save the department an immense amount of trouble. We have a list in the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman have any objections to giving us that list?


Frederick William Borden: I have not got it here but I do not think there would be any objection.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister lay that list on the table?


Frederick William Borden: I have not the list here.


George Eulas Foster: You could bring it tomorrow.


Frederick William Borden: I would have to consider that. I am trying to make this statement absolutely free from any political or party bias whatever. I know that my hon. friend is greatly surprised and disappointed.



George Eulas Foster: No, it does not cost anything to make a statement.


Frederick William Borden: I am not in the habit of making a statement unless it is correct. I was about to say that my instructions to the director of contracts are that whenever a name is put on our list, he shall take pains to consult the commercial agencies or banks or in other ways, to get information as to the character of that particular firm. And unless the evidence is sufficient to show that that firm is entitled to confidence, it will not remain on the list. These are the instructions given, and I think they are followed. As to the politics of the firm, which are on the list. I have not made special inquiries. I happen to know that some of the largest contracts given in my department are given to prominent members of the Conservative party. It suits our convenience to do so. They are the men best fitted to do the work and the fact that they are Conservatives has not prevented their getting it.
Further in the case of war, a good many of the purchases, especially of supplies like forage, were made by private bargain and arrangement.
Paragraph 4 in the 'Instructions for the Director of Navy Contracts,' says :
To insure the supply of articles of satisfactory quality, care must be taken to obtain them only from persons or firms of repute, not however excluding resort to persons and firms in a small way of business in suitable cases and for this purpose the system of limited tenders should be encouraged in preference to general invitation by advertisements.
That is the evidence of the assistant director of navy construction:
In such case, other matters being equal, the principle of excepting the lowest offer should prevail, i. e. that with regard to each particular class of articles you have a list of contractors from whom you invite tenders.
A. Yes. Almost invariably the lowest tender from any person on that limited list is accepted, because we put on one level all on the list.
Q. If you wanted an article at all urgently and the question of time was important, although^ the price was rather high, however, you might give it to a man who you were quite sure would be punctual.
A. Yes, it is occasionally done.
Tenders for construction work, fuel, provisions, food and forage, &c., and barrack services appear to be called for by public advertisement.
Just as is done in this country. Here is another important extract from the minutes of evidence of the Royal Commission on the South African war 1903-evidence of Mr. Alfred Major, Director of Army Contracts, page 267:
,, Q;	consider it necessary, in order
that the trade should be in a position to supply stores, that they should have a share Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
of the provision of those stores in times of peacer
A. Certainly; otherwise they are not prepared to meet our requirements. As regards quality and patterns, they vary in almost every instance from the ordinary trade pattern.
Just let me point out the full import of that answer. If you want to get supplies, you must make contracts with people who are in the habit of doing the work. In Canada where clothing, for instance, is not made by the government as it is in England, it is absolutely of the first importance that the government should deal with firms who are able to do the work and who will undertake to have the necessary plant and employees to do more work in the event of any emergency arising. This is a matter of the utmost importance and to which I do not think due consideration is given. So much for the system in England which is practically the same as that in Canada. Here is one other extract, in which perhaps my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) might be interested, as showing what is sometimes done in the mother country. I am quoting from page 6 of the minutes of evidence taken before the Commission on War Office Organization, 1901 :
Details of a case were given where the general officer commanding applied for the removal of the contractor's name from the list of those to whom tenders should be sent. The Secretary of State decided that the name should not be removed.
Whether that was political influence or otherwise I am not in a position to say. In that same evidence before the same commission, General Bulier said:
We are not particular enough with our contractors. We let men on the list who are probably very doubtful.
Here is a bit of evidence which is interesting. Everybody knows who Mr. Fleetwood Wilson is. He makes the following statement:
I made up my mind I would require say 100,000 yards of tartan. I would then put up to the director of contracts my demand. He would ask me who I would suggest as likely to supply that cloth at a reasonable price, of good quality and punctually delivered. I would then suggest certain firms which I knew
wkich I had reason to believe would serve
1 c^Par^^lenf' well give my reasons, and send them up to the director of contracts. The director of contracts in some instances suggests an allotment to other firms or the allotment of different quantities to the same firms. Eventuallv the director of contracts put all the machinery of putting out tenders and signing forms, etc., into work.
That will indicate the system which has been adopted in England after 100 or 200 years of experience. I have already stated that so far as our system is concerned, contracts for food supplies for the permanent force and annual camps and for fuel are

made only after tenders have been called for by public advertisement.
Now as to stores generally. Competitive tenders are usually obtained by circular letter just as is done in England from firms well and favourably known to the department as reliable and competent for the work they undertake. A list of such firms is kept in the contracts branch and the order or contract goes to the lowest tenderer unless good reason appears to ihe contrary, a very rare occurrence. Then the goods are manufactured and they are sent in; there is a branch of the contract branch known as the inspection branch. The goods are there subjected to the most careful inspection before acceptance, they undergo careful inspection by trained men, experts in regard to the various articles purchased. Articles found not equal to the standard are rejected. The inspector, after checking quantities and quality, reports the number accepted; and these are sent into ordnance stores'. The ordnance officer gives the director of contracts a receipt for them and enters them in his journal of receipts. A record of all receipts and issues from stores is kept; and every stage of every transaction of purchase from the delivery of the stores for inspection until they become unserviceable or are destroyed, is reviewed by an officer of the accounts branch whose business is the auditing of stores. All vouchers relative to the case are sent him.
Suggestions have been made that no care is taken of stores, that there is no tracing of the stores and that we never know what condition they are in or what quantity we have on hand. This is absolutely misleading and grossly unfair to the department. Two sets of ledgers are kept, one set locally at the points where the stores are, all over the country, and another set at Ottawa in the audit branch. Every six months those ledgers are exchanged and the most careful audit that could possibly be made is made constantly, and I believe it is perfectly effective.
Some years ago we had a discussion in this House with regard to contracts for stores. At that time there were present in this House two ex-Ministers of Militia, Sir Adolphe Caron and Mr. Tisdale. It so happened that when I came into office I had cancelled some contracts which had been entered into for a period of three years. In June, 1896, contracts had been made by Mr. Tisdale with certain contractors for considerable quantities of clothing for three years. One of those contracts was not to take effect until a year later, 1897. I submitted the question to the then Minister of Justice who said that such a contract was illegal because a contract could not be made for articles when the money to pay for them had not been voted by parliament. However that may be, the contracts were in due course cancelled. I inserted an advertisement in the public press in all the large
cities in Canada asking for tenders for about $70,000 or $75,000 worth of clothing which we required by the middle of April following. The advertisement was inserted.
I think, about October or November. What was the result? The result was that when the month of April arrived and the day arrived on which these goods should h/ave been delivered, none of them had been manufactured. I sent a man to the factory of the contractor and there discovered that he had not taken a single stitch and not bought the first yard of cloth. What was my position? Men like the Sanfords, whose firm had been awarded the contract which I had cancelled, had tendered for this contract on the new advertisement but had failed to secure it. Why? Because the man who obtained the contract, whose name I shall not mention, was on the verge of insolvency and in order to keep his head above water for a little longer thought that to have a government contract would materially help him and he put in a tender so low that he himself could not do the work. Then I was forced into this position that I had to go to the Sanford Company and ask them as a favour to make the goods which I required for the then approaching camps at their own price. I am bound to say that their price was as reasonable as could be expected and I think it was at the price at which he tendered for this contract. There is the result of my experience. I have under my hand the speeches and the warnings which Sir Adolphe Caron and Mr. Tisdale gave me across the floor of the House at the time these contracts were terminated by me, and I must admit that what they said proved to be absolutely true, and I have not, with the exception, I think, of one occasion since then, ever asked for public tenders by public advertisement for goods of that kind. What is the distinction? There is no difficulty about food products because we all know about them, and the competition is so keen that we are quite sure that the quality will be good and it is easy to ascertain whether it is or not. But in the case of military supplies such as clothing and arms of various kinds, there is a technical side, and somebody has got to learn how to make those articles. As a rule, they learn at the public expense. But I prefer to deal with reliable men whq have already learned, and about whose bona fides, and whose character and reputation as manufacturers, there is no doubt. We have on the list men of that kind. Then for some years past a very large part of our supplies of that kind have been purchased from the same people, and the Sanfords supply the principal amount.


Mr. TALBOT.: Is it the intention of the bon. minister to continue giving contracts for military clothing in future without asking for tenders?


Frederick William Borden: We ask for tenders, but in the way I speak of. I hope we shall not be required to advertise in the public newspapers. I do not want to go through again what I went through once before to my sorrow, and which was disastrous to the country, and put us to great inconvenience. I think it would have been much more disastrous if that particular party had been able to make the clothing, because I am sure it would not have been satisfactory, because he had never had any experience in work of that kind. Now, we have, as I say, a competent corps of inspectors. The most careful inspection is carried on as to the colour of the clothing, as to the character of the work, and as to the cut. We have in that inspection room sealed patterns with which everything that comes in is compared, and frequently a garment is literally cut to pieces in order to see that at least one or two of each lot that comes in are all right, from which the rest can be fairly judged. In the case of boots and shoes, a boot is cut in two, cut crosswise and cut lengthwise. I have seen the work done myself, and it is most thoroughly done by experts. In the case of blankets, they are tested to see if they are shoddy. We won't buy anything that contains shoddy. But if, after coming to the department, it shows any shoddy, it is returned, or paid for at a lower price. Then we have another check in addition to the director of contracts who is himself a specialist in a business way, and is watching prices constantly. In addition to the inspectors who are certainly specialists as to the value of goods and clothing, and who have the proper means of making an inspection, we have the price list of the War Office, the vocabulary, with which we can compare our prices with the prices at the War Office in England, adding the duty whatever it may be, and by that means we can come within a fraction of what the article is worth. We have in our department samples of clothing and samples of goods which are furnished to the War Office, and upon which these prices in the vocabulary are based.
I have already spoken of the audit of stores, and of the work done by the pay branch. I would like to say a word as to where these supplies come from. I am sure the committee will be glad to know that perhaps seven-eighths, at least three-forths of all the supplies purchased by the Militia Department are manufactured or supplied in Canada. In fact, with the exception of the artillery, of the guns, which are supplied at present in England, practically everything is supplied in Canada. I would like to read here just a word or two from a memorandum which was laid before the Mr. TALBOT.
Imperial Conference in 1907. It is a memorandum prepared by the then Quartermaster General, Sir Wm. Nicholson, who is now the chief of the General Staff, and practically the head next to the Minister of Army Council and by Mr. C. F. Madden, who was then Master General of the Ordnance:
It is most desirable that the area of supply of the warlike stores under reference

That is rifles, cannon, ordnance, everything.
-should be as wide as possible, and, therefore, the colonial government should be urged to arrange for local manufacture and provision, rather than to rely on the resources of the United Kingdom.
Well, we are doing that, and I hope the day will come, and come, soon, when cannon, and everything can be manufactured in this country. I may, however, say that at the present moment we are able to get all the limbers, ammunition waggons and carriages manufactured in Canada. They are being manufactured in this very city, and if any hon. member of the committee desires to spend an interesting half hour, I would advise him to go to the works of the Ottawa Car Company, and see the most creditable work that is being done there, and at a price as cheap, or nearly so, as the War Office pays; the price which we pay for those wagons is the War Office price with the duty added. I hope that in a few years we shall have not only a partially self-contained militia, as we have to-day to a very large extent, but that the militia, in so far at any rate as regards the supply of material of every kind, will be absolutely self-contained, and that everything can be manufactured in our own country. The importance of that I need not dwell upon, in the event of any trouble occurring. If any misfortune were to happen to the British fleet _our position would be very serious indeed if we were dependent entirely for our supplies on the other side of the Atlantic.
Before concluding my remarks I would like to call attention to a comparison which was made by General Sir Percy Lake, in a memorandum which I laid on the table of the House a year ago. a comparison showing the establishments of the organized units of the Canadian militia _ in 1895-6, in 1903-4, and 1908-9 respectively. I have also a comparative table to show the armament and equipment of the militia, the cadet corps and the rifle associations for the years 1895-6, 1903-4, and 1908-9. I will not detain the committee by reading these tables but I think it would be desirable, in order to make my statement complete, that they should be published in 'Hansard.'	,


TABLE TO SHOW ESTABLISHMENTS OF ORGANIZED UNITS OF THE CANADIAN MILITIA IN 1895-6, 1903-4 AND 1908-9 RESPECTIVELY.
[Stage Direction]
Cobps.
Number
of
Squadrons, Batteries, or Companies.
Permanent Force. (Note 1.)
Royal Canadian Dragoons-Squadrons	
Royal Canadian Mounted Rifles-Squadrons	
Royal Canadian Artillery-
Horse or Field Batteries	
Heavy Batteries	
Garrison Companies	 : [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Royal Canadian Engineers-Garrison Companies..
Royal Canadian Regiment Companies	
Permanent Army Service Corps	
Permanent Army Medical Corps	
Canadian Ordnance Corps	
Canadian Army Pay Corps	
Military Staff Clerks	
Active Militia.
Cavalry or Mounted Rifles-Squadrons	
Field Artillery-Batteries	
Heavy Artillery-Batteries	
Garrison Artillery-Companies	
Field Engineer Companies...:	
Corps of Guides	
Infantry-Companies	
Canadian Army Service Corps-Companies	
Canadian Army Medical Corps-Field Ambulances. Corps of Signallers	
Totals.
Establishment, 1895-6.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
17
Nil.
2
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Number of horses..
Number of men trained (Note 2)..
Total
Numbers.
Number
of
Squadrons, Batteries, or Companies.
173
324'
2,115
1,345
[Stage Direction]
Establishment, 1903-4.
Total
Numbers.
2 1
Nil.
Detachments.
Detachments.
Nil. Detachments. Nil.
Nil.
17
28
Detachments.
654 8
8F.Hos.,9B.C Detachments..
35,835
2,872
19,000
60
225
407
36
1,337
5,106
2,013
1,868
36
34,257
705
Establishment, 1908-9.
Number
of
Squadrons, Batteries or Companies.
2 1
2 1 4 2 10
Detachments
Detachments
Detachments
Detachments
Detachments
101 25 14 10
Detachments
12
Detachments
Total
Numbers.
120
165
300
1,079
100
34
3,311
Remarks.
Establishments provided for in the Estimates for 1908-9. (See Note 4).
47,423
7,892
32,000
8,232
2,712
1,675
1,241
107
36,849
1,281
1,460
57,718
11,798
46,000*
*Estimated.
[DOT]ts sassissii	" , "„ „
xr J o	for in the authorized establishments for the financial year have been si
maximum of 5,000 men, as might be found to keep pace with the
Note 3.
year&OTE6 4°^bf the difference in numbers between the establishments of the permanent - 

 

	* * 1 i rio
Halifax and Esquimalt accounts for 565 artillery, 150 engineers, 745 infantry and 150 departmental corps; total, 1,610.
shown [in each case. In each of the two earlier
All iinits of the Militia provided for in the authorized establishments for the financial year have been shown eacn case, in eacu
for the defence of
Frederick William Borden: 


COMPARATIVE TABLE TO SHOW THE ARMAMENT AND EQUIPMENT OF THE MILITIA, ALSO CADET CORPS AND RIFLE ASSOCIATIONS, IN THE YEARS 1895-6, 1903-4 AND 1908-09.
[Stage Direction]
Subject.
Ligbt field gun.
Heavy Field guns.. Rifles and Carbines.
Maxim guns, 303 calibre	
Ammunition for Field Artillery.
Rifle Ammunition.
Fortress Armament	
(Breech loading guns only.)
Ammunition for Fortress guns.
Camp Equipment	
Personal equipment of men.
Harness and Saddlery	
Engineer Equipment	
Army Service Corps Equipments Medical Equipment	
Signalling Equipment	
Reserve Transport (registered).
Cadet Corps	
Rifle Associations.
1895-6.
80 9-Pounder muzzle loading	
36 12-Pr. breech loading (under order).
About 300 rounds per 9 or 40-Pr. gun
400 per 12-Pr. gun (under order)	
About 200 rounds per Snider	
About 350 rounds per ' 303" rifle	
8 7" R.B.L. (obsolete)	
8 12-Pr. Q.F. (under odrer)	
8 6-Pr. Q.F. (under order)	
5 40-Pr. Armstrong.
1903-04.
90 12 Pounder breech loading. 8 5"-Howitzer, B.L	
40.000	Sniders (obsolete)	
5.000	Martini-Henry	
2.000	Lee and Martini-Metford.
42.000	Lee-Enfield (under order).
15	
About 250 rounds per 7" gun	
Complete to scale for smaller guns (under order) as above.
Enough for perhaps 15,000 men.. Knapsack, obsolete, only partly distributed.
Incomplete, some 30 years old	
None	
None	
Practically none	
Practically none. None	
Few-no reliable record . 42	
17 40-Pr. Armstrong (obsoletej...
4 4 7"Q.F	
39,000 Lee-Enfield and Lee-Metford. 1,000 Martini-Metford	
18	
About 400 rounds per gun	
About 130 rounds per howitzer. About 350 rounds per rifle....
1	6" B.L. (Drill purposes)	
2	6" Howitzer (Drill purposes)....
4 12-Pr. Q.F	:...
8 6-Pr. Q.F	
Practically complete for Q.F. guns
above on Imperial scale.
Enough for about 30,000 men ... , Oliver equipment	
Practically complete	
In progress	
In progress for 8 companies	
For Bearer Cos. and Field Hospitals making good progress.
Commenced and some progress made, A commencement made	
1908-09.
90 12-Pr. B.L.
12 15-Pr. B.L.
36 18-Pr. Quick Firing.
8 5".Howitzer, B.L.
16 4-7" Q.F.
12 60-Pr. Q.F. (lor delivery in 1908).
39.000	Lee-Enfield and Lee-Metford.
1,000 Martini-Metford.
42.000	Ross.
20 and 8 Pompoms.
About 500 rounds per gun for all guns.
Over 400 rounds per rifle.
Halifax and Esquimalt are completely armed. Quebec partly so. It is inadvisable to give details of these.
Supply complete for above guns.
Enough for about 45,000 men.
Oliver equipment complete for all authorized units.
Complete for all authorized units.
Complete for 4 Field Cos.
Complete for all existing units.
Field Ambulances completely equipped. Regimental medical equipment nearly complete. Complete for all existing Sections.
800 wagons, 1,600 horses.
104-Members about 5,000	
93 Military, 257 Civilian, 28,000 members.
152-Members about 8,000.
130 Military, 371 Civilian, 38,000 members.
[Stage Direction]

It will be found from these statements that the situation is most satisfactory indeed. If you take the cadet corps as an example, in 1895-6 there were none; in 1903-4, 104, having about 5,000 members, and in 1908-9, 152 with 8,000 members. Of rifle associations there were, in 1895-6, 42; in 1903-4, 93 military, 257 civilian, with a membership of 28,000 and in 1908-9 130 military, 371 civilian, with a membership of 38,000. The number has considerably increased since that. I thank the committee for their very great patience and now will proceed with the discussion of the item.
Arthur Norreys Worthington: Before the item is discussed I would like to refer to one rather important matter that the minister has not mentioned in his remarks this afternoon. I think the changes which he proposes for the militia show a great deal of forethought and study and will no doubt eventually work out, in a great many instances, for the betterment of the permanent corps, of the militia, and to the advantage of the country at large, and of the empire in general. But, as regards the formation of the imperial general staff, with ultimately a first and second line of defence and the formation of a corps for service abroad, I think he is to be congratulated on two points; in the first instance on the fact that the chief of the imperial general staff does not issue orders to the colonial general staff.
I do not say this because I think our colonial general staff are superior in any way, because I think possibly matters are reversed, but, from the fact that I think the leaders of the colonial general staff will, in this way, retain their own individuality and personality to a greater degree than if commanded by imperial officers. The other point of congratulation, I think, lies in the fact that the government has at last realized that Canada must be prepared to defend herself at home and not rely, as formerly, some members of the cabinet did, altogether on the Monroe doctrine. With the formation of an imperial general staff and with a first and second line of defence there will no doubt be some system of national defence with respect to our borders and seaports. I fully realize the fact that these are not matters for open discussion inside or outside the House, but there might be some method by which not all, but some members of the opposition, might be placed in touch with what is going on in that way. Several times this session and formerly, when the minister has been asked a question, he has given the answer that we are now doing business on imperial lines and that he is not making any statement in regard to the question under discussion. I do not know what the procedure
is in the British House of Commons regarding matters of defence, but I think it is more than likely that some members of the opposition, or possibly the leader of the opposition, are taken into the confidence of the government with regard to the country's defence.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Such, I believe, is not the case in this House, because, looking over the estimates I do not see any provision for matters of that kind. I think possibly the leader of the opposition, or a select committee of the House, is entitled to know these things, and know under what estimates these expenditures are made. That is a matter that I would suggest to the minister. I think it would be a very good plan if the leader of the opposition were taken into the counsel of the Minister of Militia and of the government on the question of imperial defence. In that way there will be no prying into the secrets of the country and matters which it would not be proper to discuss would be left alone by the opposition.


Frederick William Borden: I might say that on several ocasions in the House in former times-I remember one in particular during the South African War-I was asked a question as to the auantity of ammunition that was stored m different parts of Canada. It was not a desirable question to answer, but I said openly in the House that if the hon. gentleman, or any one whom the leader of the opposition might select, or the leader of the opposition himself-it was m the days of Sir Charles Tupper-would come to me I would be very glad indeed to tell him all about it, that I had perfect confidence in him, but that I did not think it was in the interest of the country to publish the fact. That can be done again.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I do not know that we ourselves are the only people who are cognizant of our defences. I presume that some foreign countries know as much about them as we do and I judge so from this fact: This afternoon the hon. gentleman quoted Prof. Goldwin Smith with regard to some statement that he made. Reference was made to the fact in the 'Sunday Sun' which, I believe, is Prof. Goldwin Smith's paper, last year this paper criticised the action of the government in this particular and said that we might in time have the St. Lawrence bristling with guns. Perhaps some statement to the leader of the opposition from the Minister of Militia would save any controversy of this kind. The formation of this imperial general staff, I think, is a very good scheme indeed. I think it will lead to something which we have never had


Frederick William Borden: I had in mmd more particularly the 18-pounders.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Even the manufacture of 18-pounders is a matter to be undertaken, if at all, only after very careful consideration. The minister told us that, in purchasing clothing, he went to the people who were adepts in that manufacture.
I think the same should apply to the manufacture of artillery-it should apply even more strongly than in ordinary cases. The ^rms Jn England who are engaged in this manufacture, in Woolwich, Birmingham and other places, have been carrying on the manufacture for generations. Far more skill is needed for the manufacture of these implements of war than we can hope to acquire at least for many years to come. The establishment of factories for the manufacture of these larger guns would entail a great expense, and the manufacturers could not look forward to any market outside of Canada. Not much artillery would be required in Canada, and when this was turned out the factory would have nothing else to do. I do not think we are going to* sell artillery and rifles and ammunition abroad.


Frederick William Borden: May I explain on_ that point? The hon. gentleman is pursuing an unnecessary line of argu-

ment. The people who manufacture guns here, if this plan is ever carried out, will be people who will do the same kind of business that they do in England-build ships. In England, the manufacture of guns is invariably carried on, so far as I know, by men who build not only warships, but ships of commercial purposes as well. And the particular concern-or concerns, for there is more than one-that are considering this question at this moment are people who intend to go into the business of building steel ships in Canada, and who, of course, will not establish a factory to make guns unless they engage in shipbuilding also.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Perhaps it is necessary to follow this discussion now more particularly than later on. There is no similarity between the position here in Canada and that in Great Britain. In Great Britain these large arsenals are turning out guns not only for themselves and the colonies, but for the world at large. If Japan wants artillery, she does not make it at home.


Frederick William Borden: They had to begin some time. Japan is making her own ships at this moment, and her own guns as well.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I did not know that this government intended to adopt a naval policy. Of course, if the government has adopted such a policy and is bound to help the empire


Frederick William Borden: I said commercial ships.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I do not know that that would be in the same line as the manufacture of arms.


Frederick William Borden: It would cover the manufacture of steel canal boats


Mr WORTHINGTON.: And snowploughs, I fancy. I do not think that anybody will buy these guns except Canada. We cannot look to Great Britain foi a market, for she does not even buy her canned goods for her army from us. I do not propose to detain the House longer. I suppose that these estimates^ will go through in any case with comparatively little discussion.


Samuel Hughes: Inasmuch as I am to take the train in a short time, I wish now to say only a few words concerning a couple of matters that were not touched upon by the minister (Sir Frederick Borden)- with the promise that I will entertain the hon. gentleman a little longer on another 4 occasion and will call his attention to certain derelictions of duty on the part of this government in relation to the training of the force. Speaking generally of the staff,
I would take the liberty of suggesting to the minister and to the country that in addition to providing a general scheme for the defence of the empire, this general staff should look to the training of the officers throughout each component part of the empire in actual field work, and I presume that is the intention.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Moreover, I do not think that the training of the general staff should be left simply in the hands of a few selected officers in each country. In fact, it has been found in Britain that very many of the officers of the general staff, when brought into actual practice in the field, have turned out to be utter failures. As Lord Roberts himself has said in days gone by-possibly not in the exact words that I use, but in the same spirit-he had never yet had the experience of a staff-college training, and it had never been his privilege to meet many officers with the training of the staff-college who were the equal of many officers who had never seen a staff college. After all, it is a question of the man. In the staff-college officers, just as in the officers of the regiment, the district staff and the headquarters staff, it is a question of the training of officers. If some of the regiments going to camp are deficient, the responsibility for that is in the system for the training of officers that has been enforced in this country for many years. What have we to-day under our present system? Some only of the company officers and the regimental officers are qualified, while the men in the ranks are rarely qualified for officers' positions. The result is that there is no enthusiasm whatever. But in the olden times, when we had the system of training officers on the cadet principle, we had in the ranks of almost every company, one, two, three, four, and scune-times ten young men who carried in their pockets commissions entitling them to command the company or the regiment; so that when the commanding officer wished to select an ensign, that is, a second or a first lieutenant, he could look up and down his list of trained men and select the officer he required. How is it to-day? The officer who wants a second lieutenant says to himself: 'There is farmer Jones' son; he seems to be a pretty capable young man; I will try him.' That is the way the officers are selected, and the captain cannot possibly get these men to qualify. I would again impress on the minister, as I have done for about twenty years, the necessity of returning to the old system of cadet schools, under which education would be the basis of selection, and not the number of titles or stars a man wears. Let the men be turned out with an educational qualification, entitling them to command a company or to be the major or


George Eulas Foster: He hadn't it then.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What were the eleven different types or brands of rifles?


Samuel Hughes: Speaking from memory, there was the Snider rifle, the Martini-


John Waterhouse Daniel: By the imperial troops ?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, some of the British troops used the MArtini. Then there were the Lee-Enfield, and the Lee-lMetford, very few of the marks being interchangeable in these, the long Lee-Enfield, the short carbine, the Martini-Metford-


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Does my hon. friend think it is advisable that there should be a great variety of guns in an army?


Samuel Hughes: No, I think it would be advisable that the army of the whole empire should be, as it will be in another year or two, armed with the Ross Rifle. With regard to the manufacture of material for war in Canada, I hold that in a very few years we shall have a full partnership union of Great Britain and her colonies, with our Right Hon. friend the Prime Minister of this country one of the shining lights in the full partnership council.


George Eulas Foster: What kind of a gun will he have?


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: The musket he wanted to shoulder. But he has apologized for his misdeeds of that day by saying that every schoolboy in Canada should be trained to handle a rifle and to shoot. Why should not Canada have, at some point on the Atlantic and at some point on the Pacific, establishments where we could manufacture our own guns in case of trouble? At the time of the siege of Kimberley, the mere fact that the British in Kimberley had officers capable of turning out a big gun was of great advantage to the British in preventing the surrender of that place. I do not believe that the city of Quebec should be selected^ as a centre for manufacturing our ammunition and rifles. Some inland point should have been selected-some inland point on the Pacific and another on the Atlantic. At these points we should have establishments which could turn out good field guns, rifles, and ammunition in case we should be cut off by war from the mother land.
I intended speaking on the cadet corps and the training of the young throughout our country, but shall reserve my remarks for another occasion. But I would urge on the minister a reform in the training of officers. Just see the contrast between the civil training and military training. Two young men from the same family go down to the city of Toronto. One goes through the university, where he is treated as a responsible individual and comes out with a degree which fits him for any walk in life. The other is a private in some company and he goes into a barracks, where he is treated as a child and comes out with a sergeant's certificate. Later on he has to go Back and qualify for a lieutenancy, and then go back again ,to qualify for a major, and then qualify again to take command. But his brother, who is a provisional officer, goes down and qualifies at once for a lieutenancy. But these young men, whether privates or officers, ought to don the cadet uniform and be put on an equal footing. They should go through the same training and let the best man in educational fitness come out ahead as in the old days, when all had to graduate as cadets.
Reference has been made by the minister and the hon. member for Sherbrooke to the sea coast defences of the nation. But to my mind, train the young men of the country in the use of the rifle and provide two quick firing guns for every com->any, and I care not how many millions *ross the border. If we have 100,000 young Canadians trained to hit a man 500 yards off with a rifle, we need not fear any

enemy. If the boys of Canada are trained to shoot with the rifle and the quick firing gun, we need fear no danger. The records show that scarcely any men are killed by artillery or big guns. The moral effect may be great, but there is scarcely a man hit by one of them. In all Africa but two hundred men at the outside were hit by shells on either side. Yet we find hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on these heavy armaments and very little spent on the smaller and more effective weapons. Even if you examine the records of the Russo-Japanese war, you will find that the greater majority of wounded and killed fell victims to the small arms and not to the shell-firing at all.	'	j
I shall reserve any further remarks for another occasion.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the minister, who went over the whole subject pretty thoroughly. In my opinion the most important feature of his policy is that of assisting the boys and girls in our schools by giving them more physical drill in the first place, and afterwards by teaching the boys how to handle the rifle. If the minister will carry out that policy, he will in a few years have achieved the great desideratum which *Lord Roberts is trying to obtain in England. He will have at his hand a trained body of young men ready to follow the standard if necessary and who have been trained in the use of the rifle and are able to shoot straight. And after all, in a country of such magnificent distances as Canada, and with such a sparse population, the most we can do is to have our young men so trained that if the call to arms is sounded they can take their places in the ranks and be something better than mere recruits. I think that is the very best thing the minister has offered us in his speech. Some very sensitive people make the objection that this would encourage militarism in the country and that our young people, who were drilled in the schools and taught to handle the rifle, would not feel content unless they went into active service, and if they could not find active service at home would find it elsewhere. I do notvthink there is anything in that objection. This matter of drilling in the schools is an old one on the other side of the Atlantic. When I was a boy, I was drilled twice a week for several years, and I do not think that inclined me to militarism to any great extent; and I am very glad there is a prospect of that system being taken up in all the provinces because it will furnish us a foundation for an army in the cheapest and most satisfactory way we can hope to get it.
As regards the question of rifles, I am inclined to believe it would be certainly a great advantage if all the imperial troops
had the same rifle. Next to that is the advantage of having a rifle in all the parts of the empire which will at all events take the same size cartridge, so that the ammunition which serves for one will do for the other.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: As suggestions are filling the air, I shall not feel out of place in making a few remarks. In the west almost every young farmer and rancher has a horse, and a very inexpensive way to have a corps established would be to form one of scouts in every locality; and we know that scouts and mounted infantry have proved most useful on every occasion when fighting men were called for. The establishment of these corps would be a matter of very little expense as the farmers' sons would provide their own horses, and all the government need do would be to furnish the arms and equipment and perhaps a fortnight's drill every year. If [DOT] that was done, year by year a certain esprit de corps would develop between the different companies and you would have at all times in the west a fighting force of the very best young blood in those provinces. Horses would be provided by the men, trained as all those western horses are to stand gun fire, to stand at command, not requiring to be tied. Such a force would be a very valuable asset to Canada in the case of any war or necessity for their use arising. If there is no vestige of necessity for the use of any kind of corps, why then this talk is idle, but if there is a possibility of necessity I would advocate strongly that the young men of the west should, in the way I suggest, be organized into corps of scouts or irregular cavalry or mounted infantry just as it thought best. They would provide their own clothes and horses and all that the government would have to find would be a couple of weeks' instruction each year and the arms and ammunition.


Mr. BARNARD.: Perhaps the minister might on this occasion answer certain questions with reference to the garrison at Esqui-malt, which I put upon the Order Paper some weeks ago the formal answers to which were, I was going to say, of a more than evasive character. I quite understand that there are certain questions in connection with militia matters to which it is not desirable to give too much publicity, but I do not think the questions I then asked were of that character. If they are I would have much preferred that the minister should have told me so straight out rather than have given me the evasive answers which he did. The first question at column 365 of ' Hansard ' was :
1. Did the government use its influence, as provided for in article 9 of the terms of union with British Columbia, in any way to

secure tlte continued maintenance by tlie imperial government of the naval station at Esquimalt, either before, after, or at the time the said naval station was abandoned?
I suppose the minister is aware that article 9 of the terms of union expressly provides that the Dominion government will at all times endeavour and use its influence to the utmost to the end that the naval station at Esquimalt shall be maintained by the imperial authorities. If the hon. minister will tell me that the reply given is an answer to the question I shall try to see just what it means. The answer was:
Negotiations are in progress with the imperial government for the transfer of the naval station at Esquimalt to the Canadian government.
The question, it will be noted, is:	Did
the government use its influence to do a certain thing. The answer is: The government is now negotiating for something else altogether. I would like the minister to give an answer to that if he can.


Frederick William Borden: I certainly did not intend any discourtesy towards my hon. friend, and I must confess that I did not, until this moment, quite apprehend what his meaning was. Neither did I look up that particular provision of the Act of Confederation to which he refers. But I may tell him that having offered to take over Halifax and Esquimalt and having been informed in no doubtful way that the British authorities would be very glad indeed to accede to any offer, it would appear to be rather inconsistent if at the same time we should bring argument to bear upon the imperial authorities to continue that which we had offered to take over. That is so far as we are concerned. I suppose possibly my hon. friend may mean with reference to the ships and not to the garrison. I was answering really the part which pertains to the Militia Department and probably the hon. gentleman ought to have been answered by the Department of Marine and Fisheies.


George Henry Barnard: It was answered by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Frederick William Borden: Oh. I misunderstood the question. I may say this much, that it has transpired since the_ government took over Halifax and Esquimalt that the British admiralty, before we made the offer, had deliberately adopted the policy, although we were not aware of the fact, of practically abandoning Esquimalt as a naval station. They may change their minds, but I am not aware that any effort was made to influence the judgment of the admiralty or the imperial government as to that matter and I do not know that it would have been a proper thing to do.	>


George Henry Barnard: 


George Henry Barnard: I may take it then, I understand, that the Dominion government did not use its influence in any way with the imperial government to get the imperial government to continue to maintain a naval station at Esquimalt?


Frederick William Borden: I am not aware that it did.


George Henry Barnard: The hon. gentleman is the Minister of Militia and Defence, and I take it that this would be a matter of which he would be aware if there was any discussion on the subject.


Frederick William Borden: I probably would, but that particular matter is under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


George Henry Barnard: It was not at that time, was it?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George Henry Barnard: When Esquimalt was taken over?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, the garrisons were taken over by the Militia Department both at Halifax and Esquimalt. The Militia Department has nothing to do with the dockyards or anything pertaining to the ships.


Mr BARNARD.: I may take it that so far as the minister is aware-and being Minister of Militia and Defence he would be aware-no attempt was made on the part of this government to in any way influence the imperial government in connection with the matter?


Frederick William Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman should crossquestion me; I have told him all I know about it.


George Henry Barnard: I asked another question which is to be found at column 495 of 'Hansard.' It was answered by the Minister of Militia on the 3rd of February. I asketj:
1. Has any expenditure in connection with the naval station at Esquimalt been authorized by the government of Canada, or to the knowledge of the government of Canada, by the imperial government? If so, to what amount, and for what purpose?
The'hon. gentleman answered that question by saying it was confidential and could not be disclosed. I would be quite content to accept that answer, but curiously enough the Minister of Marine and Fisheries also answered that question and he said 'No.' It leaves the matter in a somewhat unsatisfatory state. I would like to know if the minister could throw some light on that situation?


Frederick William Borden: I will say to my hon. friend at once that I will look into the matter again, and I shall be glad

to tell him. I presume that question was furnished to me by some officer in my department; I did not write the answer myself, but I presume the answer was in accordance with the facts. However, I will look into the thing again and speak to my hon. friend privately about it. There is nothing to conceal from him.


George Henry Barnard: I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy. But there waa another question:
How many guns were left by the imperial authorities at Esquimalt when the imperial troops were withdrawn from British Columbia?
The answer the minister gave was :
The same number of guns as were left at Esquimalt by the British government are, however, still there.
That hardly strikes me as being an answer which conveys much information.


Frederick William Borden: No guns have been taken away, I am sure of that. I remember now that I discussed that question with an officer of the department, and he said that it was not desirable to tell how many guns there are at Esquimalt. But I will be ready to tell my hon. friend privately.


George Henry Barnard: If the hon. gentleman had made that answer at the time, I would have had nothing further to say on the subject. But it looked so much like an evasive answer that I thought I was entitled either to a refusal or a little more information. Then I asked another question :
Is the government aware that one or more of said guns are said to have been left lying unprotected from the weather for months beside the public highway leading from Victoria to Esquimalt?
The answer of the minister was as follows :
The guns are where they were placed by the imperial troops. Their future disposition has been arranged with the full concurrence of the imperial war office.


Frederick William Borden: We know the gun was exactly where it was placed by the imperial authorities. It is true that this government has been in correspondence with the imperial authorities as to what should be done with the gun. I am willing to tell my hon. friend privately what is to be done. I know what is to be done with the gun, but I do not think I should state it here. The gun has received no injury whatever where it has been lying.


George Henry Barnard: 1 do not profess to be an expert on gunnery; but I have heard some people who do know something about it, say that it was a gun that cost a good
deal of money, and I should not think it would do the gun any good to lie there. I saw it myself lying beside the road without any covering, from some time in the summer until through the winter.


Frederick William Borden: We have guns in ships that are exposed to rain and bad weather. I understand these guns are covered with some preparation which protects them. I do not think the gun is suffering any damage.


George Henry Barnard: I should not think it would do the gun any good to lie in the ditch nine or ten months during the winter season, without any protection whatever.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: Is it not a fact that two guns have been removed from where they were left by the imperial authorities to the drill hall at Victoria?


Frederick William Borden: Quite recently, for instructional purposes.


James Davis Taylor: That was about eighteen months ago. Could the minister tell us what was the cost of removing those guns?


Frederick William Borden: I am told


James Davis Taylor: I desire to call the attention of the committee to this fact, that when two guns, one twelve inch and the other six inch, had to be removed a few miles from the Esquimalt fortifications to the drill hall at Victoria, although we maintain at those fortifications a regular corps of Canadian artillery, with all the men and all the equipment necessary to handle guns, except horses to draw them, when two of these guns are transferred to the Victoria drill hall for the purposes of instructing the local artillery, a bill of $1,200 is incurred for their removal. Now it seems to me that is an expense which should not have been incurred. I think if we have an efficient brigade or company of garrison artillery at Victoria, that brigade could be employed in moving a twelve-inch and a six-inch gun at a less cost than $1,200. In fact with what little knowledge I have of artillery, it seems to me that about two days' work of a few men and two teams of horses should be all that was required to transfer these guns from the point whence they were taken to the drill hall at Victoria. This battery at Esquimalt, if it is an efficient battery, must have men and material to handle those guns, and to sling them on to any carriage fit to convey them to the drill hall. We should have some explanation of so extraordinary a charge.


Frederick William Borden: The question is unexpected. On the supplementary estimates I will have a statement prepared, and

show exactly how the expense was incurred, and why it was not done in some other way.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) tell me if I understood him rightly to say that two teams of horses could have hauled those guns?


James Davis Taylor: When I said two teams of horses-a team is a very elastic expression-I meant the number of horses which in ordinary course you would attach to a gun carriage drawing these guns.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Does the hon. gentleman think that the two best teams of horses in Canada could haul a twelve inch gun?


James Davis Taylor: As I said, I meant the number of horses which one commonly attaches to a gun carriage.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Probably the hon. gentleman meant a locomotive.


James Davis Taylor: The hon. gentleman I think has some connection with the militia. I have been out of the militia for a few years, but when I was in the militia we did not depend on locomotives to haul our guns, but upon the good sturdy men we had in those days.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I do not believe you had any twelve-inch guns then.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to revert to what brought me up originally, and that was the statement of the minister made in answer to another hon. member, that none of those guns had been moved. Now, I do not live at Victoria or at Esquimalt, and have not seen those guns, yet it was known to me that two of them had been removed at considerable expense, and I want to know how it is that no officer of the Militia Department was aware that a single one of those guns had been moved. And if two have been moved, how many more have been moved? The question was asked as to how many guns are there to-day. We are entitled to know more about this and to find out what has become of the other guns.


George Eulas Foster: This is another case of Bill Miner.


George Henry Barnard: Could the minister tell us how long it was before these guns were moved that the officers of the 5th Regiment, Canadian Artillery, resigned in a body because they could not get proper appliances for drilling? It was so stated in the Victoria press at the time. It may only be gossip, but the story is that the command was offered down the line until the last subaltern was reached and even he would not continue in the regiment. Can the minister give us any light upon the subject?


Frederick William Borden: 


Frederick William Borden: I am afraid not, but I can get the information.


George Henry Barnard: Would the minister know if such were the case?


Frederick William Borden: I might have heard it, but I do not remember. I know there was a difficulty but I do not think it was anything so extreme as has been pointed out. As a matter of fact the commanding officer did not resign as far as I know.


George Henry Barnard: No, he did not resign after the guns were sent. I should imagine that the matter would be present to the mind of the minister owing to the fact that protests from the officers of the regiment were coming into the department for two or three years before the matter was finally settled.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I think I remember that a question was put on the Order Paper by myself at the time at the 'suggestion of some one in British Columbia, and I received the answer that nothing was known about the matter at all at headquarters. If that is the case, I think the minister has had ample time to look into it.


Frederick William Borden: I will look into it and give the answer. I know there was a difficulty, but I did not know it was so serious as my hon friend points out. Certainly the commanding officer did not resign.


George Henry Barnard: Because these very guns that my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) speaks of were sent to the drill shed for the purpose of drilling. Upon cursorily glancing through the report and the memorandum which have been distributed I find, in two or three places, a reference to the fact that the large increase in expenditure was necessitated by the garrisoning of Halifax and Esquimalt. I find that the total cost of the maintenance of the permanent corps at Halifax for the last fiscal year was $761,000 in round numbers, and at Esquimalt $103,000, making a total of $864,138. The total increase for the maintenance of the permanent corps for 1907-8 was $923,700-about $50,000 more than the total cost of the two stations of Halifax and Esquimalt combined. It is also stated in the memorandum accompanying the estimates that it was necessary to increase the officers and men of the permanent corps by about 1,500, and that to carry out the duties imposed by reason of the taking over of the two garrisons of Halifax and Esquimalt required a total of 3,311 men. I take it that it did not cost any more to keep the original 1,500 during the year 1907-8 than it previously did; that is to say that the taking over of the two garrisons of Esquimalt and Halifax would not make any difference as regards the first 1,500, so that if you cut

the total expenditure in two for the maintenance of Esquimalt and Halifax you will then find that you have about $432,000 of additional expenditure, while the increase for maintenance is $923,000, which makes a difference of something over $500,000. That is a subject on which the minister might give us some information.


Frederick William Borden: Would it not be better to proceed with the items? These are items of actual expenditure in regard to which comparisons can be made by reference to the Auditor General's Report. I shall endeavour to give all the information as far as I can.


George Henry Barnard: It seems that this is the proper time to raise the question because the vote is a very general one, being for munitions of war.


Frederick William Borden: No, it is item 5, page 8-salaries.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The minister, with the consent of the committee, made a general statement and the discussion was general without any item having been called. At the close of the discussion it was intended to call the first item.


Mr. ROBB.: So far the debate seems to have been confined to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who are in favour of the expansion of the military system in Canada. I feel I would be an unworthy representative of my constituency if I did not take advantage of this occasion to say that the people in the county I represent look with considerable disfavour upon any system which will tend to create and encourage in Canada what may be known a3 a military aristocracy. Now sir, this view possibly has been encouraged by the fact that for some reason or other the battalions from that part of the country had not been completed, with the result that when they arrived in Montreal they recruited them very largely from the wharf rats there. The military drill has been looked on as a sort of a joke. Possibly this is very largely due to the prevalence at the annual camps of the canteen. I submit to the Minister of Militia that the first thing necessary to encourage young men and especially farmers' sons to identify themselves with the militia, is to abolish the canteen at the drills because no mother [DOT]who has a respect for heT son, will permit that boy to go to the annual drills when she knows that the most he will learn will be to smoke cigarettes, drink whisky and mingle with the worst elements in the community. I offer this suggestion in no spirit of criticism of the estimates because it seems that the committee is unanimous in adopting the military policy as outlined by the minister. But I feel it is my duty, as a representative of the people of that 73
part of the country, to point out to the minister one of the great obstacles, to the encouragement of the right class of young men, the bone and sinew of the country, to attend the annual camps.


Frederick William Borden: I agree with most of what my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) has said. I think that the fact thq,t captains are not as careful as they should be in the selection of men to take into camp has done the militia a great deal of harm, and that very often the fact that notorious characters are known to be included in these companies has prevented the enlistment of more worthy young men, such as my hon. friend refers to, farmers' sons. I think a good deal of amendment has taken place in that regard, but there is room for more. With regard to the canteen, we have been doing what we can to prevent that nuisance. The regulations are of the strongest kind. In some of the camps, at any rate, the officers are honestly endeavouring to carry out these regulations, _ but my hon. friend knows how difficult it is to control the sale of liquor. Liquor is brought in though it is against the law to sell it m the canteen. It seems impossible to exclude it. I hope that in all, and I certainly know that in many, of the camps, all measures possible are being taken to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors.
Salaries, $111,690.


George Eulas Foster: I see that the minister has brought in 47 from the outside service.
Will he give us the names of these, with their duties and salaries?


Frederick William Borden: The list I
have shows that there were 47 in the temporary and 49 in the permanent list, making a total of 96.


George Eulas Foster: You have, for instance, three in subdivision B of the first division. Who are these?


Frederick William Borden: Col. Hurd-man is the first one I come to. He was in the outside service, an inspector of gun carriages, &c. He was paid out of capital account voted for supplies of that kind. His salary was $2,400, and he is now at $2,500.


George Eulas Foster: Was his salary raised before he was taken into the inside service?


Frederick William Borden: No. The
next is J. W. Caldwell, who was paid out of the vote for salaries and wages. He is an inspector. The sum required for his salary will be $2,350. He was for years paid $2,250. The next is James Robertson, who died recently, and whose salary was $2,250. That vacancy has not been filled.


George Eulas Foster: You have twelve in the second division, subdivision B. Who are they?


Frederick William Borden: Lt.-Col. Brown, inspector of saddlery and leather goods, whose salary was $1,500 and who was paid out of the same vote as Col. Hurdman. He is now to receive $1,600.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Are these two officers receiving a percentage in addition to their salaries?


Frederick William Borden: No.


George Eulas Foster: Lt.-Col. Brown was not increased in salary before being brought in?


Frederick William Borden: No. The next is George F. Davidson, paid out of Salaries and Wages,' ledger keeper in the accountant's branch. His salary is $1,550-no increase. In the Military Surveys, there are four: J. E. Brown, $1,300, increased to $1,350, but no increase before coming in; M. F. Phelan, $1,250, statutory increase to $1,300; A. H. Cranston, $1,200, statutory increase to $1,250. These are R. M. C. graduates. L. H. Sitwell is the next-$1,100, no increase before coming in, but his salary next year will be $1,150; G. A. Blouin, engineer service, $1,200, no increase before coming in, but salary to be $1,250, a draughtsman; D. Barry, $1,200, no increase: V\ . L. McLaren, $1,200, no increase; E P M. White, clerk in the deputy Adjutant General s branch, $1,200, no increase; Wm Moeser, $1,050, no increase; R. W. Kinsman.
? 1,050, no increase.
. Mr. FOSTER. None of these received an increase within six months before?


Frederick William Borden: No .


George Eulas Foster: And is that true with reference to the rest of these 47 who were brought in from outside?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.
. Mr. FOSTER. What increases are there m the permanent force?


Frederick William Borden: There are none this year except the statutory increases.
Department of Militia and Defence-contingencies, $10,000.


Frederick William Borden: There is a reduction in this item of $2,000, due to the fact that we were formerly paying out of it some clerks, and are not doing so now.	5
Militia and Defence-chargeable to capital -lor purchase of ordnance, arms, lands for military purposes, reserve stores of clothing equipment &c., and to pay for construction of new rifle ranges, $1,300,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Was the whole of last year's appropriation spent?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, within $2,000.


George Eulas Foster: Mr- DANIEL. How much of this appropriation is expected to he spent in ordnance?


Frederick William Borden: We have been spending for ordnance about $350,000 or $400,000, and for rifles, if the 10,000 contracted for are delivered, $250,000. The rest of the vote is for clothing, saddlery and some other things, and for rifle ranges and some land for rifle ranges.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the ordnance field guns or stationary guns?


Frederick William Borden: Mostly 18-pounders.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Is that the new gun being adopted for field artillery?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, that is the gun adopted in England-the best gun m the world.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the gun that was in evidence at Quebec?


Frederick William Borden: No. That was the 4-7 gun. This is a much lighter gun, a quick-firing breech-loading gun. It is easily moved from place to place, while the 4 -7 gun could not be so readily moved.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are the horse artillery as well as the field artillery armed with the 18-pounder?


Frederick William Borden: I think they are here. I think that in England they are armed with a somewhat lighter gun.


George Eulas Foster: What is the cost of the 18-pounder?


Frederick William Borden: Nearly $5,000, with the limbers and everything connected with it.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to say how much land he thinks the government will require in the neighbourhood of Kingston for the rifle ranges, in addition to what they have already acquired?


Frederick William Borden: The survey is being made at this moment, and I shall be able to tell the hon. gentleman in a few days.


William Cameron Edwards: Has a value been placed on the land by any person appointed by the government for that purpose?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. I think I showed my hon. friend a valuation that had been made the other day. I think it was $40 an acre.


William Cameron Edwards: I am aware that that offer was made, but it was made with these words inserted in the letter sent by the department:	'$40, without prejudice.'
I supnose that means that it is not a definite offer?


Frederick William Borden: It is a definite offer; but those words mean that if the gentleman who owns the land chooses to take $40 an acre, we are prepared to pay that, but if he does not, and we have to expropriate, then we will go into court and perhaps get it for $20.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the name of the gentleman who put the valuation on this land for the government?


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Miliel of Toronto. He is a gentleman connected with one of the loan companies, whom we employ to value for us in different parts of Ontario.


William Cameron Edwards: I want to call the attention of the minister to another matter. By expropriating the land in. the vicinity of Kingston, the government have taken it away from the township, and have thereby thrown a greater burden on the farmers of that township. That land contributed its share of the taxes towards the maintenance of the road running through their property, a main. road running into! Kingston. The government now owns the land on each side of that road, and I think it is only fair and right that they should do something to help to maintain it. I am led to take that view because of the fact that in the case of other government property-for instance, the property owned by the government in connection with Kingston penitentiary although it is only on one side of the road, that road is maintained entirely by the government. The people of the township of Pittsburg, which is adjacent to Barriefield, feel that it is a hardshin to them to be asked to maintain that road entirely, as it is used greatly for military purposes, especially at the time of the annual camp. It is therefore an advantage to the department to have this road in good shape. I would also call attention to the fact that the board walk, to the repairing of which I believe the government did contribute at one time, is used a greati deal by the soldiery, not only those at the fort, but those at the camp, and I would ask the government to contribute something towards maintaining that board walk if not maintaining it entirely. My own opinion is that the government should maintain it entirely.


Frederick William Borden: I agree with the reasonableness of the observations of my hon. friend. I cannot say to what extent we will go. I would require to have a report, but I entirely agree that we should contribute to the full extent of our share in using the road and our ownership on either side.


Mr. G. V. WHITE.: I notice in the report of the Militia Council that, commenting on the Petewawa camp site, it refers to the fact that a few property-holders still require 73J
to be bought out, and in ten instances the department may be obliged to resort to expropriation as the owners refuse to come to reasonable terms although the department has tried in every way to meet their wishes.	, .	.
The hon. minister will remember that a few weeks ago I brought to his attention the case of a resident of the township of Petewawa, Mr. Gustave Prange, who owns lots 5 and 6, consession 12. Mr. Prange informed me that the arbitrators, who were sent by the government some time ago to look into the valuation of these lands, had reported on this property and that the price set by them was in advance of that offered him by the government.


Frederick William Borden: I think he is mistaken.


Gerald Verner White: I would like to know in these ten instances what were the prices set by the arbitrators and those offered by the government.


Frederick William Borden: I will be glad to bring the whole case down to my hon. friend if he would like to read it. We have had a great deal of trouble and have done our best


James Davis Taylor: Does this item include the cost of the Ross rifles produced during the year?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


James Davis Taylor: They are charged to capital account?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


James Davis Taylor: What becomes of the rifles replaced by the Ross rifles-the
Lee-Enfields? Is no value attached to them?


Frederick William Borden: They are still being used. Owing to the fact that the Ross rifle has not been fitted with a bayonet, the Lee-Enfield has been used very largely. But in the last camp the Ross rifle was used exclusively for target purposes.


James Davis Taylor: The Lee-Enfields when called in will not then be so much junk but will be available for use?


Frederick William Borden: Certainly.


James Davis Taylor: We are heaping up a very large capital account for rifles. When the Snider rifles were retired, no doubt we charged to capital account what we spent on the Martinis. When these were retired, we charged the Lee-Enfields to capital account.


Frederick William Borden: There never was a dollar charged to capital account on account of the militia until 1895-6, when the first Lee-Enfield were purchased. Before

that the rifles were given us by the British government.


James Davis Taylor: When we replaced the Martinis, the cost of replacing them was charged to capital ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


James Davis Taylor: And now that we are replacing the Lee-Enfield with the Ross Rifle, we are charging that to capital?


Frederick William Borden: In the other case, the rifle which was displaced was obsolete, but the Lee-Enfield is not. It is fit for service and will be kept in store, and we require a great many more rifles than are in actual use. Suppose our militia numbers 57,000, we should have 57,000 rifles all but in the event of any trouble our idea has been to have a force on the first line of 100,000 and we must have the balance of those rifles and should have a great many more. It will be a good many years before we will have anything like the number of rifles we require, as we require them tor the clubs and schools.
Annual drill, $360,000.
this matter looked into, but I cannot say whether that regiment will train at regimental headquarters or not.


William Cameron Edwards: Coming from Kingston, where it is customary to have an annual drill, I wish to express my appreciation of the minister's words of a few minutes ago in regard to controlling the sale of intoxicating liquors at the camps. I think his utterance should receive the approval of every member of the House and I am sure he will receive the endorsation of every person in this country if he takes the most rigorous means possible to put down drinking at these annual camps.


Frederick William Borden: I will do my best.


William Cameron Edwards: I visited the camp at Kingston last year several times, and I say with regret that the exhibition there, even on Sunday afternoons, of drunkenness, fighting and brawling, was an absolute disgrace to the country. It seems to me that the soldiers, for we have thousands of soldiers there, ought to be able to control that situation.


Mr. ARTHURS.: Representing one c those countries in which the local militi are at a great distance from the annus camp, I would like the minister to explai how he proposes to have rifle practic carried on when we have no target o ranges. Or will there be a special appropris tion for that purpose?


Frederick William Borden: In som
wWi!U?ltreS' f?f instance, in the county u which I live, it is easy to extemporize :
rifle range because there is a range of moun tains running thiough the country and yoi can get a range withou difficulty free fron danger. On the other hand we sometime: use gallery ammunition so that we can get i very good practice at a very short range.


James Arthurs: Is there any intention of having such arrangements made? For instance, if our battalion, the 23rd, were exercised or had their annual drill at the headquarters such a range might very easily be provided. I believe also it would be a good idea in these rural battalions to issue a certain amount of ammunition to each man irrespective of the annual drill at the camps. Sometimes at Niagara we find men who are known to be good shots but will have great difficulty in qualifying for the additional pay mentioned by the minister largely owing to the fact that the rifle was inferior or incorrectly sighted, and these men had not a fair opportunity of testing the rifle before going into camp.


Frederick William Borden: These are ail practical suggestions. I shall have Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: If we call out to camp every year men or boys to make soldiers of them, and if they have not grit enough and stamina enough to control the camp grounds and get the upper hand of men who are disposing of liquor, I do not think they would be of much use if it came to actual service in time of war. What I and others saw there at the camp at Kingston last year was a reproach to this country, and I do not think we could do better than follow the example of that great soldier, Lord Roberts, who, I believe, is a cold water soldier. I am sure the people of Canada will back up the Minister of Militia in taking the most strenuous measures possible to put a stop to that sort of thing for all time to come, for I assure you again that the condition of things at Kingston last year was an absolute disgrace.


Frederick William Borden: I am very sorry to hear that but I am glad indeed that the hon. gentleman has made the statement, and I shall bring it to the notice of the Adjutant General, because I cannot help thinking that if the officers in charge of those camps are in earnest and mean business they can control this evil. I have been at the camp at Niagara on several occasions, and I never saw anything of the kind. Last year I attended several camps. At the camp in my own county I do not think there was anything of the kind, although years ago, at the Aldershot camp, there was a great deal

of it. I am more and more convinced that it depends on the officer in charge. If the officer winks at violations of the law there will be violations of the law. If he is sincere in his attempt to enforce the law, the law will, perhaps, not fully but very largely be enforced, certainly to the extent of preventing disgraceful scenes such as the hon. gentleman has referred to.	*


William Cameron Edwards: I entirely agree with what the Minister of Militia has said, that the officers should be held responsible, and I believe he will be held responsible in this matter, and should be given to understand that those in authority oyer them expect them to exercise jurisdiction over the camp and keep these people within bounds.


Frederick William Borden: That has been done over and over again.


William Cameron Edwards: Any amount of liquor was disposed of, not merely given away, but sold. Proof of that is to be found in the fact that several persons were called before the magistrate, convicted and fined and their fines were paid. I know from my own observation that it was carried on last year in Kingston to a greater extent than I had ever seen it in any camp held there.


Frederick William Borden: There is
no excuse for that, for in this very matter of the efficiency pay nothing is given to any soldier who improperly conducts himself either by drinking or in any other way, and this provision has had a wonderful restraining influence.	I would
like very much to know how many men in camp at Kingston received their efficiency pay and how many cases of this kind were reported. I shall see that inquiry is made into the matter, because it is simply scandalous that such a condition of things should exist.
Contingencies, $25,000.


William Cameron Edwards: I notice on page 52 of the estimates an item for contingencies, miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, including entertaining allowances. What dioes that mean?


Frederick William Borden: For the entertainment of visiting officers. For instance, there are frequent visits of foreign naval officers at Halifax, and sometimes at Esquimalt and Ottawa, and it is not fair to ask the resident officer, whose pay is not very large, to bear the expense of entertaining the visitor out of his own pocket. In Halifax, as I know, this is a considerable tax upon officers.
Gratuities, $2,500.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Has the minister ever taken the case of Private Molloy, who lost his eyes, into consideration?


Frederick William Borden: My hon, friend will be glad to know that the Patriotic Fund Association are taking that matter up now, and there will be a meeting next week in reference to it. The hon. gentleman will probably remember that the Act of incorporation of that Association was amended here a year ago in such a way that the members of the Association could vote by letter. The matter has been submitted to them, and I believe resulted in a tie. I think Sir Sanford Fleming is in hopes that at the meeting now coming on it will be decided to give a certain amount of the fund to Trooper Molloy.


John Dowsley Reid: Is he likely to get a pension?


Frederick William Borden: That is my expectation.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister knows that his case deserves the consideration of the government almost more than any other.


Frederick William Borden: So far as I am concerned, I voted for it, and will do so again, and I hope he will get it.
Maintenance of military properties, $75,000.


William Cameron Edwards: I think this is the item under which would come the money paid each year for the use of the Cataraqui bridge. Am I right in saying that the annual amount paid by the government for the use of that bridge is $1,400?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Now, I have it on pretty good authority that that bridge is at present of very little use. It is a wooden structure erected many years ago, and would be incapable of supporting the passage of heavy ordnance. I believe that no attempt will be made to take heavy cannon across that bridge, because it would not bear the strain; I think it would be liable to break down. Yet we are paying some $1,400 a year in rent for the use of that bridge. I want to suggest to the minister the construction of a new bridge from Barriefield across to Kingston.


Frederick William Borden: Now it is getting interesting.


William Cameron Edwards: It is an interesting subject to many people in that locality. Suppose you were to capitalize the annual amount you pay in rent it would represent a sum of $40,000 or $50,000, with which you could build a bridge that you could use free of rent. That would be practically the same thing as paying $1,400 a year, and the bridge would be available at all times. If unfortunately war should occur-of course we do not expect it-and you wanted to move troops across that wooden struc-

ture from Barriefield to Kingston, you would be in danger of breaking through into the water. I think a new bridge could be constructed there at a comparatively small cost. The lake has a good, hard bottom, and the; water is comparatively shallow. I would also like to say to the minister that great advantage could be gained there by improving the channel of the Rideau canal. That would be an advantage to vessels, and it would also increase the harbour accommodation at Kingston. Hon. gentlemen who have visited Barriefield will remember that after you cross the bridge from Kingston there is quite a hill; that is government property. A couple of temporary tracks could be laid from that hill down to the bridge, the rock and stone material could be filled into the trucks, the loaded truck coming down to the bridge would carry the empty one back and with comparatively little expense a great portion of the bridge site could be filled in. I know that the city of Kingston owns a portion of the stock in the bridge, and I believe the government could come to terms with the city, construct a new bridge there and save money by the operation. While I do not like to suggest that convict labour should compete with free labour. I would call attention to the fact that near Kingston we have a penitentiary with a great many convicts in it, and I do not see why these convicts cannot be taken down to the neighborhood of the bridge and their services utilized for the purpose of filling in and reconstructing. I think that something along that line might be done and that convict labour might be employed to a partial extent in the work of reconstructing that bridge without very much fault being found by the general public. I trust that the minister will give this some consideration and I think that if it is considered from the standpoint merely of dollars and; cents the government can afford to reconstruct that bridge. One thing is absolutely certain and that is that a new bridge will have to be constructed there, very soon if you are going to have a crossing that will be of any avail for military purposes at all. Lumber is getting more and more expensive and I think the time is opportune to deal with those owning stock in the present bridge. You could look at the matter from the standpoint of the capitalization of the amount that you annually pay for the rent of the bridge, and, looking at it from a business point of view, I believe that that amount of money would more than construct a new bridge at Barriefield and give you something that would last for all time to come.


Frederick William Borden: I do not know what the terms of the contract are.
I suppose it is a very old contract. Is it a toll bridge?


William Cameron Edwards: 


William Cameron Edwards: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: If the
bridge is in the condition which the hon. gentleman states, certainly it ought to be examined at once, and I will direct that an examination shall be made. As to what will be done, I should think that the proposal would be a very reasonable one that the government and the city of Kingston should take this matter up together and see upon what equitable terms a new bridge might be constructed. At any rate, I would be open to take the matter up at any time and I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought it to our notice. I would be glad if he would address a communication to me, elaborating his views on the subject.


Gerald Verner White: I would like again to advocate the desirability, of the Department of Militia and Defence establishing armouries at the different headquarters of the rural regiments. I am sure that this would have a tendency to keep the rural regiments in line and make the men take an interest in the work of the regiments. We have never had an armoury in Pembroke, but during the recent disastrous fire which visited that town a few months ago, we had the misfortune of losing our entire^ equipment. We had a couple of rooms rented there and everything went. At the present time we have no equipment to put in an armoury, but I would like to endeavour to prevail upon the minister to look into this matter and if at all possible have an appropriation made for the establishment of armouries at such points as this. I am sure it would tend very materially to strengthen especially the rural regiments.


Frederick William Borden: I remember that my hon. friend and I discussed this matter across the floor of the House a year or two ago and I agree absolutely with every word he has uttered. It is a question of money. It should be done and it must be done. I am afraid that this is not a very good year to take the matter up, but I hope the revenue will be restored later on and that the matter may be taken up. In view of the fact of the great loss at Pembroke it would be a very convenient time to consider the erection of a building of that kind particularly as we have to "issue a new equipment and I will be glad to look into the matter. I believe there is a small item ot $50,000 in the estimates of the Minister of Public Works for the purpose of building armouries.


Gerald Verner White: I hope that the minister in view of the fact that we have had such a loss up there will put Pembroke among the first.


Frederick William Borden: I will do ,my best with the Minister of Public Works.
Militia and Defence-income-pay and allowances, $1,646,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Let that stand.


Frederick William Borden: All right. You may let the others go through with the understanding that anything can be discussed on this particular item.


Robert Laird Borden: On which item?


Frederick William Borden: Pay and allowances. We will let that stand with' the understanding that we can discuss the Royal Military College or anything else upon that item.
Item allowed to stand.
Warlike stores, $335,000.


John Dowsley Reid: As to this item which is left standing, I would like the minister to give notice before he brings it up. Otherwise, he might come forward some night and say that, as only one item is to be voted, he would like to put it through.


Frederick William Borden: I will not take any advantage, whenever the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) objects.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not speak for myself alone, but on behalf of others who might like to discuss these matters. I would like the minister to give notice.


Frederick William Borden: Quite so.
I will remember that.


Robert Laird Borden: I have some in quiries and correspondence about tenders for the supply of breakfast bacon to the militia at Halifax. The matter has been discussed in the public press. The allegation has been made that the bacon supplied is not the article of bacon specified in the advertisement for tenders. I would like the minister to be prepared to discuss this matter when his estimates are again before the committee.


Frederick William Borden: I was prepared to discuss it to-night, but it is hardly worth while to go into it now.


Robert Laird Borden: The allegation is that tenderers are not on an equal footing, an article being accepted which was not called for. It is said that if the quality that has been accepted is to be accepted in in the future, every one should know it.


Frederick William Borden: I shall be prepared to discuss the matter.


Adam Brown Crosby: Personally, I have no desire to interrupt the estimates for Militia and Defence, but I have every desire tha,t we should put this matter beyond the gossip that has been going on in Halifax and that vicinity. I have many questions in regard to it which I wish to put to the minister and if he will be prepared to give that information, it will be satisfactory to us as well as to the people there.


Frederick William Borden: I will do my best.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Continue in supply, taking up, the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p. m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 10, 1909.
The SPEAKER took .the Chair at Two o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the London and Northwestern Railway Company. Mr. Beattie.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the National Accident and Guarantee Company of Can-ada-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 104) respecting the Thessalon and Northern Railway Company. Mr. Smyth.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RHODES-by Mr. George Taylor-asked :
1.	When was the work at Boat Harbour,
Toney river, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, commenced ?	_..	.
2.	How much has been the expenditure in each year since the work commenced?
3.	What is the total expenditure to date?
4.	Is the work completed? If not, what further sum, if any, is to be expended to complete ?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	March 12, 1906.
2.	1905-06	$ 4,727.55
1906- 07	 2,103.11
1907- 08	 758.05
1908- 09	 1,793.02
3. $9,381.73.	,
4.	Resident engineer reports that, in order to prevent the closing of the channel, it will be necessary to extend the piers, on each side, from time to^ time. Future expenditure will be according to length of protection work.


OROMOCTO WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CROCKET-by Mr. George Taylor- asked:
1.	What was the total cost of the new high water wharf at Oromocto, N.B.?
2.	Was the work done under contract?
3.	When was it commenced, and when completed?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	$3,849.26.
2.	No.
3.	Commenced October 12, 1908; not quite completed.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE-COST OF COTTAGES.
Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	What is the present estimated total cost of the 16 cottages constructed for the civil subordinate staff at Kingston R.M.C., including fittings, furnishings, &c.?
2.	How many hot water boilers were purchased from Cluff Brothers for the said cottages, and what was the price of each?
3.	What amount of money has been expended to date for any work, fittings or furnishings for which tenders were not asked, to whom and for what was such money paid in each case?
i. What is the amount of any work, fittings and funishings contracted for since the awarding of the original contract to Mr. Sul-bvan, for which tenders were not asked, and to whom and for what is the money to be paid in each case?
5.	From whom were tenders received, and the amount in each case, for (a) alterations to main drain and lowering basement and n-side drain, (b) change to pressed brick, (c) electric wiring and fixtures, (d) outside connections, and (e) heating?
6.	Will the sum of $57,000 voted this session complete the cottages ready for use, or will a further sum be required?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	$96,000.
2.	(a) Four boilers with twin headers to each pair.
(b) Four boilers	$ 950 00
Two sets of twin headers..	230 00
Freight	 50 40

3 and 4.
Boilers, Cluff Brothers	$1,230	00
Printing and advertising, Department of Printing and
Stationery	 423	46
Travelling expenses, T. W.
Fuller	 36	00
Architect's commission, H. F.
Smith	1,331	14Photographs, D.	A.	Weese....	10	00
Cartage, Shedden Forwarding
Company	
3	606.	(a) M. Sullivan	
1,777	00(b)	M. Sullivan	
1,700	00


Mr PUGSLEY.: (c)	Haliday Electric Company 3,550 00
F. J. Birch	
3,690	00Newman & Spriggs	
3,735	00(d)	Halliday Electric Company 145 OO(e)	M. Sullivan	
2,750	006.	(a) Yes; (b) No.


GOVERNMENT-OWNED DREDGE AND CONTRACT WORK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. George Taylorasked:
1.	Has a government-owned dredge been employed during the past year on any work in Nova Scotia which was under contract?
2.	If so, with whom, under what arrangement as to terms, what was the date of the arrangement, and what has been the outcome to date?
William Pugsley: 1 and 2. Dredge ' Canada ' worked on excavation of site for spur pier at Digby, under contract dated 22nd May, 1908, with Messrs. J. E. and H. Bigelow, which did not provide for the dredging required. Material was found to be too hard for her machinery, so that work was given up on October 3 last.


TRADE COMMISSIONER AT SHANGHAI.
Mr. BARNARD asked:: 1.	Has the office of Trade Commissioner at Shanghai recently become vacant?
2.	If so, has any new appointment been made to that office, and who has been appointed ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	The office has become vacant.
2.	No appointment has been made.


WHARFS IN QUEENS AND SUNBURY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CROCKET-by Mr. George Taylor -asked:
1.	What wharfs in the counties of Queens and Sunbury, N.B., did the Department of Public Works order the construction of in the month of September and October last?
2.	Was there a departmental estimate of the cost? If so, what was it in each case, and what has been the expenditure to date on each?
William Pugsley: Estimated Expendi-cost. ture.
1 &2. Chase's Point.. $4,110 00 $ 533 60 Maugerville.. . . 4,996 00	1,944 17
McGowan's.. .. 2,750 00	1,245 16
Oromocto	 4,379 00	3,849 26


MR. T. P. FOLEY.
Mr. LAKE asked:: 1. Is T. P. Foley in the employ of the Interior Department? If so, in what capa-(ity and at what salary?

2.	Where does he live, and does he carry on any other business outside of his work for the government? If so, what is the nature of the business?
3.	What is the nature of the work he has done during the last year, and has the department received regular reports from him?


Frank Oliver: No such person is employed in the Department of the Interior.


QUEBEC BRIDGE-PROPOSED SUBMARINE VIADUCT.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Referring to the action of the Quebec Board of Trade as embodied in the following resolution:-
Resolved that the apparent advantages of the scheme for a submarine viaduct to replace the fallen Quebec bridge, submitted by Mr. J. S. Armstrong, C.E., of St. John, N.B.. are sufficient, in the opinion of this meeting, to warrant it receiving earnest consideration from the Dominion government, has the Dominion government any official communication from the board of trade in reference to this matter?
2.	Or has the attention of the government been otherwise called to Mr. Armstrong's proposal to substitute a submarine viaduct for the Quebec bridge scheme; and in either case has the government decided to take any action in the matter ?
3.	Has the government considered the advisability or necessity of constructing the Quebec bridge at a greater height above the river than the old bridge, say a clear 190 feet, and are the instructions to the engineers now at work to plan and provide for an increased height ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	No.
2.	No action is called for as the suggestion is utterly impracticable.
3.	The whole question has been reported upon by the Board of Engineers. It has been decided to leave a clear height of 150 feet above high tide for a clear width of 600 feet in the centre.



N.T.R.-QUESTIONS OR DISPUTES WITH GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC.

Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Have any questions or disputes arisen between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Transcontinental Railway Commission, or the engineers of the company and the commission, as to the classification or alleged over-classification upon the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway since the 28th day of April, 1908?
2.	If so, (a) what is the nature of these questions or disputes, (b) to what section of the road do thev relate, (c) when did they arise, (d) have they been adjusted, (e) what steps have been taken for their adjustment, and (f) what is the result?


Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of
Railways and Canals):
1.	Yes.	.	...2.	(a) Alleged over-classification, (b) Districts 'B' and 'F\	(c) From time to time
since April 28 last, (d, e and f). Not as yet, but this and any prior disputes will be adjusted by the chief engineers of the commissioners and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and the third arbitrator (Mr. Collingwood Schreiber), who has been agreed upon by them as such, as soon as the snow has sufficiently gone to permit of an examination of the work.



CITY OF BRANDON-EXCHANGE OF LANDS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STAPLES-by Mr. Roche-asked:
Has a patent been issued for section No. 6, township 5, range 7, W. 1 ? If so, to whom has it been issued? If not, why has the patent not been issued?
Frank Oliver: No, this section was granted
by order in council of August 9, 1900, to the city of Brandon in exchange for certain lands conveyed to the Crown in connection with the Industrial School at Brandon, but at the request of the secretary-treasurer of the city of Brandon the issue of the patent was stayed.



AMOUNTS PAID TO PARTIES NAMED.

Mr. RALPH SMITH asked:: What amounts were paid during the years 1903-4, 1905-6 and 1907-8 by the following departments: (a) Marine and Fisheries, (b) Railways and Canals, (c) Customs, (d) Post Office, (e) Militia and Defence, and (f) Public Works, to the following persons, firms and companies, viz.:-The Wilson Gas Buoys Company, the Canadian Fog Signal Company, James Murphy, William R. Blakiston, James Holliday, Allison Davie, J. B. Cote, Adolphe Uuot, Joseph Samson, Samson & Philion, E. Pelletier, Napoleon Mercier, Severin Martel, Michel Thibodeau, Edmond Belanger & Co., Marier & Tremblay, Terreau & Racine, Rock Cit>
Tobacco Company, J. N. Martineau, George Marchand, Jean Drolet, Elie Amyot, Charles A. Parent, A. N. Melvin, W. G. Robertson, Wm. Robertson & Co., Howell & Co., St. John Iron Works, Charles McDonald, John A. Moore, Wm. J. Vroom, John A. Mc-Avity, McAvity Bros., George McAvity, Patrick J. Mooney, Poison Bros., or Poison Iron Works, Merwin & Company, F. L. Brooks & Company, F. S. Brooks, Safety Company, Submarine Company, Wm. J. Allen, Mr. Willard?


Right Hon.   S@: This should stand as a notice of motion for return.



MR. CHARLES F. BELL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. George Taylor-asked :
Under what conditions and for what reasons was Charles F. Bell dismissed from the
[Stage Direction]
Depart of the Interior in December,
Frank Oliver: The services of Mr. Charles F. Bell, a clerk in the Department of the Interior, were dispensed with on December 31, 1907, because of discourtesy to his superior officers and a refusal to obey orders.



LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

Hon.  G. P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the sum of $200,000 each year for five consecutive years from the first day of April, 1909, be appropriated and set apart for the consolidated revenue fund of Canada for the purpose of aiding in the providing of protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of existing highway crossings of railways at rail level, and that the said sum be placed to the credit of a special account to be known as ' The Railway Grade Crossing Fund, and be applied under the authority of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
He said t His Excellency the Governor General, having been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution, has given his consent thereto and has recommended it to the careful consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Thursday, March 11, 1909.']
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I desire to call the attention of the government and of the House to a matter of very general importance in order to elicit from the government some idea of what they intend doing in regard to this matter, the Co-operative Bill, which was adopted in this House last year and met with defeat in the Senate. Let me briefly explain the facts in connection with this very important measure. Some years ago I called the attention of the government to the advisability of giving effect in this country to some^ such legislation as has been adopted in most European countries and in other countries throughout the world in order to encourage co-operation, as a means of affording relief to the working classes, the . agricultural classes and poor people generally who are not in a position to combine into joint stock companies, the organization of which demands the expenditure at the very beginning of a very considerable amount of money. I pointed out at that time to the govern-Mr. FOSTER.
ment some of the remarkable successes that had been obtained in Europe by cooperative credit and loan societies, and at that time my hon. friend the Finance Minister promised that attention would be given to this subject. Subsequently in one of the following sessions I introduced a Bill providing for the organization of cooperation in this country among the working classes and the farming classes and generally upon the lines adopted for the legislation in England, combining with it, as far as possible advantageous provisions which are found in continental legislation. The Bill was explained when introduced, discussed on its second reading and the second reading was adopted by the House without dissent. The session was then advanced and acting under the advice of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour further progress in regard to the measure was deferred until the following session. At the beginning of the following session the Bill was again introduced. Its provisions were widely made known throughout the country and the introduction of that legislation received the general approval of the press and of all people who had given any attention whatever to the co-operative movement throughout the world. The Bill was again discussed as to its principles upon the second reading, it was favourably viewed by this House, the second reading was carried and it was referred for examination to a select Committee of this House composed of those members who had taken a particular interest in its introduction, including the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Justice, and the two members in the House who were more particularly supposed to represent the labouring classes.
I believe that most of the older members of this House have read the report of that committee. Its sittings extended over a considerable period and we had occasion to go fully into the question of co-operation, its necessity in this country, its utility and the details of the Bill. We heard witnesses of all kinds, men of eminent merit in regard to sociological subjects. We had the advantage of the testimony of His Excellency the Governor General. We also had agriculturists, financiers, the Deputy Minister of Labour who had given this matter very careful consideration and who furnished valuable information, Frofessor Shortt, and most of the principal employees of the Agricultural Department, in fact all the witnesses who could throw any light upon the subject. Their testimony was uniformly favourable to the passage of the measure we had under consideration. After the unanimous report of the committee upon that Bill, the government declared its intention of adopting the measure. I do not believe that any parliamentary committee throughout the

world has ever gone as fully into the question of co-operation as that Select Committee did. A committee in India has studied the question of ao-operation at perhaps greater length and made a fuller report, but this report was ample, it seems to me, to justify the position which the government took at that time, in making it a government measure. The Minister of Labour took charge of the Bill which afterwards came up in its regular turn for third reading. It was considered in Committee of the Whole and gone into at considerable length by that committee. It was then adopted unanimously by this House. It was then sent to the Senate and there the then Secretary of State, acting for the government, took up the Bill, and I must say that the Hon. Mr. Scott gave the subject matter of that legislation very considerable attention. He took communication evidently from cover to cover of the extensive report of the Select Committee of this House. The Bill was read the first time and explained by him in the Senate, read the second time and discussed and the principle of the Bill I believe was adopted without any dissentient voice. It was then sent to the Committee on Banking and Commerce of the Senate in order that certain representatives of the provinces and the secretaries of the Retail Merchants Association might be heard in regard to it.	__
The Bill remained in the committee of the Senate for four months. There were hearings of different parties; several of us who took great interest in the advancement of that legislation were heard and so were the representatives of the retail associations. I may say here that a very singular misapprehension as to the object of that legislation seems to have existed from the very beginning in the minds of those who were advancing the interests of the Retail Merchants Association. Very far from considering that measure as one to be enacted in the interests of the working classes, in the interest of the agricultural classes, and of poor people generally, they got it into their heads that the object of this legislation was to introduce into this country, in a disguised form, a vast aggregation of European capital in order to stifle the legitimate commerce of this country. How that idea happened to take possession of these people I do not know. I can only attribute it to the fact that there are in England two or more joint stock companies bearing the name of co-operative associations. I refer to the Civil Service Co-operative Stores and to the Army Stores, not co-operative in the sense in which we understand it, but joint stock companies properly so-called, declaring dividends, having a distribution of shares like all joint stock companies and never having been admitted, having, in fact, been refused admission to the co-operative union of England which gathers under its protection all the co-operative associations, properly so-called, of the British Isles. However, it may be that that opinion was entertained here, it found forcible expression by the representatives of the Retail Merchants Association before the committee of the Senate. We, who are anxious to establish the facts, sought vainly to persuade the members of the committee that this was an entire misapprehension and misunderstanding. There were also heard before the committee of the Senate, representatives from the province of Quebec and of the province of Ontario. Mr. Mulvey, assistant Provincial Secretary of Ontario, urged strongly at that time that there was legislation in Ontario providing fully for the organization of just such co-operative societies as we had in view, and which was then under consideration. The views expressed there by Mr. Mulvey seemed to have prevailed with the committee of the Senate, although he was undoubtedly mistaken, and since these events have transpired a co-operative society here in Ottawa that has sought to be organized under the laws of the province of Ontario has found that there is no legislation in Ontario providing for such an organization, and they have been promised, I believe, by the government of that province, that some relief would be afforded them by legislation to be introduced during the present session. The Bill, Mr. Speaker, came back to the Senate after this long delay and towards the close of the session. The committee reported that they recommended that the preamble of the Bill be not adopted. It was pointed out in the discussion which took place in the Senate and to which I will refer briefly


Mr. SPEAKER.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) will allow me I would point out that it is irregular to refer to a debate in the Senate. Bourinot says:
It is a part of the unwritten law of parliament that no allusion should he made in one House to the debates of the other chamber, a rule always enforced by the Speaker with the utmost strictness.
He adds, however :
It is perfectly regular, however, to refer to the official printed records of the other branch of the legislature, even though the document may not have been formally asked for and communicated to the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What I was going to say applies to past debates as 1 have often heard past debates of the Senate quoted in this Chamber.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule seems to make no distinction and I thought I would call the hon. gentleman's attention to it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At any rate, by your ruling, I will be permitted to refer to the official decisions of the Senate.
duty to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to what seems to be the proper practice.


Frederick William Borden: I venture to suggest that the rule does not apply to debates of past sessions in the Senate any more than it applies to such debates in the House of Commons. As a mater of fact, it has been the constant practice in this House to refer to debates in the Senate and any enforcement of the rule would prevent a single reference to the many valuable opinions expressed by the members of the Senate from confederation down to the present time. That would seem to be an extreme view. For example, in the debate upon the Autonomy Bill in 1905, there were constant references to the debates which had taken place in the Senate in 1872 or 1873, and all these references took place without the slightest objection and without the slightest idea that any hon. gentleman so referring to them was out of order. I would venture to think that the rule has not the wide application which is sought to be given to it.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps the rule respecting past debates in the House of Commons and the rule respecting debates in the Senate have different objects. The rule respecting past debates in the House is designed to prevent the repetition of a matter which the House has already dealt with The rule respecting debates in the Senate is on the_ higher ground of protecting the proper privileges of the Senate, but an evasive manner is sometimes adopted in order to discuss past debates of the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not be inclined so to regard it. The real object of the rule is to prevent members of the House of Commons answering arguments which have been addressed to the Senate in the same session, when matters of a similar nature might be under consideration in both Houses at the same time. It might be extremely inconvenient and probably undignified that any such course as that should be adopted. Any reference to a debate in the Senate must be respectful, must not lack in that proper respect which is due to a co-ordinate branch of the legislature. Subject to that I never knew that there could be any possible objection to referring to a debate which had taken place in the Senate in a former session.


William Stevens Fielding: It is raised by an evasion, by a reference to another place.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Bourinot also says :
Members sometimes attempt to evade this rule by resorting to ambiguous terms of ex-ression-by referring, for instance, to wbat appened ' in another place/
I have no intention of being more severe than is necessary, but I thought it was my Mr. SPEAKER.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will not attempt to evade your ruling, Mr. Speaker; in fa/ct, I may say that it saves me the trouble of calling to the attention of this House some opinions expressed in the other Chamber that would cause a good deal of surprise to members of this House who have given some attention to. constitutional questions. It appears from the very nature of the proceedings held in the Senate that a certain number of these hon. gentlemen took the trouble to study the report of the Select Committee in this House upon that important subject, whereas some others thought they could effectually dispose of this important measure without giving themselves the trouble to study the matter at all. The then Secretary of State gave the matter much attention in the Senate and supported the measure in pursuance of the policy adopted by the government, and Senator Beique, of Montreal, suggested some important amendments intended to remove all doubt as to the constitutionality of our legislating in the matter. There was placed before the Senate at that time an opinion which had been, shall I say attempted to be obtained, from the Minister of Justice, as to the constitutionality of this measure, and in that opinion, which forms part of the records of parliament, the Minister of Justice said:
I recognize that it is my duty as official legal adviser of the Governor General and legal member of His Majesty's Privy Council for Canada to advise the Crown upon all matters of law referred to me by the Crown, and to advise the beads of the several departments of the government upon all matters of law connected with such departments, but it would seem to me presumption on my part to offer advice to either House of parliament or to .a standing committee of the Senate, especially when among its members there are many honourable and learned gentlemen more competent than I to form an opinion upon any doubtful matter of law.
Moreover the Bill referred to has been passed by the House of Commons and in that view it would ill become a member of that House to question the constitutional power of parliament to enact legislation of this character.
There is no doubt that a very strong lobby was Tesorted to in the upper House for the defeat of that measure, and I have heard since with much approval strong condemnation of that system of lobbying particularly as applied to the other Chamber. At any rate, the final result of the discussion upon the motion made in the Senate that this singular conclusion at which the Committee on Banking had arrived should not be adopted by the Senate, but that the Bill should be referred to the

Committee of the Whole for further examination was defeated by a vote of 19 to 18. The preamble of the Bill, as the Secretary of State had seen fit to alter it, simply declared that it was desirable in order to promote the interests of the working and agricultural classes of Canada to provide them with a legal method of organizing into co-operative societies. I may state for the information of the House, and it is well known to the government, that since the subject of co-operation has become a live issue in this country many people interested in the public welfare have endeavoured to promote legislation of this kind. The Labour Congress of Canada at its annual convention has been for some years passing resolutions in favour of this legislation. Similar resolutions have been adopted at meetings of clergymen of all denominations, and many other economic associations have taken a warm interest in the matter. It is not surprising then that the action of the Senate caused very great dissatisfaction among the members of the labour congress, and at the last annual meeting held in Halifax in September last the following resolution was unanimously adopted :
Moved by delegate Adam Anderson of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Montreal:
That this congress views with profound astonishment the colossal ignorance of the Dominion Senate of the modern conditions of economic progress, in opposing co-operation which has been established in Britain, France and Germany for fifty years with such distinguished success in cultivating the highest qualities and developing the highest ideas of citizenship.
Be it resolved that this congress demands that the Dominion government should incorporate in our laws the inalienable right of our people so to combine.
Concurred in unanimously.
I have only to add this: At the beginning of this session a pamphlet was circulated among the members of this House, which purports to emanate from the secretary of the Retail Merchants' Association, whose office is in the city of Toronto, and that pamphlet is entitled:	'The system
adopted by co-operative societies exposed. How the people are deceived by so-called co-onerative societies.' I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting at length from that pamphlet, but I must say that it displays a very extraordinary degree of ignorance in regard to the success of the co-operative movement on the continent of Europe. Everybody knows that that movement has been attended with marvellous success; that at the present moment the greatest efforts are being made in England to extend it; and that in Ireland the efforts of Sir Horace Plunkett in the direction of agricultural co-operation have changed the entire economic aspect
of that country. I cannot qualify this pamphlet otherwise than as a scurrilous document. It casts very grave reflections on the attitude taken by this House with regard to that measure. It states that the measure had been surreptitiously forced through the House and that it did not receive from the House of Commons that treatment which I must say in my long experience as a member this House always accords to measures of this importance. Then, this pamphlet caps the climax by alleging that the object of the legislation was to advance my own interests and the interests of those who manifested some concern in the progress of this legislation. The pamphlet further states that my object as a member of this House in promoting the legislation was in order that I might become an officer of a joint-stock co-operative society organized in my own province. I have never thought it worth while until now to deny that statement. I deny it now. In the expectation that this measure would not meet with defeat in the Senate, numbers of working men in my own constituency in the city of Montreal were prepared to organize societies. In my own constituency one was actually organized and has since been legalized under the incomplete provincial legislation which we have upon this subject, and I consented to become the honorary president of that society. That is the extent of the financial interest _ which 1 have had in this great movement in connection with which not one of those who took any interest in it had any financial consideration in view, I am sure. The pamphlet goes on to allege that His Excellency the Governor General, who himself appeared as a witness before the committee of investigation in our House, had some financial motive, inasmuch as lie had been president of the Co-operative Union of England, a union which, as everybody knows, has no financial operations in view at all, but merely the promotion of ideas favourable to the spread of co-operation.	_	_	_
There is much more I might insist^ upon, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. .The question is, what is the government going to do? I think the government, since the idea of this legislation was mooted, has taken a fair and prudent position in regard to it. Is it going to be said that a law desired by everybody who knows anything of co-operation throughout the Dominion of Canada, asked for by resolutions and deputations of all kinds, asked for by the congress of labour, approved of generally by the people throughout the Dominion-is it going to be said that a law of that kind is going to be defeated by the action of nineteen members of the Senate, who it is evident have not bestowed upon the question the attention which it deserves? I hope not. I think the govern-

ment should courageously persist in its course, re-introduce the measure, make it as perfect as possible, and place this country upon the same footing as other countries in regard to this important movement. It has been alleged that the provinces have jurisdiction in this matter. In regard to the formation of societies for certain objects purely local, the provinces might be considered to have jurisdiction; but the point insisted upon at all times when this legislation has been considered, has been that without the benefit of banking operations, we cannot have co-operation in its true and legitimate field of beneficent work. That feature can only be conferred on co-operation through the instrumentality of this legislation. It has been argued, I think very properly, that this being legislation essentially for the benefit of workingmen and the agricultural, classes throughout the Dominion, we have jurisdiction to legislate in favour of these classes and to give them the benefit of a cheap and easy mode of organization in co-operative societies. I believe that view was shared at the time by the Minister of Justice, who was present in our committee, and suggested some improvements in the Bill as it was first received in the committee. That view was strongly pressed on the senators; and if hon. members will take the trouble to read the debate that took place in the Senate when the Bill was finally disposed of, they will find that no valid or real argument was put forth against that view. Under these circumstances, I hope the government will take the measure up once more, and I have confidence that the Upper House will not again in this important matter seek to defeat the will of the people.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say just a word or two on this very important question. The hon. gentleman has always been a very ardent apostle of the principle of co-operation in this House, and I must probably attribute to him the fact that the Bill which I introduced last year was so unanimously adopted by the House of Commons. The government has not wavered in its view of the usefulness of the co-operative movement. Last year the government decided to take up this measure and pass it. It was not at first a government measure, but it became a government measure after the report of the special committee appointed to deal with the question. When the Bill went to the other Chamber, it met with very persistent opposition at the hands of some senators belonging to both sides of politics. Views, and very strong views, were expressed against the jurisdiction of this par-lament to deal with this question, and the senators who held those views were reinforced by the very active opposition which came from the retail merchants of the Dominion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let me say at once that favourable as I am to the principle of this Bill-and I recognize the very many advantages that can be derived from such a measure by the labouring classes-yet I have been impressed since last year with the very strong feeling -it may be a prejudiced feeling-which exists in some parts of our community against the passing of this measure by the federal parliament. I have not wavered from the position I took last year, and I shall be quite ready to support a Bill of the same nature in the House; but there is such a thing as provincial rights, and in my opinion, which I believe is the opinion of the majority of the members of this House, we must respect not only what we term provincial rights, but even provincial prejudices. It is my opinion that this parliament has complete iurisdiction in this matter; but we find that the largest and wealthiest province of the Dominion, the province of Ontario, with another large province, the province of Quebec, represented by their executive, strenuously opposed the passing of this measure when it reached its final stage in the Senate last year. Now, the two Attorney Generals of Ontario and Quebec may be wrong, and I do not discuss the opinion which they expressed last year through their respective representatives before the Senate; but I say it is the duty of this government to respect not only what they assert to be their rights, but even what we may think are only their prejudices. At all events that is my view on the broad question of provincial rights. It may be that within a few months, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, represented by their respective governments, after careful study of this measure, may come to the conclusion that it is one which ought to become law. I may say to my hon. friend that my sympathies are' with this movement, but we must admit that the sentiment in favour of cQ-operation is not yet very pronounced throughout the Dominion. I however am pleased to see that it is perhaps more developed in the province of Quebec than in any other. Although to a certain degree the principle of co-operation has been adopted in certain centres of the province of Ontario, it has not yet become accepted as a general principle in the country at large.
As Minister of Labour, I have received no petitions from the great provinces of the west or from the maritime provinces, but I have received a limited number from the province of Quebec and a few from the province of Ontario. I myself am in favour of the principle, but as the two large provinces are actually opposed to the passage of this measure, I think we can let the matter stand until some progress in education on the subject has been made. The discussions which took place before the select committee and those which took

place in this House last year and in the Senate will no doubt contribute towards the passing of this measure finally in a few months hence. I rose simply to say that my sympathies are still with the principle of co-operation, but that a little delay will not hurt this measure after all, and any legislation we may pass will not be only for a year or two, but will be for ever if once the principle of co-operation is admitted by both Houses.


Ralph Smith: The history of this question of co-operation embodied in the legislation of last session has been thoroughly given by my hon. friend who introduced the measure. As a member of the select committee on that subject, and having had some considerable experience with the movement in the old country, I may say that I was very much disappointed at the attitude taken by the Senate last year. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) has suggested that the question of provincial rights may have entered into the consideration of this matter. I am not aware that any consideration of the rights of the provinces to enact legislation of this kind was seriously debated in t]A Senate at all. It is true that the representatives from Ontario and Quebec who met the select committee of the Senate questioned the right of the Dominion government to enact _ such legislation. No doubt the distributive principle of co-operation is a matter of provincial right and one which the provinces have exercised. In Nova Scotia they have an Act providing for co-operative societies in the distribution of goods to their members. In British Columbia they have the same law and also in Ontario. But the question of banking the profits of co-operative distribution was never supposed to be provided for by provincial legislation, and the object of this Bill is to provide^ for_ banking privileges by Dominion legislation. The object of the legislation is to make it possible for any association, in the distribution of goods to its members, to have the banking profits in the sale of these goods, and every authority consulted on this legislation has declared it was necessary to come to this House to get that kind of legislation. I just want to say that it is a surprise to me, after eighty years experience in Britain-for it is eighty years since similar legislation was passed in England by the voluntary associations co-operative movement-to find in this country objection to a principle enacted and put in operation eighty years ago in the old country. A lobby and agitation against the movement was organized by the retail dealers, particularly of Ontario, or it may be perhaps the Dominion organization. There was a similar agitation of England retail dealers some twenty-five years ago against the enactment of similar
legislation. But the principle is plain and easy. If half a dozen men are entitled to have special legislation to co-operate their wealth for the purpose of carrying on a certain business and supplying the needs of the public in the operation of that business, has not the public the right to provide its own needs? Why should it not have legislation to supply its own needs as effectively as a limited liability company or other organization? It would be interesting, if I thought it reasonable to occupy the time of the House in so doing, _ to discuss the industrial and sociological benefits of the principle of co-operation in Great Britain. Every man has the right to study that for himself, hut the right to have social organizations to carry on commerce of this kind and invest their own profits is a legitimate one. I do not know what the government will do. It would be unseemly to take the Senate by the throat and make them do what we think_ they ought to do, but in that connection I noticed a little hesitation on the part of the Postmaster General regarding the authority of this parliament, which I do not think he showed as a member of the select committee years ago. It looked as if he were on the down grade on this question.
Last year, as a member of the select committee, my hon. friend was present and supported the Bill enthusiastically, and, if I am not mistaken, combatted the contention that this parliament had no right to enact legislation of this kind. The question as to the right of this) parliament to deal with legislation covered by the banking clauses of this Bill was never a serious question before that select committee, and, certainly, no doubt was expressed in that committee as to that right. I hope the Dominion government will realize the importance of this measure and take the responsibility of using every legitimate influence to secure its enactment. Even suppose for one moment that it is entirely, exclusively, within the jurisdiction of the provinces to legislate on the subject of co-operative societies established to distribute goods among their members, the fact remains that there can be no successful co-operative movement which has various forms in various provinces; the co-operative movement, in order to be successful, must be a national movement, it must be free to extend its operation to every part of the country. The history of the co-operative movement in England has demonstrated that fact. There, they have federal legislation and rights that cover the whole country. A.nd, in my experience, it is utterly impossible for the co-operative movement to exist and be successful unless it has the necessary federal legislation whereby it can operate throughout the whole Dominion. I merely wish to say these few words in support of this Bill, and if this government can do

anything to promote and influence the Senate to pass it, I think they should use their influence to that end.



Mr. JOSEPH RUSSELL (East Toronto).: I wish to bring to the notice of members of this House an article which appeared in the Toronto 'Evening Telegram' of March 8 in regard to immigration to this country:
Immigrfuit Tide Again - Three Hundred
strike City-Pitiful disappointment at the
Union Station [DOT]- Some go on to Western
Ontario, but many remain here.
About 300 immigrants from the old land arrived at the Union Station this morning. Two hundred and eleven arrived by special C.P.R., and 100 came through by the Grand Trunk. Many who arrived by the C.P.R. remained in Toronto, while the balance, with those of the G.T.R., will be distributed in the western towns of Ontario.
Have Little Money.
There was scarcely $100 in the party that remained in Toronto. One man had $50 of this. The British Welcome League took charge of about 15 families, and will provide for them until they are placed.
A few friends who have been in Canada for about a year met the party, and when they informed the strangers that there was no work here they appeared very much disappointed.
One man with a wife and six children, when told this, wept, because he had no money. He came out here, he said, because they told him in the old country that he would not be in Canada 24 hours before he would have lots of work. This man did not have a dollar.
A number of the men round the Union Station provided the children with breakfast.
I suppose there must be some government department that is responsible for this condition of things, and I think the House is entitled to an explanation.


Frank Oliver: Unfortunately, I was not able to hear what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) said at the beginning of his remarks. I take it that there is complaint that a number of immigrants arrived who were not possessed of the amount of money required by the regulations. I can only say that the statement will be given full consideration and an inquiry will be made. I beg to assure my hon. friend and the House that it is our intention to see to it that the regulations are complied with.


INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS TREATY.
Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a despatch concerning an alleged conditional ratification of the International Waterways Treaty by the United States Mr. RALPH SMITH.
Senate. I do not know whether this despatch has been brought to the right hon. gentleman's attention or not.
Washington, D.C., Mar. 4.-Senator William Alden Smith of Michigan won another brilliant victory to-day when the Senate ratified the Canadian Boundary and Waterways Treaty with a resolution attached to meet his objections. This action is considered in Washington as insuring to Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., her rightful share of the available waterpower in St. Mary's river.	_	_
The fight over the waterway question in regard to the Soo proposition has been the subject of bitter controversy at times, and the Michigan senator was pitted against some of the strongest debaters of the upper House, but he won his point after fighting stubbornly and bringing into play a diplomacy that even his best friends did not believe him capable. The victory has placed him without doubt in the ranks of the legislative leaders at the Capitol. He is a force to be reckoned with.
The first part of the despatch is the part to which I wish to call attention. I would ask the Right Hon. the Prime Minister if he is aware that, in the ratification of that treaty there was attached any resolution or limitatWl such as is stated in the despatch Naturally, we who are so much interested in the development of the water-power, and wish to conserve all that belongs to Canada, are very anxious to know exactly what has been done.


Right Hon.   S@: I may inform my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) that the information contained in the despatch is, I will not say in all particulars but in its essential points, accurate. The treaty has been ratified, but with a rider which materially interferes, as I understand it, with the disposition of the water in the St. Mary's river. The question rests there at the present time. I may say that the treaty, though passed by the Sena'e has not been ratified by the Sovereign of this country. We are this very day sending a despatch to England to have the treaty laid on the table of the House, so that parliament may know exactly what are its terms. I hope to have this before many days are over.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.
George Eulas Foster: Has the Minister of Agriculture the remaining schedules with regard to the flat increase of $150 to the civil servants?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I believe that the schedule for the House of Commons is about ready to be laid on the table. The Senate schedule I have not yet received. Until I get both of these, I cannot go on. The schedules for

all the departments are prepared-have
been for some time.


George Eulas Foster: It appears that the legislative body itself is the one that is retard ing legislation. What is the trouble?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that I can lay the blame on anybody-if there is any blame. The Speaker and the clerk have been working on the schedule, and it was referred to the Committee on Internal Economy. That body has dealt with it, and I understand that it is now ready to be laid on the table.


George Eulas Foster: I may state to my hon. friend that to-morrow, before we go into Supply, I propose to make a short statement with reference to what I consider certain irregularities and injustices in the administration of the new Civil Service Act. I shall not propose a motion, but simply make a statement.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-ELEVATORS.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a matter relating to this House which should be remedied. This morning I came here to go to the restaurant for my breakfast at the usual hour, 8.30, and found the elevator to the restaurant out of business. After waiting some ten or fifteen minutes I went round to the other elevator at the main entrance but it was not running. I saw the chief messenger, Mr. Dube, and he told me they did not start the elevator until nine o'clock, that the Public Works Department did not send the man here until that hour. I waited until about nine o'clock when the one at the dining room was put in operation. It seems a pity that these elevators should not be started before nine o'clock in the morning. The men in the Public Works Department should start work at seven o'clock as other labouring men do and the elevators should commence to operate at that hour. It was out of order this morning when the committee met and we had to use the Senate elevator. No one wishes to climb three flights of stairs to go to his breakfast. The Minister of Public Works should look into the matter and see that the service is improved.


John Dowsley Reid: The elevator at the main entrance has been out of order a couple of times this session, and last year it fell several times so that a number of members narrowly escaped injury. An elevator that gets out of order every few days should be specially inspected in order to avoid accidents.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: I am not complaining about the elevator not running before eight o'clock, as it would be of 74
little use to me, but I wish to emphasize what the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) has said. The elevator at the main entrance is hardly a safe one, it is out of commission almost every day. The engineer in charge is constantly attempting repairs to it but he does not seem to be successful. The Minister of Public Works should at once call in competent men and see that the elevator is made safe; it is not safe now.


William Pugsley: I shall see that attention is given to the matter.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.
Annapolis harbour improvements, ice piers, $15,000.


William Pugsley: Of this amount $25,000 is a revote. The object of this improvement is to arrest the flow of ice into the harbour and so permit shipments from Annapolis in the winter season. There are to be a number of piers with substructures of closefaced, stone-filled cribwork, and concrete superstructures in the Annapolis river.


George Eulas Foster: Is this the winter port business?


William Pugsley: The same matter that we discussed last year.


George Eulas Foster: The port being some miles above Annapolis.


William Pugsley: No, Annapolis is quite a shipping port.


George Eulas Foster: What has been one so far? Last year we did not get any very definite information as to the utility of, and consequently the necessity for, this outlay.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is in error. At the last session of parliament I quoted from reports in the House showing what it was hoped to accomplish by this work, and I was of the opinion that I convinced the majority of the committee that the work was necessary. Since that time tenders were called for the work but nothing has been done and we have determined upon calling for new tenders. An advertisement is now in the newspapers calling for new tenders for the work, so that all we have actually done is to purchase the creosoted timber.


George Eulas Foster: What was the trouble with the old tenders?


William Pugsley: The contractors refused to sign the contract.


George Eulas Foster: What were the figures?


William Pugsley: The tender was $34,400. The lowest tenderers were Reid and Archibald, of Halifax, but when we called upon



them to sign the contract they declined to do so unless we would insert a clause binding the government to assume certain risks as to the work. We declined to alter the terms of our proposed contract, they declined to sign it, and it was necessary to call for new tenders.


George Eulas Foster: It is unusual for a contractor to refuse to sign a contract unless the government would assume the risks. What reasons did they advance?


William Pugsley: That would be the risk of the work being destroyed during construction. An ordinary contract requires that the work must be completed by the contractor and we declined to accede to the wishes of the contractor.


George Eulas Foster: That again raises the question as to what are the particular difficulties there. If there is such a menace that the contractor wishes to ensure himself, is not that a very great menace to the works after they are completed? There must be some abnormal conditions which are different from those at most places. I should think it would tend to make the whole thing risky even after the contractor had got it off his hands.


William Pugsley: The engineers do not think so. They think that the work when once completed will stand all right. There was a second tender, that of H. M. Putnam and F. W. Clark, who did not insist upon any such condition in the contract, and who would have been willing to have taken the contract without it.


George Eulas Foster: What were their figures?


William Pugsley: Their tender was on the basis of a force account with ten per cent added.


George Eulas Foster: The minister objected to that form of tender?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister any of the correspondence showing what the would-be contractors thought to be the extraordinary elements entering into this work and which they thought constituted the risk?


William Pugsley: I have not, but my recollection is that they expressed the opinion _ that there might be difficulty in completing the work; that is to say, that during the progress of the work and before it had been completed, it might be destroyed by the action of the tides, and they wished a condition put in that the risk should be assumed by the government. With regard to the other question, the opinion of the engineers is that when the work is once completed it is as likely to stand as any ordinary harbour work.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister give us the particulars of the tender, showing Mr. PUGSLEY.
just what the tenderer proposed to do? I have not in my mind a very clear idea of what this structure is and the terms of the tender would make that clear.


William Pugsley: I will draw my hon. friend's attention to the contract, which provides for three piers just a little above the harbour of Annapolis.


George Eulas Foster: In the river?


William Pugsley: Yes, in the river. I suppose it can be called the harbour; it is just above Annapolis.


George Eulas Foster: Do these three piers extend across the river the whole distance?


William Pugsley: The whole scheme is to build either eight or ten piers-I am not quite sure-which are to extend all the way across the river. These three piers are to be built first at an estimated cost of $34,400. In addition to that there is the cost of creosoted timber, amounting to $12,619.24. That would make a total estimated cost of $47,019.24. besides which there are some other charges of superintendence. &e., amounting to about $3,400.


George Eulas Foster: That would be about $50,000 for the three piers?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost is $50,000 for the three piers.


George Eulas Foster: Then it is proposed that there shall be ten piers? That means that your total cost will he $160,000 or $170,000.


William Pugsley: The estimated total cost of ten piers is $123,500.


George Eulas Foster: Three of them cost about $50,000. but whether some of them are larger than others I do not know.


William Pugsley: T think some of the others are somewhat smaller.


Mr FOSTER..: It mav be that they are, but the minister has not determined that in his own mind.


William Pugsley: I have the engineer's estimate of $123,500 for the ten piers.


George Eulas Foster: To which we pay a certain amount of deference, but we always find in the end that it is exceeded. Does the minister feel justified in taking $160,000 of the people's money to construct ice piers above the harbour in the Annapolis river? What are the advantages set forth to the minister that has brought him to embark upon that expenditure of public money at this particular time?


William Pugsley: I may say to the hon. gentleman that the understanding with regard to the building of this pier was arrived at before I became minister. That understanding was arrived at after very careful consideration, after very careful surveys and after it had been determined that

the work would be a. useful one. What I had to do when I became minister was to endeavour to carry out the understanding which had been arrived at. I made inquiry with regard to the work and I was convinced that there would be a justification for it. Annapolis is an important shipping point. The shipments from there of lumber, apples, and other products, I believe, are quite large. It is believed that by the construction of these ice piers the river at Annapolis-what, perhaps, might not improperly be called the harbour of Annapolis- would be greatly improved, that these joiers will form a barrier against the drift ice that comes down wdth the tide in the winter season and that the harbour will be kept open during the winter. I believe that from Annapolis down to the mouth the river is open in the winter time; so that it is expected that vessels will be able to come there with safety in the winter season.


George Eulas Foster: The minister says that he feels convinced, but he has not 'said anything to the committee to convince it that we should vote the amount of money which we are asked to vote and which will involve an expenditure of $160,000 or $170,000. He speaks of winter navigation. What are the possibilities of winter shipment out of Annapolis? One other point and it is this: The minister said that he found that his predecessor had practically come to an agreement; therefore, he did not consider that lie ought to revise it. An agreement with whom? It seems to me that the public interest is paramount and that a minister, coming in and finding that an arrangement is under way, is not bound to carry out that arrangement, unless it is interprovincial or international, or something of that kind. The main point is to find out what it is proposed to do. If there is the possibilities of making Annapolis a winter port we might expend $160,000 or $170,000 upon it. But at this particular juncture in our history does not the minister think that this is one of the things that might wait for a year, wait for two years, wait for a century for that matter?


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: I have not the lccal knowledge with regard to this work that would probably satisfy the curiosity of my hon. friend, but I recall very clearly a delegation from the county of Annapolis visiting Ottawrn some few years ago, and among the members of that delegation Who were especially anxious that this work should be undertaken by the government and who canvassed the support of all of us from Nova Scotia was Mr. Geo. E. Corbett, Conservative candidate in Annapolis in the last election. I am quite sure that that gentleman was very earnest in his advocacy, and that he felt convinced that he was asking the government, through the Department of Public Works, to inaugurate some-74i
thing that would be of great public benefit to the county and to the province of Nova Scotia.


George Eulas Foster: We were told with reference to that famous Aylesworth ditch that Liberals as well as Conservatives had asked for it and it was supposed that settled the whole question. Does it make one pin's difference whether the demand for a public work is made by Liberals or Conservatives? Is not the real question: Is this an expenditure absolutely necessary in the public interest and if not absolutely necessary is it such an advisable expenditure that in these hard times we should take $170,000 of the money of the people for it?


William Pugsley: Only one-third of that at present.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is enough of a business man to know that if he commences to build a house he has to keep in mind the total expenditure and not the cost of the cellar wall which he may begin with. There are hundreds of instances in which expenditures have been cut off this year because the debt is increasing, the interest charge jumping by the millions, and the treasury depleted. I venture to say that no solid interest will be affected to the extent of anything worth considering if this work is left over until we get so much money that we want to waste it as we have been doing for some years past. At this period it is an outrage to be called upon to spend that amount of money on the harbour of Annapolis in the way of ice piers, and probably provincial bridges afterwards.


Mr. PICKUP.: I may say that about thirty miles from Annapolis the Drummond Company have a large iron proposition and they wish to bring their iron to Annapolis for shipment. They have represented to me and to the government that they would build the piers and pockets to accommodate this trade provided the harbour was improved. Otherwise they feared their piers would be destroyed. We are spending money on the harbours of St. John and Halifax and other harbours in the Dominion to make them available for the shipment of the produce of the country, and this harbour at Annapolis is just as valuable as any of them to the extent of the interests it will serve. The improvement will accord a safe winter harbour for shipping and it will protect the wharfs already built as well as other wharfs which will be necessitated by the growing trade of that part of the country. The matter was gone into very fully last year by the minister and by other members of the House and no very great .objection was manifested towards this appropriation. I may say that about 140 coastwise vessels and 50 or 60 foreign going vessels load at Annapolis. It is essential to the interests of the district that this work should be done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many vessels load there in the winter ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: There is one loading there now and another loaded in January, but under present conditions it is not safe for them as the harbour is peculiarly situated and they are in danger from the ice.


George Eulas Foster: Last year I asked if there were any statistics as to material damage being done to shipping from these ice floes and I did not get any information on the point. If there is any record of actual damage in that respect I would like to get it now, because if no great damage has been done in the past this is a pretty expensive way of going about remedying it. Are the vessels which ply to Annapolis ocean-going vessels ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: A few years ago there was a great deal of ice from one end of the river to the other and it froze over. Below the frozen part there was open water and a large steamer came in from Great Britain and discharged her load of coal on the ice and took a load of lumber and apples. That was in February and that was the only time the harbour was frozen over.


George Eulas Foster: Is the apple crop of the Annapolis valley shipped to Europe via Annapolis ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: Some of it.


George Eulas Foster: What proportion ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: I cannot say. If the harbour were available a larger part of the crop would find its way to Europe via Annapolis.


George Eulas Foster: I was under the impression that the apple crop was exported from other ports.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: That is so, but some of it is shipped from Annapolis and more would be shipped were the harbour improved.


Adam Brown Crosby: When were tenders called for this work ?


William Pugsley: I think in the early part of last summer.


Adam Brown Crosby: Has the contract been let ?


William Pugsley: No. As I stated, tenders were called and Reid and Archibald being the lowest the contract was sent to them for signature but they declined to, sign unless we should make certain modifications which we refused to do. In consequence of their refusal we are asking for new tenders.


Adam Brown Crosby: Did Reid and Archibald send a certified cheque?


William Pugsley: They did.


Adam Brown Crosby: Did you return their cheque?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: 


William Pugsley: No.


Adam Brown Crosby: You have it yet?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: You intend to hold it?


William Pugsley: Yes, for the present.


Adam Brown Crosby: They have done a great deal of public work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: They are people you know very well?


William Pugsley: Yes, very reliable contractors.


Adam Brown Crosby: What is the reason you did not have them enter into the contract?


William Pugsley: The reason was, as stated before, that they had some doubts apparently as to whether they would be able to complete the work. In all hydraulic work there is more or less danger, and they wore not willing to take the risk of completion. They wanted the Crown to take the risk of the plans and of the work standing until it was completed. I refused to assume that risk; I wanted to hold the contractors to the performance of the contract and the completion of the work, and in consequence of our not being able to agree on a modification of the contract as they desired, we have now called for new tenders.


Mr. MADDIN.: What was the amount of their tender?


William Pugsley: 


Mr. AMES.: If I am rightly informed, the principal reason for this appropriation has not yet been dwelt upon to any extent. As I understand, the principal reason for erecting these piers across the estuary of the Annapolis river is to enable a provincial bridge to be built upon them at some future date. If that is the case, it seems to me that the vote is being obtained more or less under false pretenses. I would like to know from the minister whether there have been any negotiations with the provincial government or any member of the provincial government or with any member of this House in regard to the use of these piers for the purposes of a bridge?


William Pugsley: There have been no negotiations with me, and none with the government that I am aware of.


Herbert Brown Ames: There have been cases in which parliament has been hoodwinked into the construction of piers which were to be used for the purposes of a bridge. In the county of Terrebonne back of the Island of Montreal, this government was induced to build, in a river, eight or ten concrete piers which could not possibly be
i

reached by any boat within four or five miles, and where all access was cut off by a railway half a mile below. There has never been a boat to these piers, nor is there any expectation that a boat will ever go there. That was a case where this government, under the guise of building piers! as an aid to navigation, obtained a vote of money from parliament to aid the local authorities in building a bridge.


William Pugsley: Perhaps it might not be but of place if I quoted from a report of the resident engineer at Halifax, Mr. Dod-well, who is an experienced engineer and has been in the department for a good many years, and who deals with the subject from the standpoint of harbour improvements.
Under the date of March 15, 1903, the resident engineer at Halifax reports that he had the opportunity of making a satisfactory inspection of runs of ice during the winter of 1903, and that he saw a representative one on the 25th of February of that year. The river as far as could be seen was full of ice from shore to shore, in cakes and sheets of all sizes, and in thickness from a few inches to six or seven feet. While he stood on the uppermost wharf on the Annapolis side, a large field came down in the last hour of the up-tide, caught on the wharf on which he stood, and lodging against the Granville foreshore, remained fixed and stationary until the flood-tide broke and took it up the river again. This he takes to be good evidence that a line of piers such as outlined in his plan and report of Jan. 18, 1902, and placed on the lower site, or about six hundred feet above the wharf above mentioned would serve to retain the ice in French Basin and the upper reaches of the river and keep the vessel berths in Annapolis free and safe.
Under date of Jan. 14, 1907, Mr. Hodwell, resident engineer at Halifax, reports that there is a probability that the Annapolis Iron Mining Company may at an early date either establish a smelter at Annapolis or may thenco ship their ore by water; and if this project materializes, it will emphasize the need for such improvement of existing shipping facilities as will be afforded by the projected ice barrier. He therefore strongly recommends that an appropriation of $75,000 to $100,000 be made as soon as possible.
There is the report of an experienced engineer who has examined the harbour in the winter season and has seen the action of these ice floes, and who is of opinion that the building of these piers will operate as a barrier to retain the ice. It may be that when these piers are completed, it will be possible to place a superstructure of a steel bridge upon them. If that should be the case, I do not myself see that there would be any public objection to it being done: but of course I would not propose to parliament the construction of these piers for the purpose of utilizing them for a bridge. As I understand the report of the engineer, the reason parliament voted the money for this
work some two or three years ago, before I became minister, was because it would be useful for the purposes of shipping, as making the Annapolis harbour safe. " The Annapolis valley is perhaps the richest section of the whole province of Nova Scotia, It is rich in agricultural products, and is a great fruit district. Large shipments of apples are made from Annapolis to the old country; and if the harbour is made safe, vessels will resort there in a much larger number than at present, and it will become an important shipping point in the winter. I am told that there are also in the vicinity large deposits of valuable iron ore, which will probably be shipped ^at Annapolis if these improvements are made. We can all realize the enormous advantage of having a port open in the winter season as well as in the summer, and if for this comparatively small expense Annapolis harbour can be placed in that position, I feel that the money will be very well expended.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know whether I can make the matter any plainer than the minister has done, but I would like to offer an explanation. Annapolis Basin is an arm of the Bay of Fundy and is open during the winter season. Ice does not form on the basin or the harbour. The Annapolis river flows into this basin.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the port of Digby open all the year round?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. It is on another arm of the same basin. The Anna polis river flows from the basin into the bay some twenty miles. The fall of the tide on this river and in the basin is 28 feet. The ice forms during the winter, very heavily up this river to the town of Bridgetown, some 20 miles, and with a fall of 28 feet it will naturally float down during the fall of the tide and go into the Annapolis harbour. After it proceeds down a certain distance, it returns with the incoming tide again. While this ice flows in and out, it does immense damage to the wharfs and shipping, so that in the end the harbour is rendered useless for shipping purposes during the winter simply because of the floating in and out of the ice floes. The purpose of these piers is to prevent, not the formation of ice in the river, but its floating down at falling tide into the Annapolis harbour; and if that purpose be accomplished Annapolis would be made a winter shipping port.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are these piers to be built all the way across the estuary of the Annapolis from the south to the north shore.


William Pugsley: At present it is only proposed to build three piers; but later on, if tliG experiment proves successful, several more piers will be built, which will extern} across the river.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are they to be equidistant the one from the other?


William Pugsley: No.


Adam Brown Crosby: With regard to the firm of Reid and Archibald, how is it they were not made to carry out their contract? I presume they saw the specifications before tendering.


William Pugsley: They refused to sign the contract, and you cannot compel a party who has tendered to sign a contract. All you can do is to make him forfeit his deposit, which was done in this case.


Mr. WM. CHISHOLM.: There are times when it is a hardship to make a party tendering forfeit his deposit. I am not referring to this particular instance, but to another case which was one of great hardship. The party tendering acted in good faith, but found afterwards that the plans were so drawn up that the risk was greater than he anticipated. Of course, he saw the plans and specifications before putting in his tender, but the time was short and he had not the opportunity to make as careful an examination as he should have done. But when he found afterwards, after more careful investigation, that the work was more difficult than appeared at first sight, lie declined to enter into a contract and his deposit was forfeited. It seems to me that when, owing to circumstances over which he can have no control, a party who tenders refuses to execute a contract, and has acted in good faith in tendering, his deposit should be returned. That may be a dangerous principle to act upon, but when there is absolute good faith and no suspicion of collusion, I think the deposit should be refunded. The government lias no right to take a man's money for nothing.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the object of the piers across the Annapolis? Is it to prevent the ice going down into the harbour?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have in the province of Quebec an old saying, always found to be true, and that is that you cannot possibly resist the movement of the ice. You may impede it to a certain extent by building piers, but nothing will prevent the ice making its way eventually.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the flow of the tide be as great in the rivers you have in mind. In the Annapolis river" there is no water left after a short time and the ice would go to the bottom.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The rivers I particularly refer to have no tide. But it is a saying with us that no strength of piers will keep the ice back from its course. If these piers are intended to stop the ice, the money will be wasted. We have had experience Mr. PUGSLEY.
of that for years in the vicinity of Three Rivers. You can impede the ice to a certain extent but you cannot prevent its following its natural course. But to block the ice and prevent it flowing out seems an impossibility.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: We have a practical demonstration of it. When the river was frozen over, the conditions happened to be very favourable, there was a wind from the west and it was snowing. The ice caught and froze clear across, and remained for about five weeks, no ice moving in the river at all. The harbour below was absolutely free, and, as I said, a vessel came in and loaded from the ice.


George Eulas Foster: The idea of this is to delay the ice there at low tide?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: Or at any time. If the ice is formed, it will remain there-a solid mass of ice.


Mr. BLAIN.: I understand, the minister is now asking for new tenders. Will the contractors be required to supply all the material for the work?


William Pugsley: All except the creosoted timber. That is furnished by the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the hon. member (Mr. Pickup) to say that there are about 125 or 135 vessels at this harbour.


William Pugsley: Upwards of 200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the place that is called 'Annapolis Royal'? For I do not see any other.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have here the trade and navigation returns, and I find that in the year ending March 31 last, the arrivals were 19 British vessels, with a tonnage of 5,462, and six foreign vessels with a tonnage of 1,160, or 25 in all, with a tonnage of 6,622, instead of 145 vessels as mentioned by the hon. member. The outgoing vessels numbered 36 British, with a tonnage of 8,906 and 10 foreign with a tonnage of 3,245 or 46 in all, with a tonnage of 12,151 tons-a wonderful difference between these returns and the statement that has been made. If, during the whole season of navigation, and that is the season-I assume, during which the greater share of the produce would be shipped, the apples for instance-there is only this number of vessels, the place is hardly of the importance one would be led to suppose from the figures that have been given. It may be that, if they could continue navigation winter and summer, more might be done, but the figures do not indicate that this is a port of very much importance. I do not know on what the hon. gentleman bases his statement of the number of vessels.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: Last year on account of the lumber trade being bad, there were not so many vessels entering and clearing. I referred to two years previous. The coastwise vessels are not included in those returns, I am sure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Though the coastwise vessels, no doubt, are small, I should think the returns would include them.


George Eulas Foster: What is the width of the whole estuary or river along which these piers are to be built


William Pugsley: About 1,800 feet.


George Eulas Foster: Then, the piers will be 180 feet apart?


William Pugsley: On the average.


George Eulas Foster: Is it the intention to have chains from pier to pier to prevent the ice going down through the openings?
there any certainty of either ? Is it not the way of prudence to wait until there is something tangible in the way of development and business ? The thing would he different if you could show that a large iron deposit was being worked and a smelting business established. But you do not show that, but only a possibility. But there is one certainty, and that is that you are putting in your money, and that without any official indication of great present trade or strong possibility of trade for the future. After all, what goes out of Annapolis is largely a local traffic. The apples for export, I believe, largely go by another way. The apples for St. John and the provinces may cross the bay. But I think that most of this trade is done before this ice trouble commences. As I understand it, this ice trouble develops mainly in the spring.


Mr. BLACK.: All winter.


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: You have a space of sixty yards between your piers, and you have a fall of twenty-eight feet of tide. When that tide is running out, it must have considerable force. Any ice in that tide must go out like the very mischief, and surely will be carried out through a space sixty yards wide.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: The ice is in such large cakes that coming down it would block. That is proved by experience. The result would be an ice bridge behind the piers and a clear harbour below.


George Eulas Foster: It may be that the ice will be in sufficiently large cakes to catch on the piers and prevent any going through. But when the tide is cavorting around and breaking up ice, it generally succeeds in getting into smaller pieces than that would indicate. And I should be very much afraid to bring up a small vessel at the moment when this pernickety ice might take it into its head to come down on that twenty-eight-foot tide and play the mischief with the boat. Now, in reference to the number of vessels in the harbour, there is a general statement made here of 245 vessels. But the customs officer, whose business it is to keep the records, finds-as has been shown by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)-only 46 vessels. That is a great disparity. If there is such an awful falling off within two or three years, does not the minister think he ought to be cautious and wait to see whether the rest^ of the shipping goes away also ? I would like the committee to notice that there is an expenditure of $160,000 or $170,000, made, apparently, on an airy saying that there are iron ores somewhat near, and that there is just a possibility that these may be exported. There is another^ bare possibility that a smelter may be built there. But is


George Eulas Foster: There would not be any rouble with ice up to December, I sup-iose- that is, the summer and fall navigation is free of that difficulty. There is mother point:	I understand the minister
;o say that the engineer, Mr. Dodwell, had recommended the appropriation of the noney for this purpose. It struck me at the time that it is not quite within the sphere if an engineer to recommend public appropriations. The engineer is the arm upon which the executive authority rests, the minister and his colleagues are to be the judges of appropriations. The appropriations are made presumably upon advisable or necessary grounds, but generally commercial grounds are those that weigli. When the minister or'the government come to the conclusion that for commercial reasons an expenditure of money is advisable, then the engineer comes m with advice as to the best plan to adopt, what form of construction will be most suitable, &c it does not seem to me that it is the .duty of the engineer of a minister to advise appropriation" here or there. If he finds a work in need of repair or something of that kind he may advise appropriations, but ne should hardly advise for or against a work except on scientific grounds.


Mr PUGSLEY.: My hon. friend, I think, is hardly right. The engineer should not give advice as to the commercial advantage of any particular work unless he is asked for such advice, but m my own experience as minister I very often ind properly rely upon the opinion of the resident engineer as to the necessity for any particular work. For receive a petition asking for the cons r -tion of a wharf or urging that some dredging should be done. I very often send a memorandum to the chief engineer asking vim to instruct the resident engineer to report as to the necessity for and the cost

proposed work. In that case it will De tne duty of the engineer to look carefully into the business done at the particular place, to examine the proximity of the proposed wharf to some other wharf or to other harbours. In the case of a breakwater we may ask him to report how far it is from the next harbour of refuge or the next shipping port and generally to report as to the necessity for constructing the work at the particular place indicated In this particular case, suppose that the petition was presented to the minister for this particular work supported by the member for the district and by Mr. Corbett, a gentleman engaged in business in Annapolis since the eighties, and by other +i?-Slnfss men>
if the minister had referred this to the chief engineer and had asked mm to have a careful inquiry made by the resident engineer as to the necessity for and the advantage of the proposed work and its probable cost, I would think in that case it would he quite proper for the engineer to take into consideration all the circumstances connected with this proposed work; to consider its advisability its practicability,-


George Eulas Foster: 
Richard Blain: Comparing the explanations of the minister on this matter last year and to-day I think we have a right to be suspicious that this has something to do with a municinal bridge as mentioned by my hon. friend from Montreal.
I am aware that the gentleman representing the county is well informed in connection with this case; he has so stated last vear and this afternoon as well. Is there any suggestion that these piers will ultimately be used for a municipal bridge or a provincial bridge?


Mr PICKUP.: Not that I have any knowledge of, no, sir.


Richard Blain: Would it be possible to put a superstructure of steel or iron over these piers that would transform them into a provincial or municipal bridge?


William Pugsley: That is a question which has not been looked into at all.
It has not been brought to my notice I directly or indirectly.


William Pugsley: 


Richard Blain: Will the minister say he will not allow the piers to be used in future as a municipal bridge without the consent of parliament?


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: If my hon. friend means that I would not be a consenting party to contributing any moneys of my department for the purpose of erecting a superstructure upon these piers, I will certainly give him and the committee that assurance.


Richard Blain: 
William Pugsley: I have learned long since that is the time to bid a certain gentleman good morning when you meet him.


George Eulas Foster: Especially when you meet him often.
Mr-BLAIN. I may say to my hon. friend that this will not hurry along his case.


William Pugsley: I cannot help it.


Richard Blain: I think this is a fair request I think we have every right to be suspicious that this is for a purpose that my hon. friend is unwilling to reveal to the committee and I think it is only fair that my hon. friend should pledge his word that he will not allow this work, either now or in the future, to be used for any municipal *).r Provincial bridge. Every man knows that it is a strange procedure to build piers m the river to keep the ice back in order to prevent it from interfering with the harbour. Everybody knows that it must he experi-

mental in the main. It is rumoured-indeed the gentleman sitting beside me says it is current in that section of the province-that this is to be used for a municipal or provincial bridge. Before we consent to vote the item finally it is quite fair for the minister to promise the committee that he will not allow the provincial government or any municipality to put a superstructure upon these piers without the consent of parliament.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister would have no authority to do it.


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend (Mr. A.
K. Maclean) state that he is not aware that some such suggestion has been contemplated and discussed in that section of Nova Scotia?


Mr.   A K. MACLEAN@: I cannot say.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend does not want to say.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the hon. gentleman wants an answer all I can say is that I have never heard of such a suggestion in my life. Of course, it may be true. I am not saying that it is not, but I live quite a distance from the locality and I do not know it. What I said was that the minister would have no authority to grant permission to the provincial government or to a municipality to put a superstructure upon these piers.


Richard Blain: The government of which my hon. friend is a prominent supporter has done it before. I had the duty myself of bringing to the attention of this House a case down in the county of Richmond and Wolfe. We had an estimate placed before this House to build a wharf in the town of Disraeli and for two years in succession the item pased the House with the explanation from the minister that it was for a wharf. Evidence was produced on the floor of this House that no vessel carrying freight ever entered that harbour and at this moment upon these piers that were constructed for a wharf, there is a municipal bridge and the old municipal bridge has been removed. Yet the government will not say that they have no intention of doing any such thing again.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that evidence has been produced that no vessel has stopped at that wharf?


Richard Blain: Yes. I visited the town and produced on the floor of this House, in the presence of the minister's predecessor, a sworn statement from a gentleman who had lived there for twenty-five years, and was a former mayor, that at no time in the history of the town had there ever been a vessel of any description carrying produce into that wharf.


William Pugsley: Was that before or after the wharf was built? How does the hon. gentleman expect a vessel to go to a wharf until after it is built?


George Taylor: There was no vessel to go there.


William Pugsley: My information is that vessels did go there before and that they have gone there since the wharf was built.


Mr BLAIN.: I may say to my hon. friend that it is absolutely impossible for a vessel of any description to go underneath the bridge, to enter the wharf which public money has been expended to build. My hon. friend must know that if he knows anything about his department.


William Pugsley: It happens in that case that vessels land and deliver their cargo on the lower side of the bridge and at the wharf which is at the lower side of the bridge.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has not been there.


William Pugsley: That is my information.


Richard Blain: I have been there. That is another impossibility because there is a superstructure of a railway along the other side of the bridge that makes it absolutely impossible for a vessel seven feet high to go into the wharf. I would ask my hon. friend to produce to the committee this afternoon a report showing how many vessels have entered there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We were discussing the question as to whether or not this vote to provide for the erection of ice piers should be passed. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) did dilate upon some alleged or imaginary wrong that occurred somewhere in Quebec a couple of years ago in reference to the D'Israeli bridge, but my hon. friend need not harp back to ancient history or dig up from the archives anything that gave him satisfaction at that time in order to enable this committee to consider what they should do about this particular vote. My hon. friend's soul seems to have been somewhat vexed as to the question of the possibility of a municipal bridge being erected over these piers. As a matter of fact, in the province of Nova Scotia, the erection of bridges is entirely in the hands of the provincial government. There is therefore no possibility of a municipal bridge which he seems to regard as being a frightful iniquity that might be perpetrated upon somebody-I do not know whom. There is no danger of that occurring in Nova Scotia. With regard to the question as to whether or not the object of the erection of these piers is for the purpose of having a bridge ultimately built, I may say that in so far as hon. gentlemen

supporting the government from Nova Scotia are concerned, we have not heard of there being any such proposition involved in this vote. I may say further that I have learned of the case that was put forth in regard to this matter by Mr. Geo. E. Corbett, who was the Conseravtive candidate in the county of Annapolis in the election of last autumn. Mr. Corbett claimed in the county last year a great deal of credit from the people there because he had come to Ottawa and impressed upon the government the necessity of undertaking this work, and he said that he and not Mr. Pickup, the representative of the county, was the gentleman who ought to receive all the credit that the county could give on account of it. My hon. friend ought to be fair and frank about this thing. We are fair and frank about it. I may say that if as a result of the erection of these piers in the Annapolis harbour the provincial government should come to this government and say that this is a public work that can be utilized for two purposes I do not see any reason why the department should not consider it because I do not see who is going to be hurt by it. If we have the navigation of Annapolis harbour improved by the erection of these piers, is it going to hurt any body if the_ provincial government should say: We will be able to secure a highway here by making an arrangement satisfactory to both governments? That would be no great iniquity. There is no necessity of the hon. gentleman holding up his hands in holy horror at such a proposition.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: You have your hands up now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well I am only suggesting that my hon. friend need not get into the same attitude. As far as I am concerned and as far as every other hon. gentleman supporting the government from Nova Scotia is concerned, we have not heard of this bridge project, and I see no reason why the two governments should not treat on the subject.


Richard Blain: I am sure the committee is highly pleased with the lucid explanation given by my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) as to why this money should be voted. But did you notice that he let the cat out of the bag when he said that at some future time he would not object to see erected on these piers a superstructure for a municipal or provincial bridge. '


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You might also notice that I said I had never heard of such a proposition.


Richard Blain: But the hon. gentleman seemed to have it in his mind that such a thing is quite possible, and if it is not going to^ be done there is nothing to prevent the minister pledging his word now that the piers will not be used for such a purpose.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In Ontario, the municipalities construct their oyvn bridges and it is a question of considerable importance to know whether it is the policy of this government to construct ice piers which may afterwards be used for municipal or provincial bridges. We all know very well that when the appropriation was made for the D'Israeli wharf it was pointed out that there was no water in the lake to enable boats to get to it and no boats in the lake, engaged in commercial venture to use the wharf when built. It was pointed out that the D'lsraeli wharf would simply be a municipal bridge and it is to-day a municipal bridge and the only one in the municipality. Will the minister pledge his word to the committee that these piers shall not in future be used for the purpose of a municipal bridge?


Mr. TOBIN.: I thought the question of the D'Israeli wharf was settled some years ago. If my hon. friend from Peel thinks it_ is not settled I would ask him to consult with Mr. Champoux, the late Conservative candidate in Bichmond and Wolfe at the last election and with whom my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) acted as a detective on one oc casion.


Richard Blain: I will ask the Chairman if it is in order to call a member of this House a detective?


Edmund William Tobin: I will withdraw that. At all events the member for Peel went down to Richmond and Wolfe some years ago to investigate the D'Israeli wharf and he met there Mr. Champoux a disappointed contractor who wanted to sell some lumber to the Public Works Department, and he got from Mr. Champoux certain information. Now, Mr. Champoux was the Conservative candidate in Richmond and Wolfe last election and he conducted his campaign in D'Israeli where this wharf was constructed but he did not mention the wharf and he did not make any charge against the government in connection therewith. True, the government built a wharf at the mouth of Black creek which empties into Lake Aylmer and later on the municipality filled up a part of that creek and they now cross on it, but it is not correct to say that the government ever built a bridge" for that municipality.


George Taylor: They built half of it.


Edmund William Tobin: If my hon. friend from Peei wants to go down on another picnic to Richmond and Wolfe he will find there is no obstruction from the railway bridge and that Mr. Champoux will tell him that he did not make any complaint about the D'Israeli wharf when he appealed to the electors last fall. I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) that Lake Aylmer is no small stream; it is 13 or 14 miles long and 4 or 5 miles broad and there are boats plying on the lake, and if they are not do-

ing a freight business, surely the people who live in Stratford, D'lsraeli, Lake Weed-on, Garthby and other towns on the lake have a right to have their share of public expenditure. I have a petition from the people of the township of Stratford asking for a wharf at Stratford, and these people know the needs of the locality. 1 have forwarded that petition to the Minister of Public Works and if he does not grant the prayer of the petition this year I trust he will place a vote in the estimates for it next year.


Richard Blain: Does not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tobin) regard the D'lsraeli wharf as a municipal bridge?


Edmund William Tobin: I do not.


Richard Blain: Part of D'Israeli is situated on one side of that water and part on the other, and the only way to get across is by that bridge or wharf on which this government spent $7,500.


Edmund William Tobin: The hon. gentleman knows very well that the government never appropriated any money to build a bridge at D'Israeli.


George Eulas Foster: That's right enough; they called it a wharf.


Herbert Brown Ames: May I suggest that we should take a business view of the situation. In this case, where the work is to be for the joint benefit of the Dominion and of the province it would seem as though both should mutually subscribe for that work. If I should build a hoiioC on a vacant lot and a neighbour comes later on and builds next to me he has to pay me for the use of my mitoyen wall as soon as he takes advantage of it. I do not know any reason, if these ice piers are needed to stop the ice and are constructed for that purpose and succeed in standing the pressure of the ice, and are properly located, why thev should not eventually be used for a bridge; but the moment the provincial authorities ask for the right to use them for a bridge, they ought to contribute their fair share of the expense; and all we ask of the minister is that he will give us some assurance that in such a case an adequate compensation will be demanded.


William Pugsley: A somewhat similar question came up not very long ago in regard to some ice piers which had been built for the protection of the banks of a river and also for the benefit of navigation in another province. The municipality in which they were constructed proposed to utilize them, with the consent of the government, for the placing upon them of a steel superstructure to be used in place of a bridge which had either been carried away by freshets or had decayed. I stated that in my opinion the local authorities should be
permitted to utilize those piers for that purpose on condition that they would be willing to enter into an engagement with my department that they would keep those piers in repair for all time, free of expense to the federal government. I do not see what objection there could be from the standpoint of the public interest to an arrangement of that character. With regard to the wharf at D'Israeli, I am surprised that my hon. triend from Peel (Mr. Blam) should allow himself to be misled as to the facts of the case. When he went there on the occasion to which he has referred, he must have studiously avoided the side of the wharf which is frequented by vessels navigating the lake. The same rather unjustifiable and inconsiderate statement was made at the last session of parliament. A report has been made by the resident engineer to the effect that the vessels do go to that wharf and that it is a very useful structure for the purposes of navigation. It is true, the wharf having been built, the municipal authorities use one end of it for supporting a bridge, and their doing so does not interefere with the purposes for which it was built. I hope my hon. friend will get more reliable information before he again speaks on that subject in this House. With regard to the usefulness of these piers, I cannot say what the minister will do in the future, but if application should be made on the part of the provincial government for permission to use these piers to bear the superstructure of a bridge, all I can say is that if I happened to be the Minister of Public Works at that time,
I would insist that before that permission should be given, an arrangement for adequate compensation should be entered into -it might take the form of a money payment or the form of an engagement on the part of the provincial authorities to keep the piers in repair, whichever would be best in the public interest. Whatever conclusion would be arrived at would depend on the circumstances. What I want to assure the House is that, so far as my information goes, these piers are being built for the purposes of navigation. These are the sole purposes put forward in the report of the engineer. The engineer is very strongly of opinion that the piers will prove beneficial, that they will form a solid ice bridge or jam at the head of the Annapolis harbour, and thus make the harbour reasonably free from ice and otherwise safe in the winter season.


Richard Blain: As my hon. friend has introduced the subject of the Disraeli wharf, I suppose we shall be allowed to make an answer. In doing so, it will be necessary to take up a little of the time of the committee.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is, I think, entitled to answer

under the circumstances, but not to make a prolonged statement.


William Pugsley: It was the hon. gentleman who introduced it.


Richard Blain: 
Gilbert Howard McIntyre: misled the committee when he said the expense was for a public wharf because he knew full well it was for a municipal structure rather than a public improvement.	.


Mr. JAMESON.: I wish to draw attention to a matter of great importance with regard to the Sissiboo or Weymouth river in the county of Digby. This river is crossed by a bridge of the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company some distance below the town of Weymouth. The Sissiboo river is one of the principal waterways of western Nova Scotia and of much importance the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company, as I am credibly informed, purposes during the coming summer to rebuild the bridge, and it is said that it will be constructed with a span of some 35 or 40 feet I may be permitted to refer very briefly to the history of this bridge. In 1877-8 the Western Counties Railway was projected through Digby county designed to cross the river at this point. The business of the town of Weymouth was then chiefly done two and a half miles down the river below the location of the present business centre. The people of that neighbourhood were so anxious to secure railway connection that they purchased the right of way and practically built a new town two and a half miles more up the river where the railway crosses it. At that time the plans which were approved by the Department of Public Works required a draw or span of 40 feet in width. When the bridge was built however the railway company reduced this span giving only 35 feet in the clear. Ever since this bridge was constructed, the people have been under great disadvantage with regard to shipping facilities, owing to this narrow draw. The Dominion Atlantic Railway Company is as stated proposing to rebuild the bridge, and I am informed have a structure already prepared and on the ground-for the erection of a bridge giving no more than 35 feet in the clear. When the business interests of Weymouth and the outside shipping interests were advised of this, they entered a protest, and the building of the bridge was deferred until that protest was settled. I am informed that an application was made in 1807 to the Board of Railway Commissioners for the reconstruction of the bridge with a 35 feet draw, and that permission was given by the commission but that subsequently it was found the_ railway company had not submitted their plans to the Department of Public Works, and the wrok on the bridge was completely suspended owing to this agitation of the shipping and local interests. The trade of Weymouth is of considerable importance, a large lumber business is done there, a large pulp industry is carried on, and as time goes

on the port will become still more important from a commercial point of view than it is now. The people and the shipping interests of that district are extremely anxious that a draw' or span of 60 feet in width should be placed in the neighbourhood. It is not only the interests of the town of Weymouth but the interests of shipping generally which would be benefited by that wider span. The railway company has.
I understand, having been informed of this demand for a wider draw, considered it would be a hardship to impose on them the total cost of its construction. As regards the necessity for a wider draw, I am informed that the carrying of lumber to-day is done in vessels of greater beam than 15 or 25 years ago, and that consequently a vessel	of practically the same tonnage
would require to-day a wider passage than fifteen or twenty-five years ago. I am informed by shippers that they are now obliged to charter old vessels simply because the cannot get a modern vessel to go through the present draw, and that is one reason why they urge that a wider draw should be built. Further, they have to transport a large quantity of lumber down below this bridge in barges or scows or by teams, which imposes an additional cost amounting to fifty cents per 1,000 feet.
The railway company is suggesting, 1 believe, that the government should assist in the payment of the cost of construction of this wider draw. With reference to that feature, I would quote from 'Hansard.' volume IV., of 1906, page 7052, etc. Under the item of expenditure on harbours and rivers in British Columbia, I find this rfe ference.


Mr. HYMAN.: There is one new item there:
Pitt river

substitution of a 230-foot through truss for original 132-foot truss of draw-span on C.P.R. bridge, inclusive of accessory works, $55,085.
He goes on to say :
The Canadian Pacific Railway built a bridge across the river there a number of years ago. They got the permission of the Department of Public Works to build this bridge. The Canadian Pacific Railway are renewing the bridge; they were building a new bridge last year, and it was then found necessary in the interests of navigation to widen the span. We asked them to do so, and they took the ground that having received permission to build according to their original plans, the government should pay for any widening of the spans the Justice Department gave its decision that under the circumstances the government should be liable. Therefore, we were in the position of having either to accept the old span or to pay our share of the cost. This is the amount found by the engineers to be due to the Canadian Pacific Railway by the government.
I ask and urge that what the government did in the case of the Pitt River bridge in British Columbia, in 1906; they should do at the present time in the case of the Sis-siboo or Weymouth bridge, and in any case a span of sixty feet should be required to be built. Some time ago, I had the privilege of discussing this matter with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley), and he told me that it would receive most careful consideration. I merely present these facts to-day in order that the claims of that district may be fully recognized and not overlooked. I trust the application of the people of Weymouth for a sixty foot draw may meet the favourable consideration of the Department of Public Works and the government, and that, if the government is going to pay any part of this and not require the railway to bear all the cost, provision will be made in the estimates during the present session.


William Pugsley: The matter presented by mv hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) is not new, either as to the bridge at Weymouth or the action taken by parliament in 1906. If my hon. friend read the papers which I placed at his disposal-as I have no doubt he did -he found the matter referred to there. The position is this: About a year ago, when the Dominion Atlantic Railway were about to rebuild their bridge at this point, my attention was called to the matter by the late hon. member for Digby, Mr. Copp. At his urgent solicitation, I notified the company that they must not proceed with the building of the bridge upon the proposed plan, for the reason that they had not followed the old order in council passed some thirty years ago, which provided that they should build a bridge with a span of not less than 40 feet, whereas they had built with a span of 34 feet, 8 inches. It is contended now, on behalf of the company, that they would have the right to rebuild the bridge according to the design approved of in 1878, and they argue that if the government, in the interests of navigation and for the benefit of the people of Weymouth, should require them to build a bridge with a span, say, 55 or 60 feet, the government should do as they did in the case of the Pitt River bridge, pay part of the cost. The matter is under consideration, but I am not prepared to say what action will be taken in regard to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not intend that any undue haste in calling votes ' Carried ' shall prevent me from saying a word on this subject. I have had experience here of being prevented from saying something by the extreme application of rules, but I do not propose at this time of my life to be so very easily turned down. I have no objection to the passing of this item. I wish to speak of the unnecessary alarm that

appears to be felt on the part of some hon. members on the opposition side concerning the use that may be made of these piers. If these hon. gentlemen understood the bridge law of the province of Nova Scotia, they would not have the notions about these piers that they have. I dare say it is thought that it would be popular in the county of Annapolis for a representative to be able to get this bridge out of the Dominion money. Let me tell these hon. gentlemen that such a thing is not thought of. He would not make one vote, and he would not detain a gentleman on the road for five minutes by trying to entertain him with such a story as that he was going to build this bridge. I think the mistake arises from our hon. friends from Ontario applying in the case of Nova Scotia the Ontario law respecting bridges and roads. I admire the public spirit of the people of Ontario and the way they have maintained their own roads and bridges direct out of their own pockets. Such is not the custom or law of Nova Scotia, nor has it ever been. Ever since Nova Scotia first became a province, its roads and bridges have been built and maintained out of public government money. There is no such thing as a tax upon the people for building bridges or maintaining roads. Up to 1883, the tax payers did not contribute a cent either directly or indirectly towards the maintenance of roads or bridges. In that year, there was passed what is known as the Bridge Act, under which the government of the province was empowered to borrow money to build large steel bridges wherever they were needed in the province, the interest on that money to be paid, not directly by the individuals who enjoyed the privilege of the bridge, but out of the road grant. That is:	There is a road grant paid by
the government to each county out of the revenue of the province-not out of direct taxation, and from this allowance, the government deducted enough to cover the interest on the sums spent in building bridges within the county. The only effect that the building of a bridge had upon the individual in the county would be that there would not be so large a road grant that year as if there had been no interest on the money invested in the bridge to be deducted. But, for the last two years, even this has been done away with, and the counties do not pay anything toward the interest on the bridges-the provincial government pays both principal and interest. Therefore, my hon. friends will understand that the people of Annapolis are not concerned about the building of these piers or that bridge. If a bridge is required at Annapolis, it will be built by the government of Nova Scotia.
I submit to my hon. friends that from one end of the province of Nova Scotia to the other, they cannot point to any case in which the government of Nova Scotia ever Mr. d. d. McKenzie.
called upon the Dominion government to contribute a single farthing toward the building or maintaining of a work that legitimately belonged to the provincial government. By no subterfuge, plan or scheme has the provincial government tried to cause the Dominion government to undertake any duty or face any expenditure that properly belonged to the local authority. They are well able to look after their own affairs and I assure hon. gentlemen they are not asking any favours from this government or asking this government to do anything which is the duty of the local government or themselves to perform. Some hon. gentlemen may not understand how these expenditures in our province bear upon the individual. The spending of this money by this government would not relieve the farmers or merchants of that district of any expense as this work would be done by the provincial government and not by the municipality. It is not felt at all by the individual. I do not understand the alarm of members of the opposition even if such an expenditure was to be made in Nova Scotia. Only last night it was suggested that the government should build a bridge and a piece of road in Kingston. That was considered a first rate proposition, at all events there was no opposition to it.


Richard Blain: That was a proposition to construct and maintain a road in front of property purchased by the Minister of Militia.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That does not make the slightest difference. We have in Halifax more government and imperial property than there is in Kingston, yet we never heard of either the imperial or Canadian government contributing one farthing towards the maintenance of anything municipal in connection with that city simply because that property was there. I think that rule should appiy at Kingston as well as at* Halifax. An hon. member from Manitoba had a bridge of this kind built in his country, but the opposition raised no objection to it and it was even suggested that this government should paint it and maintain the approaches. This was regarded by these gentlemen as all right because it came from one of themselves. I do not think it is right, I think that each government should confine its activity to the sphere allotted to it by the constitution.
I simply wanted to point out that there was no object in any Nova Scotia member urging this government to build a work of this kind for municipal purposes as it would not relieve the people of the neighbourhood. The farmers and the people generally of Nova Scotia are not concerned as to where the money comes from.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is extremely interesting to have the hon. member for Victoria County, Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) tell

us that the people of Nova Scotia do not wish any money spent upon anything provincial, tell us that this sort of thing may be done in other provinces but in Nova Scotia it is never done. The hon. member's predecessor succeeded in persuading the minister to spend a considerable sum of money 11 miles up Middle river in his own county in order to build sheer dams to protect the land of farmers on that river, and also to spend a considerable sum on the Baddeck river to protect the farmers. These are small streams, they are absolutely unnavigable and could not possibly come under the head of harbours and rivers. It comes with a strange grace from the hon. member for Victoria county to tell us that the Dominion government is never asked or expected to spend money in Nova Scotia for provincial purposes, when m his own county we have some of the most glaring examnles of the contrary that are to be found in the Dominion of Canada.


James William Maddin: Whilst we gather from the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, that in 1883 the ' Greater Bridges Act ' as it was called, was passed in Nova Scotia and that all bridges in that province are supposed to he built by the local government, it is not a new story, in the province of Nova Scotia at election time, that it is an excellent thing to have a good friend at court. We heard it in the local elections in 1901, in Nova Scotia when we were told that by supporting the local government in certain countries we would have a greater possibility than we had before of securing compensation for the building of the eastern extension of the Intercolonial Railway, and while it is a fact that the expense for bridges is to be bc.rne by the government in that province, it must also be borne in mind that the revenue of that province is not great, being slightly more than $1,000,000 a year, so that it will not enable the provincial government to erect many $200,000 bridges in Nova Scotia. I submit that if the electors in Annapolis approached the local government at Halifax and asked them to erect a bridge across this stream at a cost of $200,000 or $250,000, the Nova Scotia government would take into consideration the amount of traffic to be catered to and they would hesitate to spend such a large sum of money.
But I do submit that if a candidate for the local House were to go to the government at Halifax and say:	The estimated
cost of a bridge across this river is $200,-
000.	the estimated cost of the piers is $160,000 or $170,000 the superstructure wall only cost $60,000 or $70,000, and then would add that the federal government at Ottawa had been good enough to undertake to furnish the foundations and piers and all that we would require to do would
i>e to furnish the superstructure, that candidate would have a strong argument to submit to the government at Halifax and would be very likely to succeed in his application. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) has pointed out a couple of instances in the county of Victoria where money was spent twelve miles up the Middle river and on Baddeck river, for the protection of the lands of farmers there. In the county of Colchester, during the by-election of 1907, a sum of money was spent at Tatamagouche for the purpose of erecting a wharf and when the hon. member for Colchester put a question on the Order Paper in this House asking to know* what the depth of water was at that wharf he was told that there was no water at low tide and that there were four feet of water at high tide. The hon. member for Colchester has been exhibiting a photograph in this House. I do not know whether he is here to-day or not, but he exhibited this photograph to a large number of members and it shows that this so-called wharf is nothing more or less than a bridge. It shows a horse and cart and some people on the bridge and if you look at the ordinary high water mark along the shore, as shown in the photograph, you will see that it would have to be a high spring or fall tide that would give four feet of water. It is a dangerous precedent to establish in this House that any of the municipalities or provinces can look to the federal government for assistance in constructing bridges. It is but entering the thin edge of the wedge, and if it becomes known that upon the pretense of having ice breakers erected in one constituency and if these ice breakers can afterwards be used for the purpose of erecting a bridge, I have no doubt, that all kinds of suggestions and petitions will come to this government asking for ice piers, where, as a matter of fact, it is a bridge that is desired rather than ice breakers. It may be called a wharf in the petition or in the estimates, it may be called ice breakers in the petition or the estimates, but I submit that where it is a bridge that is reallv sought, that makes a great deal of difference. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. There was a statement made by the Minister of Public Works with regard to the traffic to be served at this point. I take it to be correct as stated by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that they have a rise and fall of the tide there of twenty-eight feet and having the rise and fall of the tide there, as in all other places, twice in twenty-four hours, and the temperature not being of such a character as to allow the formation of large bodies of ice. I would conclude that the interference with shipping caused by these conditions is unimportant. The public

reports indicate that there is a very small number of vessels entering or leaving that port. As far as the shipping of iron ore from that port is concerned, I would like to refer the Minister of Public Works to the fact that in the Mines report, which came to hand this session, the statement is made that the iron mines at Thorbrooke, in Annapolis, employ some 104 men. Their total output of ore is about 300 tons per day and this output is now sent to Londonderry. The report says:
The output now sent to Londonderry is handled by the Dominion Atlantic Kailway Company, whose branch line of 6 miles connects with the mines, and the Intercolonial Railway.
building of bridges under the pretense of building ice breakers and wharfs; if that is what is contemplated by the politicians in the province of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are the width and height of these piers and what material are they to be constructed of?


William Pugsley: The average height will be about 75 feet. They are to be built of stone filled crib-work with a concrete superstructure and there will be creosoted square timber in large quantities used in them as, well.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the width and what is the length
Miles.
Length of haul, Dominion Atlantic Railway	 80
Length of haul, Intercolonial Railway.. 64
Total rail haul	 144
That is where the output of the iron mines in Kings goes. It must of necessity go to one of four places to be smelted in the province; it must go to Londonderry, Trenton, Sydney Mines or Sydney. It is the purpose of this company, as outlined in the Mines report, to increase the output to 3,000 tons per day, and the report further states that arrangements are being made for shipping, and that a large pier will be built at Annapolis Royal from which, these shipments will be made. For this purpose they will doubtless employ ore carrying boats which usually have a capacity of from 3,000 to 7,000 tons, and I submit that such boats at these will not be hindered by ice in a place, that has a rise and fall of 28 feet of tide as they have in that harbour. If it is going to be a part of the policy of this government to grant assistance to municipalities and provincial governments in their road-making schemes we should know it. I do not know but that perhaps it might be a commendable policy. I am not committed one way or another with regard to it but I do submit that it might be more profitable to spend the money along such commendable lines rather than to squander it as has been done in the past. But if it is the policy of this government to grant assistance to provincial governments for the purpose of building municipal or provincial bridges it should come before this House clothed properly and bear on its face what it really is. If the purpose is to build a bridge across a river in Nova Scotia or in any other province the application should come before the government in the shape of a petition for a bridge across such river, and it should not come in the guise of an application for an ice pier or a wharf. These are all the observations that I have to make with, regard to the estimate. I submit that it is bad policy to assist a provincial government in the


William Pugsley: I have not the width. The inner pier is 35 feet high at low water.


Mr. PATERSON.: A statement was made as to the number of vessels going there by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I do not think he got them all because there are more vessels visiting that port in and out than he gave.	The
hon. gentleman only got one table. He will find the other at page 550.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are the dimensions of these piers?


William Pugsley: I do not happen to have the length here because the appropriation was made two years ago, and the details were then given. We are building three at present.
Mr. SPROULE I would like to have the height, the length, and the width of these piers. What is supposed to be the life of this creosoted timber?


William Pugsley: So far it has given satisfaction and its use is becoming more general in recent years. I do not know that we have experience enough to say what the life of creosoted timber is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me it would be worth while ascertaining whether it would not be the part of wisdom, depending of course on the relative cost and permanency of other materials, to use cement and stone where the teredo worm has to be guarded against.


William Pugsley: In some cases we build entirely of concrete, but in this case we are building only the superstructure of concrete. The concrete costs considerably more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like the minister to get me the dimensions of these piers, how much of this work is to be concrete and how much stone, what kind of timber is used, and the quantity for each pier. If we have these details we can estimate the cost.


James William Maddin: 


William Pugsley: I will get that information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Formerly the experiment was tried of covering the piers with copper, and I think it was regarded as a greater preventative against the teredo worm than creosoted timber. When we are spending such large sums of money all these questions should be carefully considered by the minister.


William Pugsley: We will give that consideration.


Richard Blain: Last year the minister stated that $12,000 worth of timber had been purchased. Was the purchase made by public tender?


William Pugsley: No. There are very few dealers in creosoted timber in Canada. The market price was paid.


Richard Blain: Was that timber delivered last year?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Does the minister think it is in the public interest to purchase $12,000 worth of timber without competition?


William Pugsley: Not usually, but this is creosoted timber.


George Taylor: Anybody can creosote.


William Pugsley: It is creosoted in the Southern States and there are only two concerns which do that work.


Richard Blain: What firm supplied this timber?


William Pugsley: The Norfolk Creosoting works.


Richard Blain: Is there any correspondence in the Public Works Department from the municipalities of Granville, or Annapolis, or from the local government with respect to this work?


William Pugsley: Not since I became a minister, that I have seen.


Richard Blain: Prior to that?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Richard Blain: If there is, will the correspondence be brought down?


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to lay it on the table.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to the trade and navigation returns, there were in Annapolis Royal only eighteen vessels from the United States, one from the British West Indies and one from Norway, carrying an aggregate of 1,679 tons.


William Paterson: There is the coasting trade in addition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I regret to sec that the estimates for harbours and rivers for Nova Scotia do not contain any sum for contract dredging. Last year contracts were awarded for dredging work in some of the harbours and rivers of Nova Scotia, and I trust that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works may see his way to making provision for the carrying out of those contracts. In my own constituency dredging is most necessary in one or two cases, and I trust that the minister will be able to have an additional vote of $200,000 or $300,000 placed in the supplementary estimates to provide for such cases. I am quite willing that a great many of the usual items under the head of Harbours and Rivers should be abandoned this year; but the matter of dredging is very important, and I think the government and the House generally would agree to a supplementary vote for dredging in several of the provinces.


Richard Blain: It has been abandoned in a great many sections in the western part of Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The necessity for dredging may not be so great on the great lakes as it is in the maritime provinces. Another remark I wish to make is that in the province of Nova Scotia at least we have not received from the government dredges the amount of work annually that we might fairly expect. I think that has been the case ever since confederation. The dredges do not get to work early enough in the spring and stop too earlv in the autumn, and the number of hours they work daily is altogether too small. There are a number of places in the province of Nova Scotia where the dredges could easily work all winter. The office in St. John appears to be altogether too inactive and too slow in its supervision of the work. In the province of Nova Scotia we have never obtained the amount of dredging which the necessities of our ports and' harbours demand. Therefore my request is twofold-that we should get more work out of the_ government dredges than we have been doing from confederation down, and that a vote of $200,000 o. $300,000 be placed in the supplementary estimates to carry on dredging in the province of Nova Scotia, for which contracts were entered into in 1908.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would you get better results from dredging done by the government or by contractors?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would prefer the work to be done by contractors.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I would like to emphasize the remarks of my hon. friend from Lunenburg. I quite appreciate the neces-1 sity of suspending, for a time at least, all



works that are not absolutely essential; but in the matter of dredging, in some instances where the work has been under contract and has been commenced, I do not observe in the estimates anything for its continuance this year. That may possibly be reasonable in some instances, but in one particular instance of which I am cognizant, the result will be, that if the work is not continued during this season, the work that was done last year will be practically lost to the department. There was some dredging required in Baie Verte, on the border line between Westmoreland and Cumberland. For very many years the municipalities have been asking to have this dredging done, and at the last session of parliament a vote was passed for the purpose, and a contract was entered into, and the work commenced. It was for the purpose of dredging_ a bar which blocked the entrance to the river and the harbour. For some reason this work was suspended in the early autumn, when the bar was only half cut through. If that work is proceeded with this year, and a cutting made through the channel, the work done last season will be available; but if it is allowed to stand and no money provided for the continuance of that contract, the work done last summer will fill in and be practically lost. It seems to me that the minister, in order to save the money already expended should make provision for the continuance of that work. I refer particularly to the dredging of the Port Elgin harbour on the Gaspereau river in the Baie Verte. I would ask the minister to bear this in mind, as it is coupled with the request of my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean). The conditions at Port Elgin are certainly such that the case is much stronger, and I would like to emphasize what has already been said in that regard.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: Thursday, March 11, 1909.