1909-03-01

CARRYING OFFENSIVE WEAPONS.

Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: Moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 83) respecting offensive weapons and capital offences. He said; The Bill which I desire to introduce is designed to diminish the criminal offences now unfortunately occurring so frequently in Canada. It is of a preventive nature, not of a penal character. The first five clauses refer to weapons which are commonly carried by criminals. The first is designed for the protection of immigrants arriving in this country. As we are all aware, around the terminals of the railways, and the wharfs where steamships land, are a great many pawn shops and shops of second hand dealers where revolvers are exposed for sale: strings upon strings of same in the windows. Now, immigrants who come from southern Europe and who are accustomed to carry stilettos, knives and other implements with which to avenge their fancied wrongs, when they come to this supposed wild western country and find exposed to their view these murderous weapons, they naturally think they require them for their protection, and purchase them.
Sir, poisons are kept under lock and key and sold only by permit. I seek to provide.

under the first section of this Bill, that revolvers and pistols are to be in the same category, so that the one who sells them must have a permit from a judge or police officer. Under present law, persons are prohibited from carrying revolvers; why, then, should these weapons be exhibited for sale? The last clause of the Bill refers to punishment for capital offences. Under the Canadian law, a person found guilty of a capital offence is sentenced by the judge to be taken from the place from which he came, kept there for a certain time-generally, two or three months-and there hanged by the neck until he is dead. Under section 1064 of the Criminal Code, it is provided that the person condemned to death shall be hanged inside the jail in which he is confined on the day of execution. The clause that I propose in this Bill requires that a prisoner sentenced to death shall be immediately removed to the nearest penitentiary where the last penalty shall be inflicted upon him. In this we shall only be following the present law of the state of New York. Capital offenders being hanged or electrocuted at Sing Sing. And as long ago as 44-5 Victoria-that is, 1881-the British parliament passed a law under which a judge sentencing a person to capital punishment, may, if he sees fit, order his removal to the penitentiary or central prison, and this is generally done. Under our present system, where a crime is committed in a small village or town, the condemned remains for two or three months in the local prison awaiting the execution of the sentence. In the meantime, the whole community is stirred up, all the morbid curiosity and mawkish sentimentality of the people is aroused, and the result is that one murder often leads to two, because crimes are epidemic. I have spoken to a great many people of different classes about this clause, people who were interested in the matter, such as officials of the law, as well as citizens in various walks of life, and I have yet to find a single one-excepting one gentleman, a member of this House to whom I spoke this morning-to disagree with my belief that such a clause as I here proposed should be put upon the statute-book. Another point in favour of this proposed measure is that the prisoner will be saved the refinement of cruelty, for, while he may not hear the nails being driven into his coffin, he does hear them being driven into his scaffold when confined in a common jail and frequently he sees the gallows being erected for his excution.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I may remind the hon. member (Mr. Lewis) the practice is merely to explain the provisions of the Bill on first reading, not to debate it.


Edward Norman Lewis: I move the first reading of the Bill.


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

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).: I desire to ask when we may expect the printed report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the branch lines connecting with the Intercolonial.


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: The report was ordered printed by motion of this House. I have no more information than my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) has concerning the printing of it. But I will make inquiries.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I would again call attention to returns which, I think, ought to be down bv this time. There are the returns with reference to the dredging industry and the financial returns. One wants a little time to look these over, and the preparation of them ought not to take long. There is also the return of the armouries to be brought down by the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). It is quite a long time since the motion for this order was passed.


Mr. H. B. AMES (Montreal, St Antoine).: I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that a week ago we asked for certain returns and received a promise that they should be brought down shortly. They are not down yet. It is six weeks since these returns were ordered.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: Many returns apparently simple involve the examination of books and papers over an extended period. I have every disposition to bring these returns down as quickly as possible, and have ordered accordingly.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-FORT WILLIAM JOINT SECTION.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 25) respecting the joint section of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at Fort William, Ontario-Mr. Turriff.
On section 1.
George Perry Graham: There are two Bills of similar nature and in order to expedite their passage through the committee we appointed a subcommittee who went over them very carefully and made certain amendments which the Railway Committee as a whole approved of, making one change in this section by striking out the reference to every party mentioned except the two making the agreement. The original draft says ' all other parties.' We struck that out and left it binding only on the parties who made the agreement.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CANADIAN, LIVERPOOL AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 44), to incorporate the Canadian Liverpool and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
On section 1.
_ 2. What date were these cars put in operation by the Railway Department and on what roads?
3.	What is the total revenue to December 31, 1908, also cost of maintenance of said cars to same date?
4.	Are these cars running now? If so, where? If they are not what is the reason?
Mr. LENNOX.: As the Minister of Railways knows this Bill has been the subject of a good deal of contention and I believe it was discussed pretty fullyon Friday night. The member for Quebec West (Mr. Price) is absent and the people of the Quebec district are very much interested in this Bill. I have also had a communication from a gentleman representing the Union of Canadian Municipalities, requesting that the Bill be allowed to stand over. It is suggested that if it stands over a discussion now going on will probably lead to an amicable arrangement satisfactory to all parties. I would move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. GIRARD.: I do not see why the suggestion of my hon. friend should be concurred in. I was not here for the discussion on Friday night, but I do not understand that the member for Quebec West (Mr. Price) intends to oppose the Bill, I do not believe he is so strongly opposed to it that he would come before the House and ask to have it stand. There are members present from Quebec who would be able to discuss the Bill and I believe it should pass as it is on the Order Paper.


Haughton Lennox: There is no great reason why it should not stand. The union of Canadian municipalities is a very strong and important organization, and they have asked to have it to stand. The member for Quebec West (Mr. Price) of course represents an important section on this side of the House, and I submit that no inconvenience will result from allowing it to stand.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 46) respecting the Crawford Bay and St. Mary's Railway Company, and to change its name to ' The British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba Railway Company.-Mr. W. McIntyre.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 76) to incorporate the Imperial Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. A. Haggart.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	$55,800.00.
2.	One car was placed on the run from St. John to Hampton and return, August 5, 1907, the second car was placed on the run from Halifax to Windsor Junction and return, 9th October, 1907, the third car being used as a spare one while the others were being worked into shape. More or less minor difficulties, incidental to all new enterprises were encountered, but are being gradually remedied. During the year 1908, one car was on the River Ouelle Branch and gave good satisfaction. One was running between Levis and Chaudiere and one between Halifax and Windsor Junction.
3 The revenue has not been worked out, the cost of maintenance for the three cars to date was $4,669.11.
4.	One between Halifax and Windsor Junction. Two in the shops for general repairs in order to be ready for next summer's business.


Dr. J. S. RUTHERFORD.: 


Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Has Dr. J. S. Rutherford, veterinary director general, tendered his resignation?
2.	If so what are the reasons of said resignation?	, .
3.	Has said resignation been accepted? If not, what has been done in regard to it?
4.	Does Dr. Rutherford fulfil duties beyond those generally attached to his position of veterinary director general?
5.	What is his salary as veterinary director general?
0.	Does he receive any other emolument?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1,	2 and 3. Dr. Rutherford did some time ago tender his resignation, but has since withdrawn it.
4. Yes. He is Live Stock Commissioner and is also charged with the administration of the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
5 and 6. For all his services he receives a salary of $4,000 a year.



' DEBATES,' COST OF PRINTING.

Mr. G. BOYER asked.: (Translation):



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	What has been the total cost of construction of motor cars Nos. 225, 226, 227? Mr. GRAHAM.
What was the cost of printing 'Hansard' for the last session of the preceding parliament, including the composition of the matter on metal, the printing and paper?
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY) (Secretary of State). (Translation.) Daily edition, English version, one hundred and forty-eight

copies (148.) Sixteen thousand and thirty five dollars ($16,935.) Stitched, two thousand one hundred and one (2,831) copies, seven volumes (7), fourteen thousand one hundred and forty columns (14,140)-Nineteen thousand, five hundred and ninety dollars and six cents ($19,597.06.)
Total-Thirty six thousand five hundred and thirty two dollars and six cents ($36,532.06). Stitched, French version : Five hundred and seven (507) copies, seven (7) volumes, fourteen thousand five hun dred and thirty four (14,534) columns. Twenty six thousand six hundred, ninety three dollars and fourteen cents ($26,693.14)

Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What amount of money was subscribed by government and private individuals, respectively, to the tercentenary battlefields celebration of last year, and what amount thereof was spent on the celebration?
2.	What amount was spent out of the per-jnanent fund for additions and improvements of the battlefields, and of what did they consist?
, What amount of the permanent fund is still held by the trustees?
4. Who is the permanent secretary of the commission, what salary has he been paid and out of what appropriation?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: Towards the Tercentenary fund from the Dominion government	$300,000 00
Sales of tickets for pageants____ 32,280 88
Refunds, sales of effects, &c____	3,557 32
.	$335,838 20
Amount spent on the celebration. 321,168 69

2.	To the 31st January last, for printing, telegrams, cables, notaries' services for searching titles, surveying fees, travelling
expenses, &c	$6,608 03
For purchase of Pierre Cauchon property on Ste. Foye road.. .. 7,846 55

3.	$436,426.11.
4.	No permanent secretary has been appointed.


DEBATES-STAFF OF TRANSLATION OFFICE OF 'HANSARD.'
Gustave Benjamin Boyer: (Translation).
- Of how many persons is the translation cmce of Hansard,' French version, composed, comprising the translators and all other persons co-operating in this work ?
"?[DOT] ^f^at was fk0 total amount of salaries paid to these employees last session?


Hon. C. MURPHY (Secretary of State):: 1 and 2. The number of persons employed in the translation office of * Hansard,' French version, is 12, all of whom are translators or proof-readers. In addition there is a caretaker of the building in which they are employed. These employees are not paid by the session, but by the year. The total sum received by them during the fiscal year 1908-9 was as follows:
Translators and proof-readers____$22,500 00
Caretaker	 300 00
Total.-	$23,800 00
In addition to the above there is a sessional messenger of the House of Commons detailed to act as messenger between the French Hansard' translation office, the House of Commons and the Printing Bureau.


COLLAPSE OF THE QUEBEC BRIDGE-TRANSLATION OF REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
Gustave Benjamin Boyer: (Translation).
1.	Is the report of the commission of inquiry relating to the Quebec bridge catastrophe, given out to be translated into French? If so>
who is charged with this translation, and is he a civil servant already under salary?
2.	When was it given out, and how many pages are now translated?


The Rt.   H@: (Translation.)
1.	The report of the commission of inquiry relating to the collapse of the Quebec bridge has been translated into French and the French version is now being distributed. The translation has been done by Mr. Ulric Barthe, of Quebec, who is not in the Civil Service and therefore does not receive a salary from the government.
2.	That the report was given out to be translated in November last. The translation is now completed. The minutes of proceedings of the investigation which will be appended to the report of the commission of inquiry have been translated and are now under print.


RICHMOND RIFLE RANGE.
Mr.  J. D.@: TAYLOR, asked:
1. Have representations been received by the Militia Department of danger from shoot-mg on the Richmond rifle range, because of

insufficiency of protection afforded by the stop butts?
2.	If so, will steps be taken before target practice season opens to secure safety ?
3.	If not, will the department communicate on the subject with the clerk of Richmond municipality and with the officer commanding the 6th Regiment.?


Righ Hon.   S@: 1 and 2. No such representations have been made to headquarteis.
3.	The District Officer Commanding has been called upon to furnish a report.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-HOURS OF WORK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	On what date were the employees of the Intercolonial Railway classed as mechanics, put on 8 hours a day and 8 hours pay?
2.	Was this done as a retrenchment in view of a deficit?
3.	If so, is the deficiency chargeable to that branch of the service ?
4.	If not, why was this reduction put upon the employees of that branch of the service?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to continue that 8 hours a day, 8 hours pay in that branch of the service for all time to come? If not, for what length of time?
6.	How many employees are affected by the reduction from 10 to 8 hours?
7.	What is the saving effected monthly by the change?
8.	Has there been any curtailment made in the official staff of the road? If not, why not, in view of the deficit?
9.	Has the government received any communications from the men affected in respeot of the matter?
10.	If so, what is the nature of the communication ?
11.	If any were received, what reply did the government make to the same?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	January 1, 1909.
2.	Largely because of the hours of daylight, and it did effect a saving.
3.	A statement concerning the business of the road will be made later.
4.	Answered by number 2.
5.	Orders were given for full day of 10 hours to be resumed March 1.
6.	1665.
7.	$16,700.
8.	No.
9.	No.
10.	Answered by number nine.
11.	Answered by number nine


GOVERNMENT SAVINGS BANK.
Mr. S. SHARPE asked :: 1.	What were the amounts on deposit in the Government Savings Department on October 1, 1889, October 1, 1896, and October 1, 1897 and 1898?


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: 2.	How many officials were employed in connection with the management of this fund in the years 1888, 1890, 1898, 1900 and 1908?
3.	Whait was the cost of management of this fund in the years 1888, 1890, 1898, 1900 and 1908?


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman will put his question in the form of a motion for a return the information will be furnished as early as possible.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands as a notice of motion for a return.


EXPENSE OF NEGOTIATING GOVERNMENT LOANS.
Mr. S. SHARPE asked:: What expense, including commission and brokerage, were incurred by the government on the various loans negotiated by the government since the year 1896 at a rate of interest in excess of 3 per cent?


William Stevens Fielding: The charges of the financial agents in London on the issue of loans since the year 1896 have been the same as those which were established for some years prior to that time. The charge for the sale of stock and bonds is ith of one per cent.
In case of redemption, no charge therefore is allowed to the bank where it has the issuing of a loan to retire the bonds redeemed, but if no loan is issued by it ith of one per cent is paid to the bank for redemption.
The bank is also paid the necessary out of pocket expenses for stamps, advertising, printing, brokerage, &c. The only new condition in connection with the business is that since 1904, to meet the established practice arising out of the changed conditions in the London money market, it has been deemed expedient to pay commission for underwriting. These commissions to underwriters (including brokerage) vary from one per cent to 1J per cent.


CATTLE-GUARDS AT RAILWAY CROSSINGS.
Mr. S. SHARPE asked:: 
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. There have been from time to time filed with the board individual complaints

against railway companies for failure to furnish suitable cattle-guards, and these have been dealt with specifically by the board in every instance. It will, however, take some time to go over the records of the board for the past five >cars to ascertain what these special complaints were.
2.	Whatever complaints have been made to the board, it has taken the matter up with the railway companies, and had suitable guards provided in accordance with the provisions of section 254 of the Railway Act.
3.	See answer to number two.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.
George Eulas Foster: What are the names, date of first appointment and present salary of the clerks in the Civil Service at Ottawa who under the present law and its proposed amendment will receive no increase?


William Stevens Fielding: Department.
Name.
Agriculture
Finance	
Inland Revenue
Interior	
Justice	
Library of Parliament .. Mines	
Printing and Stationery.
Privy Council	
Public Works	
Railways and Canals
. Fred Montizambert	
Wm. Saunders	
A. Blue	
J. G. Rutherford


Henry T.: Ross	
. T. Parent	
T. Burgess	
Jas. Hagan	
A. Kilmartin	
A. Devlin	
E.	R. Cameron....		
T. Morris	
F.	X. Desloges	
E.	F. Goodman	
D. A. Esdale	
G.	Randall	
A. LaFleur	
W. Emond	
J. Foley	
J. Foran	
C. Schreiber	
J. B. Charleson....	. ..
P. Canty	
L.	Belanger	
A. Dostaler	
T. G. Bell	 '
T. D. C. Caldwell	
O. Belanger


Mrs.   E.@: Lemoyne	
F.	O. Hamel	
M.	Laframboise


Mrs.  M. L.@: 
MR. JOHN LAMBERT PAYNE.
Mr. McKENZIE asked:: l.IsJohn Lambert Payne a member of the Civil Service of Canada?
2.	If so, is he of the inside or outside service?
3.	In which department of the Civil Service is the said John Lambert Payne employed, and at what salary?

4.	What are the office hours of the 6aid John Lambert Payne?
5.	Is the said John Lambert Payne authorized by the government to engage as public prosecutor against persons at Ottawa alleged to be lending money at unlawful rates of interest ?
6.	If so appointed, at what salary, for what
period and to which department does he report?	_
7.	How much of his time did the said John
Lambert Payne devote to said prosecutions since his appointment or since January 1, 1908 ?	,	,
8.	Was there any reduction made from the ordinary salary of the said John Lambert Payne for time devoted to said prosecutions? If so, how much?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister oi Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inside service.
3.	Department of Railways and Canals, at

4.	The same as all members Of the Civil Service.
5.	No.
6.	No.
[DOT]7. The department is not aware that any of his official time was taken up with the prosecutions referred to.
8. No.


BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY BELT LANDS.
Mr. GOODEVE asked:: 1.	Are the public lands in the railway belt
of British Columbia Dominion lands within the meaning of section 3 of the Dominion Lands Act?	.
2.	If so, why have settlers not received title?
3.	If not within the meaning of that Act, why not and under what authority are they administered?
4.	Have any homesteaders in that belt received Crown grants from the Dominion? If so, how many, and under what authority?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior.)
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1. Settlers have received title under the regulations prepared by authority of the Governor in Council, and patents have been issued to homesteaders from time to time on proof of the completion of required duties. These regulations are based upon the provisions contained in ' An Act Respecting Certain Public Lands in British Columbia,' being Chap. 59 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906 (formerly Chap. 56 Revised Statutes, 1886.)
3.	Clause 4 of the Dominion Lands Act excludes the lands in the Railway Belt of British Columbia from the operation of the Dominion Lands Act. Regulations for the administration of lands in the railway belt in the province of British Columbia are . Mr. McKENZIE.
provided by order in council of the 17th of September, 1889, and amending orders.
4.	Yes, 1740, under the authority of the regulations for the disposal of Dominion lands within the Railway belt in British Columbia.


SUMMER FISHING-LAC DU BONNET.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMPBELL (by Mr. W. H. Sharpe)
asked:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to open Lao du Bonnet for summer fishing? If so, on whose recommendation?
2.	Is a lease being granted to any person, firm or firms?
3.	If so, what are his or their names, and on what terms is the lease being granted?
4.	Have tenders for the summer fishing been called for? If not, why have tenders not been called for?
Hon. L. P. BRODETJR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Not as at present advised.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN IMPORTS.
Mr. SINCLAIR asked:: What percentage of Canadian imports entered Canada during the year 1908 by way of Canadian ports?
Hon. Wm. PATERSON (Minister of Customs.) I presume the question means Canadian seaports. We have arrived at the answer by a process of deduction which is the only way the information can be given.	. .
The total imports of the Dominion for the year ended March 31, 1908, for consumption were $358,428,616.
The goods entered for consumption from the United States amount to $210,652,825.
Leaving imports from countries other than the United States $147,775,791.
Goods from other countries imported through the United States, value $27,431,412.
Balance imported through Canadian seaports, value $120,344,379. Per cent 81i.


SANDY COVE BREAKWATER.
Mr. JAMESON asked:: Adverting to Sandy Cove breakwater, what are the names and addresses of the persons to whom money is yet owing, and what are the respective amounts due to eaoh for labour performed on the work, and for materials used in construction, respectively?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: No money is owing by the government, but the department is informed that the following amounts are owing by the contractors:

FOR LABOUR.	
Charles Beyea, Sandy Cove, N. S.	$ 51 76
Botsford Beyea, ,' .	71 56
Charles Burns, " .	2 13
William Cromwell, " .	2 13
Barlow Cromwell, " .	44 87
Edward Cahoon, " .	48 14
Ralph Crowell, " .	8 52
Maynard Cossaboom, " .	13 42
Solomon Dakin, " .	128 13
Amasa Eldridge, " .	48 41
Hay Eldridge, " .	2 36
Charles Ellis, " [DOT]	15 62
Charles Graham, " .	51 65
Delancey Graham, " .	5 68
Thomas Gribbins, " .	14 87
George Harrington, " .	104 23
L. J. Leblanc, " .	77 81
Slater Mitchell, " .	33 66
Daniel Morehouse, " .	45 24
Arnold Morehouse, " .	50 91
Desire Leblanc, " .	48 14
John Merritt, " .	2 84
Eddie McKay, " .	4 73
F'rank Saunders, " .	51 97
Ingraham Saunders, " .	42 18
Watson Saunders, " .	51 83
Oron Wagner, " .	51 12
J. W. Albright, " .	45 80
Henry Griffith,	. 6 34
Orie Morehouse, " .	39 20
William Bent, " .	56 52
Total		 .	$1,221 00
FOR MATERIALS.	
Howard Anderson, Digby, N.S.. .	17 33
Alfred Boutlier, Centreville. . . .	46 35


John E.: Crowell, Sandy Cove. .	17 33
Courier-Newspaper, Digby .. ..	1 00
Coran Cossaboom, Sandy Cove. .	1 75
Solomon Dakin, Centreville.. .	13 35
W. H. Eldridge, Sandy Cove . .	88 15
Amasa Eldridge, Sandy Cove. . -	35 45
Eddie Gaudet, Comeauville . . . .	20 81


Insular SS.: Co., Westport		2 80
D. G. Kirk, Antigonish		. 2,085 51
Lewis & Son, St. John, N.B. . .	100 00
Hugh Cann, Yarmouth, N.S. . .	70 00
Teseline Leblanc, Comeauville .	17 01
J. H. Morehouse, Sandy Cove *..	22 00
C. E. Morehouse, Sandy Cove ..	13 75
G. A. Morehouse, Sandy Cove .	7 20
Holland Outhouse, Tiverton .. .	6 63
B. A. Roney, Digby		1 00
F. A. Robinson, Digby		9 90
Watson Saunders, Sandy Cove *	27 17
W. E. Van Blarcom, Digby, N.S	1 00
W. W. Hayden, Digby, N. S. .	117 82
Total	 $2,723 31
Grand Total	 $3,945 08
MARINE DEPARTMENT-BOOK-KEEPING. Mr. LENNOX asked:
1. Has Mr. Kenneth Falconer done any work upon or in connection with the hooks 55
or book-keeping of the Marine and Fisheries Department since the investigation into his accounts in the Public Accounts Committee last session?
2.	Has the work undertaken by Mr. Falconer been completed? If not. why not?
3.	What is the date of the latest services rendered?
4.	What is the total of Mr. Falconer's claim, how much has he been paid, and has he an unsettled claim?
5.	What is the expense occasioned by change of methods in the department as the result of Mr. Falconer's work?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Mr. A. T. Doud, of Kenneth Falconer's firm was employed from the 5th June to the 10th August, 1908, 'inspecting ,the 'work established by the firm in the agencies. Mr. Doud was only paid his travelling expenses.
2.	Yes.
3.	From the 5th of June to the 10th of August, 1908.
4.	$42,223.17. Mr. Falconer has no claim against the department.
5.	The establishment of a new system of book-keeping did not necessitate the increase of the staff.


Haughton Lennox: What I meant by the fifth question was the expense of getting new books and all other such expense, not necessarily the change in the staff.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I will get that information.


BANFIELD CREEK LIFEBOAT.
Mr. BARNARD asked:: 1.	What was the cost of the Banfield Creek lifeboat and when was it purchased?
2.	Has the government made any inquiry
into the circumstances surrounding the wreck of this lifeboat? If so, what was the result of such inquiries?	_	_
3.	Upon what duty was the said lifeboat engaged when the wreck occurred?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to have said lifeboat repaired? If so, what is the estimated cost of such repairs and when will same be completed?
5.	Is the government, pending such repairs, making provision for protection of life from shipwreck in the west coast of Vancouver island? If so, what protection?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	$10,900. Contract made in May, 1907, delivered in November, 1907.
2.	Reports were obtained from T. Gillen, coxswain in charge of the station, and from the agent of the department at Victoria. As a result of these reports the coxswain was discharged and the crew paid off.
3.	The boat was at anchor in front of the station when the storm arose which destroyed the boat.
4.	The matter is engaging the attention of the department.



5.	The agent at Victoria has been instructed to place the Clo-oose lifeboat at Banfield and to obtain a proper crew for the boat.


UXBRIDGE POST OFFICE.
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: AVhen was the site for the Uxbridge post ofhce purchased, what site was selected, at what price, and from whom purchased?


William Pugsley: An order in council was passed on February 8th, 1909, authorizing the purchase from L. H. Hutchinson, for $1,200, of lot 4, block G, corner Brock and Spruce streets.


CARIBOO MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. BURRELL asked:: 
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	Payments made for the Ashcroft station. Clinton and Barkerville mail service.
From 1891 to 1897, British Columbia Express Co, $163,165; from 1898 to 1902, Kil-gour & Miller, $116,187.45; from 1903 to 31st Dec., 1908, British Columbia Express Co., $158,539.82. Total, $437,892.27.
2.	April 2, 1897.


WEEKLY MAIL-NOVA SCOTIA.
John Howard Sinclair: What number of post offices in the provinces ot JNova Scotia are accommodated with only weekly mails?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: forwarded by express to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on the 19th February and that other accounts will follow in a few days.
No payment has been made in connection with the expenses for holding the election in Humboldt.


BANK ACT.
Mr. MACDONELL asked:: Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to introduce this session an amendment to the Bank Act or a revision thereof, containing renewals of the bank charters which expire in 1911, with a view to affording the public an opportunity to consider any proposed amendments which may be thought desirable, between the present session and the next session of parliament?


William Stevens Fielding: No.
ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE STABLES. Mr. EDWARDS asked:
.v1'	weIe. tJle stables at the entrance to
the Royal Military College grounds ereoted and bv whom?
2.	Were tenders called for, and what was the amount of the original contract?
3.	What was the total cost of the stables?
4.	What are the dimensions of the building, and how many horses was it designed to accommodate?
5.	Has the building been in general use since its completion? If not, why not?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Date of contract, May 9, 1905 (b) H. W. Watts.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b) $6,990.
3.	$8,573.69.
4.	(a) 96 feet by 38 feet.
(b) 22 horses.
5.	(To be answered by the Department of Militia and Defence).


Righ Hon.   S@: 1, 2, 3, 4. Appertain to the Department of Public Works.
5. No use has up to the present been made of these stables, because the quarters being erected for the accommodation of the men who will look after the horses are not yet completed.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE COTTAGES.
Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	What is the estimated total cost of the 16 cottages constructed for the accommodation of the civil subordinate staff at Kingston Royal Military College including fittings, furnishings, &o.
2.	What portion of the work, in addition to the original contract, has been let by tender, to whom and at what price?
3.	Has any of the work been let without tender ? If so, what, to whom and the amount in each case?


Hon WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Original estimated cost, $96,000.
2.	Alterations to main drain and
lowering basement and inside
drain, M. Sullivan	$1,777.00
Change to pressed brick	 1,700.00
Electric wiring and fixtures, Halliday Electric Company.. 3,550.00 Outside connections, Halliday
Electric Company	 145.00
Heating, Mr. Sullivan .... 2,750.00
3.	Hot water boilers purchased from Cluff Bros, for $1,230, regular market price.


COST OP ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE STABLES.
Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	What are the dimensions of the building
at Kingston Royal Military College, referred to in the estimates as barracks accommodation for stables ?	_
2.	From whom were tenders received for construction of same, and amount of each?
3.	When and to whom was the contract awarded, and what did the contract coyer?
4.	What is the cost of the building to date and what is the estimated total cost of the building, fittings and furnishings complete and ready for use?
5.	Has any of the work been let without tender? If so, what portion, to whom, and to what amount in each case?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	35 feet by 41 feet; two stories and basement.
2.	M. Sullivan, $9,490; W. H. Godwin, Jr., and Enoch Godwin, Jr. $9,890; W. T. Chapman, $10,500.
3.	(a) M. Sullivan, on January 15, 1909. (b) Excavation, mason work, brickwork, carpenter work, plastering, galvanized iron work, plumbing, painting and glazing.
4.	(a) Nothing paid to date.
(b) $15,000.
5.	No.


RIVER DESLISLE FISHWAY.
Gustave Benjamin Boyer: For a cony of all correspondence, reports of inspectors and engineers relating to the position of a fishway at the entrance of the river at Deslisle, Soulanges.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no objection to bring down the correspondence with regard to the construction of the fishway, but as my hon. friend is aware the matter is now before the courts, and it would not be advisable to bring down the reports of the inspectors and engineers.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT . DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing:	1. At what work
the Translation Branch of the House of Commons is employed.
2.	The number of permanent translators in this branch.
3.	The total amount of salaries paid to these translators.
4.	The documents, reports and other matters which have been translated in this branch in the last twelve months, not including the pages already translated in the preceding year and repeated for the purposes of the report, nor the tables already made and translated and repeated for the purpose of completing these reports and documents, which have been most recently translated.
5.	The total number of pages translated by the permanent translators.
6.	The number of persons, outside of the Translation branch, to whom has been given translation work.
7.	How touch this outside work has cost, and how many pages have been translated in this way.
8.	What Blue-books, if any, and other matters, excepting ' Hansard/ are translated in other departments other than the Translation branch of the House of Commons, and in what departments.-Mr. Boyer.
All prepared correspondence between the government and the government of British Columbia with reference to the reduction of Indian reserves in that provinoe proportionately to the decrease of Indian population as provided for by order in council.-Mr. Barnard.	.
For a return showing the average number of men employed in every capacity in the working, maintenance and repairs of the Carillon and Grenville canals during each of the following months :	July and August,
1906 and 1908, September and October, 1907 and 1908; and the total outlay for wages and salaries, also the total expenditure of every kind in connection with the said canal during each of those months.-Mr. Perley.
For a return showing how many bushels of seed wheat were bought for Saskatchewan and Alberta for the season 1908, who it was bought from, at what price, and what grade it was; if the wheat so bought was cleaned for seed; how the wheat so bought was used; whb it was sold to, and at what prices; the total loss in connection with the wheat so bought.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
For a return showing how many bushels of English oats were bought for seed in Saskatchewan and Alberta for the season 1908, and at what prices; the condition the oats were in before and when they were bought; if used for seed or sold; who they were sold to and at what prices; the total loss in connection with the oats bought in England, and any complaints there were about them.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
For a copy of all correspondence, documents and papers relating to the construction, or proposed construction, of a line of railway from a point at or near Caledonia to Liverpool, not exceeding 29 miles referred to in the Acts of 1903, chapter 57, section 23d, and all orders in council, reports, contracts, agreements and other papers relating to the same matter.-Mr. R. L. Borden.
For a copy of all correspondence since January 1, 1907, between the government and the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers, respecting interest due or overdue on advances made by way of loans to these bodies by the government.-Mr. Ames.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing the names and addresses of all half-breeds living in the United States who have been allotted scrip since January, 1902, and to whom said scrip was bent or delivered.-Mr. Bradbury.

Mr. A. H. CLARKE (South Essex) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, orders in council, papers, and other documents relating to the disallowance, or application therefor, of an Act of the legislature of the province of Ontario, intituled: ' An Act respecting Cobalt late and Kerr lake,' being chapter 15 of the statutes of 1907.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is one which I think calls for some remarks in this House, owing to the widespread interest which has been taken in the Act in question-an Act which has been described as one of confiscation of private rights, which has been described by one of the ablest judges in the province of Ontario as a violation of the eighth commandment, ' Thou shalt not steal; ' an Act which has been condemned in the most severe terms, not only by party papers, but by independent newspapers and financial papers in this country, and by some of the leading financial papers of the motherland. The Act is one of paramount importance to the parties immediately concerned, the Florence Mining Company, because, if the contention of that company is correct, one of the fundamental bases of constitutional government has been violated. If the position of that company is correct, the Florence Mining Company was entitled to a valuable claim in the township of Coleman, in what is commonly known as the Cobalt district; if their contention is correct they were, by virtue of discovery, by virtue of survey, by virtue of all the formalities required to comply with the general statutes of the province, entitled to the valuable property which shortly afterwards was conveyed by the government of the province of Ontario for a large sum of something over $1,000,000. It may be good policy from a financial standpoint to take away the property of people in order to increase the revenues of the province; it is all very well for most people to look on complacently and see the government confiscate the property of certain individuals in order that they may share in the spoils, but it is not much fun for the people whose property is thus taken away. It is not my intention to go into the merits of the case pro or con. What I say is that this company has been deprived by an Act of the legislature of Ontario, not only of what they say is their property, but of their privilege which any citizen has to go into the courts and establish their right to that property.
Now, what are the facts of the case? Under an Act of the province of Ontario, the General Mines Act, any person who Mr. BRODEUR.
makes a discovery of any property open for exploration, surveys it, marks it out and complies with the conditions prescribed, has a vested right in that property; the statute gives him a right to hold that property, a right to work that property, a right to obtain his title in due course. That is the position which they take. The dispute has been as to whether this property was open for exploration. Undoubtedly up to August, 1905, it was open for exploration. About that there is no dispute. By an order in council passed on August 14, 1905, by the Ontario government, the Cobalt lake and some other properties were withdrawn from exploration; about that I think there is no dispute. Shortly afterwards the whole township of Coleman, in which these properties were situated, was withdrawn from exploration. But an order in council was passed in October, 1905, the effect of which, it is claimed by the Florence Mining Company, to be that the township of Coleman was again open to exploration. That was the state of the case in December, 1905, when Mr. Green took it into his head, with Major Gordon and some other associates, to explore the bed of the Cobalt lake. They went to Haileybury; they went to the recorder's office; they went to the Crown Lands office in Toronto; they say they were furnished with maps; they were furnished with particulars which assured them that this township was open for exploration. They went to a considerable amount of expenditure; they obtained a diamond drill, and on the 7th of March, 1906, after prospecting for some time and after a great deal of expense, they made a valuable discovery as a result of their operations. Accordingly they then became entitled to get a patent, to get a registration of their claim. They went to the proper authorities and made their application, and then they were told that, notwithstanding what had happened, they were not entitled to their claim, that this property was not opened for exploration at that time. They contest that issue. They say it was open for exploration. They say:	We went to your department; we
got the land from your department; we were going on exploring, and it is not fair now for you to say after all this that it was withdrawn from exploration and that we have no rights in it at all.


George Eulas Foster: At what date was it they alleged they got that information?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Along some time in December, 1905, or January, 1906. The order in council was made in the previous October, which, they say, opened it for exploration. The matter went on; they said they would bring suit. First of all, they said, we will establish our claim; we will prove to you that it was open for exploration; the maps that were made showed it was open for exploration. But instead of

accepting the issue, instead of giving them a hearing, the result was that by an Act, chapter 12 of the statutes of 1906, assented to on the 14th of May, the order in council was set out, and it provided that:
Notwithstanding that at or before the time of the passing of such order in council, a discovery or discoveries was or were made, or was or were alleged to have been made on such lands or any part or parts thereof, and notwithstanding that some claim or claims to the mining rights, mines or minerals therein or thereon was or were at or before suoh time pending.
So this statute does not authorize the sale of the property, it simply says that the rights acquired by discovery or otherwise shall be set aside and shall not be rights at all.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: What was the date that the discovery was filed with the department?


Alfred Henry Clarke: On the 7th of March, 1906; that is when the discovery was made, and registration was applied for immediately afterwards. Notwithstanding that fact, the Florence people pressed their contention and they have pressed it to the present time. The next step, I think, was when action was brought by the Florence Mining Company on the 26th of December, 1906. That action was brought against the Cobalt Mining Company to whom the government had in the meantime sold the property, as I have said, for something over $1,000,000. That action had been commenced about the time the patent was granted. But if that were not enough, surely if they had the right to do that, it was not necessary to follow it up by an Act of the legislature to confirm it. But in the following April another Act was passed, which was assented to on the 20th April, 1907, which confirmed the sale which the government had made, and declared the property to be vested in the purchasers:
As and from the date of the said sales absolutely freed from all claims and demands of t-verv nature whatsoever in respect of or arising from any discovery, location or staking.
Nothing stronger could be stated in an Act of parliament to take away the rights, if they were rights, of those people who had made the discovery, and who claimed they were entitled to this very valuable property. The Florence Mining Company, so strong in their claim of right, exhausted every constitutional means to maintain the right to their property. I understand they applied to the Lieutenant Governor to refuse his assent to the Bill. That attempt not succeeding, they petitioned His Excellency in Council to disallow the Act. In the meantime the case was coming on for trial. Three or four times it came up, and no decision upon the petition for disallowance had been made, the trial was postponed in
order to see the result of the petition for disallowance. Finally, I think it was in April 1908, a report was made, and His Excellency decided not to disallow the Act, and that is my excuse for bringing the matter up in this House. If the ground for refusal to disallow had been that His Excellency agreed with the reasons given for passing the Act, then I think that this House ought to censure the government which advised such a course. If, on the other hand, the reason for disallowance was that it was a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, whether right or wrong, whether confiscation, or robbery, or theft, as has been suggested, then it may be that the Dominion government was right, and that we should not interfere with provincial matters. Certainly we have the power to interfere, certainly I think His Excellency has the prerogative right to disallow, whether it is because an Act is beyond the jurisdiction of the province or whether, in the interest of the whole country and as a matter of political expediency, it ought to be disallowed. I understand that the reason given for not disallowing was that it was a matter within the jurisdiction of the province. The case came on for trial before Mr. Justice Riddell. Notwithstanding the refusal to disallow, the plaintiffs say that the principles of Magna Charta have been violated, we will go to the foot of the Throne and see whether, under the constitution of Canada, any government has a right to take away the property of people without compensation. The case came before Mr. Justice Riddell upon trial. He said that the 8th commandment, 1 Thou shalt not steal,' does not apply to the local legislature, that they have a right to steal the property of other people if they wish, there is nothing except what is physically impossible they cannot do, and he said they must seek other remedies in order to get justice on account of the claims which they are making. He said they did not intend to speak on the merits of the case; he said he did not pass on the question whether or not at the time of the discovery the property was open for exploration, or whether, as contended by the government in Toronto, the property had been withdrawn from exploration. But the fact remains that no person disputes that that Act did take away from these petitioners the right they had to go to the courts, the right that any other person would have to vindicate, and press, and prove the right which he claimed to have. The proposition was made, during the controversy, it is alleged, that the matter should be referred to the Court of Appeal, and that the Court of Appeal should decide whether or not the property was open for exploration, the parties to be bound by the decision. That also was refused. I am not questioning the good faith

of the Ontario government, though their conduct was such as to cause comment, and here is the fact that they did refuse even such a reasonable offer as this. The Act of 1906 barred the claims of the Florence Mining Company, and the whole three readings of that Bill were put through in one day. I do not know why this was done. I do not say that the provincial authorities were not acting bona fide, but I am sincere in saying that all the conduct of the Florence Mining Company in the matter indicates that they believe that they were given these rights and that this Act of the province of Ontario has, beyond doubt, taken away from them a property worth more than a million dollars without compensation, property to which they are entitled by virtue of the general law of this province. The case has gone to the Court of Appeal, and stands there for judgment, and it will probably go to the foot of the Throne. Whether they will succeed or not, we cannot foretell. But, in view of the strong interest that is being taken in this by financial concerns, let me read a comment upon it from the Toronto ' Financial Post ' of January 15, 1909:
The whole matter is the subject of considerable discussion. One writer points out in a very able argument in the current number of the ' Canada Law Journal ' that ' the numerous judgments recently given which uphold the doctrine that there is no appeal from the action of a provincial legislature so long as it confines itself to subjects committed to it by the British North America Act have created a widespread feeling of alarm among men concerned with financial affairs. The well-grounded idea that the rights of property are less secure in Canada than in the United States and Great Britain, or as one eminent financier puts it, than even in Mexico, is not calculated to encourage the flow of capita] to this country. On the contrary, it puts us at a decided disadvantage as regards every kind of investment and industrial enterprise. The capitalist looking for investment sees that in the United States legislatures are not allowed to make or enforce any law which shall prejudice the privilege or immunities of the citizen of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the protection of the law. Coming to this country, he finds that the courts have concluded, contrary to the plain intention of the framer of our constitution that, in dealing with the rights of property concerning which they have exclusive jurisdiction, our provincial legislators are not bound to regard the provisions of Magna Charta or that still earlier code the Ten Commandments/
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association have dealt with the matter. The council of that association discussed it, and made the fallowing recommendation:
Pending the appeal to the Privy Council in the above case no action need be taken, but Mr. A. H. CLARKE.
your committee are strongly of the opinion that should the Privy Council uphold the action of the Ontario legislature, prompt measures should be taken to provide a remedy, even though it require an amendment to the British North America Act.
This, so far as I can see, is the general sentiment of the independent press. Although, in one sense, it may be an advantageous thing to take away the property of people to enrich the treasury of the province, still, if that is done to-day in one case it may be done to-morrow in some other case, and the security which has heretofore been enjoyed in respect of property and civil rights will become a thing of the past. Fortunately, these things do not happen very often. But I certainly think this return ought to be made in order that the public records of the House may show that in refusing the petition for disallowance His Excellency in Council did not countenance the character of legislation contained in the Act I have referred to.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe).: I desire to ask the hon. member (Mr. A. H. Clarke) if this matter has not been dealt with by Mr. Justice Riddell, and, if so, will he not quote Judge Riddell's opinion?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Probably the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. Currie) did not hear me? What Mr. Justice Riddell said was that, so far as the courts are concerned, they had no authority to grant the relief asked for; that it was a matter for the legislature to answer to the people and to the authorities; that, so far as the courts were concerned, the legislature had the right to take away the property of people and violate every principle of honour, and the courts could not interfere. For that reason, I say, some other relief ought to be granted, so that the rights of people may not be taken away from them in so summary a fashion.


Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval).: I am thankful to my hon. friend from Essex for stating the facts of this case in the fair manner he has done. I understand that in March, 1905, one Green discovered, at the bottom of Cobalt lake, a silver mine, that he registered his claim in the recorder's office, and afterwards transferred his interest to a company known as the Florence Mining Company. Then a law was passed confirming the title of another company known as the Cobalt Lake and Kerr Lake Mining Company. Legislation has been passed by the Ontario government confirming the second-named company in their title, notwithstanding the claim or rights of the Florence Mining Company. We are now called upon in this House to express an opinion whether His Excellency the Governor General was right in refusing to disallow or rather in refusing the petition of the petitioners asking for the disallowance of that law. I do

not think it is necessary for the moment to enter into the merits of the cause of action accompanied by an injunction of the Florence Mining Company against the Cobalt Lake and Kerr Lake Company. A decision has been passed upon this case by His Lordship Mr. Justice Kiddell. Could my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke) give me the date of that decision?


Alfred Henry Clarke: The decision was given June 15, 1908.


Charles Avila Wilson: I read with great interest the judgment of Mr. Justice Riddell and especially the quotation already cited by the hon. member for Essex 'Thou shalt not steal,' and I quite agree with his lordship. I do not think the law passed by the Ontario Legislative Assembly was a right and true one. But this is not the question for the moment. Reviewing the history of confederation, I find that the provinces which entered into the compact of that union, a contract which they signed freely, deprived themselves of the rights which they had enjoyed during the union and before. I understand that the King is the King within the provinces as well as here in Ottawa, that his power is the same, that the King can do no wrong here in this House of Parliament and he can do no wrong when he is advised according to the opinion of his ministers and acts through the ordinary work of either the parliament of the Dominion or the legislative as sembly of any one of the provinces. The jurisdiction of the provinces is limited to their territory, and their power of legislation is confined to that territory. If an Act or a Bill has been assented to, has been discussed in the legislative assembly, has been authorized by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of that province, it is a law. If that law is intra vires, it does not come within the scope of this parliament to advise disallowance. If that Act is ultra vires then it is for the courts of this country to decide upon it and to have it so declared. After confederation, I would rather say one year after the confederation had been adopted by the imperial authorities, many cases of disallowance had already been sent up to Ottawa to be commenced or disallowed. The Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, then Prime Minister of this country, thought it proper, necessary and useful, in order to give the parliament then sitting, coming parliaments and coming generations a true and right interpretation of clauses 56 and 90 of the British North America Act, to lay down a dictum that would be the rule in the future. What was that dictum? What was the rule then laid down? I shall quote from that state paper the very rules that are now dictated to us to follow, so that we may well understand the duties we are called upon to perform in relation to the disallowance of a provincial law.
Cases which the minister may consider
1.	As being altogether illegal or unconstitutional.
2.	As illegal or unconstitutional in part.
3.	In cases of concurrent jurisdiction as clashing with the legislation of the general parliament.
4.	As affecting the interest of the Dominion generally.
These are the rules then laid down by Sir John Macdonald, the then Prime Minister, on June 8, 1868. Are we to understand that this Act passed by the parliament of the province of Ontario is totally illegal and unconstitutional? I would respectfully submit that this is not my view of the Act. I ^ understand, and in tins 1 nave been convinced by the different precedents thai were decided since confederation, and mainly by the precedent of a case coming from the same legislature which had passed an Act to protect the public interest in rivers, streams and creeks, the famous case of McLaren and Caldwell. This case was the subject of an interesting debate in 1882, and I would consider is much in common with the present case, because it related to private rights in a creek on some timber limits, the property of Mr. McLaren at the time. Mr. McLaren had erected certain works in order to hold back the water to float his timber during the spring, summer and autumn freshets. In rear of the timber limits of Mr. McLaren, Mr. Caldwell bought some limits, and when in the spring Mr. Caldwell started to float his logs there was an objection on the part of Mr. McLaren, whd contended that he had certain private rights in the dam he had erected across the stream to float his logs.
An action, known as the case of Caldwell vs. McLaren, was taken to define the right of a party to float his timber down to market. The case came up exactly as the present, before Mr. Justice Proudfoot. The judgment then rendered was a judgment ab inconvenienti, to use a legal expression. Mr. Justice Proudfoot rendered judgment in the sense I have just mentioned in order to give an opportunity to the unsuccessful party to have a decision from the court of appeal. After the decision of his lordship was rendered there was a law passed and that law was, as the preamble says, to protect the public interest in rivers, streams, and creeks. This Act came up for the approval or disapproval, as the case might be, of His Excellency the Governor General in Council. The Act was disallowed for the reason that a judgment had been rendered and then this law was enacted ex post facto. The case went to appeal after the decision of Mr. Justice Proudfoot and while the appeal was pending the law was passed by the legislative assembly of Ontario and came up here for approval. The Act, as I have said, was disallowed, and the judgment of the court of appeal rendered. The law was no longer in existence

when the judgment of the court of appeal was delivered. This is the dictum of his lordship who pronounced the judgment of the court.
Having reached the conclusion that all streams are by public authority dedicated as highways to at least the extent essential to the defence in this action, I have only further to remark that when the obstruction which stood in the way of the enjoyment of the legal right is removed, when the traveller by land or lumberer seeking to float his lumber down a stream, finds the highway unobstructed, he is at liberty in my judgment, to make use of it without inquiring by whom, or with what motive, the way has been made practicable. He finds the rock on the road allowance blasted, or the chasms that crossed it bridged, and he pursues his journey along the highway thus improved; or he finds that the freshet covers all obstacles with a sufficient depth of water, and he floats his logs down the high-wav thus made useful. If may be in appearance and perhaps in reality rather hard on the man at whose expense what was a highway only in legal contemplation becomes one fit for profitable use, has to allow others to share in the advantage without contributing to the cost. That is, however, a matter for his own consideration when he makes the improvements.
This question is one of private rights and, according to subsection 13 of section 92 of the British North America Act, the provincial authority is the only authority to deal with these matters. We are not here to sit as a court of appeal hut we are here to respect the authority and autonomy of the provincial government. This might be the proper time to ask under what circumstances, when, how, and why His Excellency the Governor General, under the advice of his ministers, may disallow Acts of provincial legislatures. As I remarked at the start, I understand that the local legislatures have the power to pass legislation within the scope of their jurisdiction; that is to exercise powers within the limits prescribed by the British North America Act. If the proyince undertakes to legislate in such a way as to affect the rights of another province, it would be illegal and unconstitutional, and under such circumstances the Dominion government may intervene and disallow the legislation. Now, take another instance. If a province should undertake to enact legislation which would deprive a company holding a federal charter of the right to exercise its powers and privileges within the different provinces that might be an occasion to intervene. Then, take another case. The legislation of a province might clash with the legislation of another country, with the legislation, for instance, of our neighbours! the United States; that might be a case where it would be proper for the federal government to intervene. But it is not the case nor is it any remedy for the harsh and unjustifiable situation in which Mr. C. A. WILSON.
Mr. Greene and the Florence Mining Company find themselves. But, I respectfully submit that there is one remedy: Let those who have sinned repent in due time. I do not quite agree with my hon. friend from Essex when he states that all legal means have been exhausted. If I were the counsel for the Florence Mining Company I would advise them to go to appeal, because I think the court of appeal might render a decision quite different from the one that was rendered by the judge in the first instance, without commenting in any wise on the judgment of his lordship, Mr. Justice Riddell. As to whether all legal means have been exhausted, or as to whether the time for appeal has expired, I would not like to risk an opinion because I am not familiar with the law of procedure of the province of Ontario. The last resort which has been indicated by my hon. friend from Essex, that is that the case may go as far as the foot of the Throne, may be a very efficient one, but there is a simpler way. The remedy lies with the legislature of the province of Ontario. The parties who have been aggrieved may seek a remedy from the legislature, may ask for redress, and have no doubt if their claim is a just one they will be heard, their representations will be weighed and justice will be done.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (Algoma West).: I cannot allow this motion to pass without saying a few words in reply to the very caustic criticisms to which my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Clarke) has subjected the measure which the Ontario government saw fit to pass and which has not been disallowed. My hon. friend indulged in invectives with regard to the effect of the measure; he seemed to roll like a sweet morsel round his tongue the idea that there was an interference with private rights, a stealing of some lands, a taking away from somebody that which belonged to that somebody, or, depriving somebody of a right which by law that somebody possessed; a right whether inchoate or vested. I submit in the first instance that in his conception of the position of matters under this Act, my hon. friend (to whose legal ability I would pay the highest tribute) has taken a mistaken view of the whole situation. What was the situation as it presented itself at this time to the Ontario legislature? Why, there is no doubt at all that it was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Ontario legislature to make laws, and within the right of the government to pass orders in council with reference to the mining regulations of the province of Ontario, and particularly to make special regulations with respect to withdrawing territory found upon inquiry to be rich in minerals. Now, the regulations had been made at this time and were in force when the staking took place in Cobalt lake upon which the Florence Mining Company base their claim. But over and

beyond that, in order to preserve a portion of the territory to Ontario -which was supposed to he more than usually rich in mineral, the Lieutenant Governor in Council saw fit to pass an order in council on the 14th August, 1905, withdrawing from exploration for minerals that portion of the district of Nipissing in which lies the bottom of Cobalt lake. In the preservation of any mineral area in an excited period of prospecting there must be heart burnings and there must be disappointment. The Florence Mining Company, a speculative company having absolutely no vested rights,- my hon. friend to the contrary notwithstanding-went into that field as a speculator, acquired what they believed to be speculative rights from prospectors and built upon these speculative rights, to run up against an order in council duly passed in pursuance of the legislative jurisdiction.


Alfred Henry Clarke: What about the order in council of the 30th of October which opened up that territory for prospecting?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Whether it was the order in council of the 30th of October or that of the 14th of August, it made no difference because the Ontario government had the absolute right to close or to open that territory as they saw fit.


Alfred Henry Clarke: You don't understand me.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If there was a staking by any one in the meantime, that staking did not take place under any law of the province of Ontario or any regulations made under law dealing with the mining rights of the province. Such staking could not under the law give the right to any one to claim a piece of land as against the government.


Alfred Henry Clarke: You do not catch my point. I quite agree that by the order in council of August the property might have been withdrawn from exploration. My question was: What do you do with the order in council of October following which opened it, as it is alleged, for exploration. The opinion given by two or three leading lawyers, Mr. Ritchie being one, was that that order of October again opened up the territory for exploration.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend will bear in mind that that order in council did not apply to this territory.


Alfred Henry Clarke: It applied to Coleman township.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It did not apply to this territory.


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is their claim; they say it did.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am dealing with facts; I am instructed and I believe I am correct
in stating that that order in council of October did not at all touch the area in question, which remained closed.


Mr. CONMEE.: Would my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Certainly.


James Conmee: Cobalt lake is within Cobalt township. Suppose it did cover Cobalt lake, what is the hon. gentleman's answer then?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend (Mr. Con-mee) must pardon me if I decline to soar into the heights of hypothesis with him. He is such a visionary gentleman himself with regard to some of his legislation and some of his questions in this House that I do not desire to attempt to cope with him in his flights of imagination. Any gentleman whose imagination can soar so high as to believe that the Nipigon river is an international waterway, far excells me in any flight of imagination I could hope to take. I will not discuss an hypothesis with him, but I shall deal with the argument of my hon. friend from Essex. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) must know, as a lawyer, that the question with regard to the right of the applicant under the Mines Act of Ontario to obtain a patent has been tested time after time. Even though the applicant proceeds to the fullest extent under the regulations he must come to the point at which he has got to ask the government to give him a patent, and. then comes the question as to whether he is entitled to insist upon a title to his patent and whether he has the right to compel the government to give to him of the public domain. My hon. friend must also see that there is always the right in the Crown to withdraw for the public good any part of the public domain. That was what the Ontario government did, and the Act of which he complains was merely a confirmation of the order in council which did withdraw that land and which was not subsequently put back by order in council, as I am instructed, and as I believe to be the fact. The disposition of public lands, as my hon. friend well knows, is a matter of discretion; it is not a matter of absolute law. It cannot be enforced as against the Crown, and therefore the Crown had discretion to withdraw, and it did withdraw this land from sale. I do not know that the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) as to this being such a tremendous outrage on the people of Ontario are very well timed. I do not know that they would appeal very strongly to the right hon. the Prime Minister. I fancy the right hon. gentleman may imagine that some invidious comparisons might be made as between the position taken by the Ontario government in this connection and that taken by this federal government in multitudinous other connections. For instance, here was a case where the Ontario

government in the exercise of its right over the public heritage had the temerity and the courage to pass an order in council to preserve for the people of this province an area of land of undoubtedly great value. And for what purpose did the Ontario government do this? Was it to give it away to a few speculators, a few grafters, a few bogus companies of political friends, a few gentlemen closely in connection with the department who knew how to manipulate and to get land, valuable lands, for nothin? Oh, no. The Ontario government held this land in order that the revenues of the province of Ontario might be strengthened and increased by the opening of that land to public competition in the fairest and most honest manner possible so that the full value of that land might be obtained in the open market and placed to the credit of the whole people in the provincial treasury.
Is that stealing? Was it stealing, in the exercise of the right of the Crown, to get $1,080,000 for that which under the old regime the government would have got a few paltry hundreds for? It may be an outrage on the policy followed by this government; it may be a very great shock to the consciences of those hon. gentlemen who were witnesses to the exposure of the timber deals of last session, that the Ontario government was so absolutely wanton as to save for the people of Ontario a million dollars where somebody close to the government might otherwise have received the same land for a few hundreds. Sir, the doctrine which my hon. friend has rolled as such a sweet morsel under his tongue. Thou shalt not steal,' is hardly applicable m this connection. The keenest critic of the mining policy of the Ontario government cannot but see that in every step in a difficult position, in dealing with large interests, the Ontario government has endeavoured in every respect to conserve the interests of the people of Ontario, and to preserve for the people, and not for the speculator, the political hanger-on or the grafter, the resources of that province. The mining policy of the government of Ontario has been submitted to the people of Ontario, and the people of Ontario, by a somewhat emphatic, perhaps a somewhat exaggerated, expression of opinion, have approved of that policy. One of the strongest objections raised to a renewal of the confidence of the people of Ontario in the Whitney administration during the last election was this very question in regard to the interference of the government with private rights in Cobalt lake, and the people almost unanimously

there were very few derelicts left from that storm-approved of the government's policy. My hon. friend contends that there should still be some interference from here. Well, the matter has not only been before the people of the province of Ontario, but it has been before an impartial Mr. BOYCE.
judge, the Minister of Justice, who has examined this legislation, doubtless bestowing upon it that critical examination which his high legal abilities and attainments specially qualify him to give it. I do not suppose for an instant that the hon. Minister of Justice, in that examination, would be prejudiced or biassed one way or the other. I certainly do not think he would be prejudiced or biassed in favour of continuing the legislation if there was a doubt in his mind of its constitutionality. If there had been such a doubt in his mind, I would rather suppose that my hon. friend, from motives of public policy, would under the circumstances lean in the direction of the disallowance of the legislation, from certain comments which have been attributed to him in the public press before the matter came under his consideration. I have only this further to say to my hon. friend, that I think that upon reconsideration he will see that his strictures upon the morality of the measures are quite out of order-that the only motive appearing to underly it was to carry out that wise policy of conserving the resources of the province of Ontario that was introduced shortly after the present Minister of Lands and Mines came into office, and has been since adhered to and carried out to the great enrichment of the province of Ontario. This is a class of cases of which we have had numerous instances. My hon. friend will doubtless remember the case of Dwyer vs. the town of Port Arthur in which some particular legislation was referred to in order to validate a by-law as to which certain proceedings had not been taken. The legislature passed an Act allowing the by-law as if the necessary proceedings had been taken. They were proceedings for the preservation of the rights, not of one individual, but of the public generally. The legislation dispensed with them, litigation arose, and the courts decided in favour of the statute. The Act upon which my hon. friend has bestowed his comments was certainly an Act for the preservation of the rights of the people as against the rights of the speculator. It was an Act passed on the lines of a wise policy; a policy which has been inaugurated by the present Ontario government in the administration of the magnificent mining areas of the province, and I think very little fault is to be found with the legislation, having successfully passed through the examination of the Minister of Justice, and having received the universal approval of the people of Ontario as wise and economical legislation.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the interesting question brought up by my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Clarke), the question of disallowance. I take the facts as stated by him. He states that under

an Act and regulations of the Ontario Government, a certain party went and prospected on a certain mining property, performing all the conditions of the Act and of the regulations, and made application for the property; that subsequently the Ontario government passed an order in council annulling its former regulation by which the lands were opened for settlement. I am taking the particulars as stated by my hon. friend, for I know nothing about the matter myself. His statement is that the party in question complied with the law, and was therefore entitled to a patent for the mining section. There is no doubt that he was, and that the courts would order a patent to issue to him. There is no doubt that under the British North America Act the jurisdiction over civil rights and property is vested in the provinces.
The province rightly or wrongly - my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) contends that the province was right, and my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Clarke) says it was wrong-the province, by an order in council withdrew these lands from sale, or virtually annulled, as far as they could, the right these parties had to the property. Now, the question arises whether they had jurisdiction under the section of the British North America Act giving them control of property and civil rights. My hon. friend said he would like to see this question decided by the courts, but I think perhaps they would decide that, where jurisdiction is given to the provinces over property, they only have the right to legislate in regard to the same. My hon. friend thinks that Judge Riddell in his judgment hinted as much. It has not been finally decided by the Privy Council, although in the case of the Temporalities Fund their judgment was strongly in that direction; it went this far. that the corpus, or the power that the British government had to deal with property, was given to the province, and, if they gave it to the provinces, then they have the absolute disposition of the property, they have the right to take it from one individual and give it to another without compensation. That question has not been clearly decided by the Privy Council. I think the question of disallowance, which the hon. gentleman mentions, is an interesting one. Why was this right of disallowance given to the Dominion government? It was absolutely given to us. Our contention long ago was that it was for the purpose of protecting private property as much as anything else. The argument made at the present day is an entirely different one, it is on the lines laid down by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson), that is, that where disputes arise between the provinces which might affect the rights of one or the other in reference to the
Dominion, in reference to international questions, in reference even to the raising of taxes which could interfere with the Dominion revenue-in all these, I suppose, the Dominion government has a right to exercise its powers of disallowance. So the question is not whether we are interfering in what-a province has absolutely jurisdiction over. But my hon. friend from Essex follows the doctrine which was laid down by his friends long ago. He has no right to complain of this disallowance. I remember in this House hearing the Hon. Edward Blake laying down the doctrine, that if a province had jurisdiction over the subject they had a right to do wrong if they liked, and it was none of our business to interfere. It is then none of the business of the hon. member for Essex to complain if they have done wrong in disallowing this Act.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I want the papers in order to show on what grounds they put it.


John Graham Haggart: Why has not the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. H. Clarke) the same influence with the government as the hon. member for Laval (Mr. C. A. Wilson), who read the order in council with the reasons


The Rt.   H@: CLARKE,. They are not public.


John Graham Haggart: They are public now. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. H. Clarke) has no right to complain. The doctrine which he now opposes was laid down by the Reform party when in opposition-that if a province had jurisdiction over a subject, the Dominion government had no right to interfere. I am not dealing with the merits of the case, whether this disallowance is or is not in the interest of the province. But I may say that, if I had my way, wherever a province interfered with the sacred right of the individual, that individual should have the right to apply to the Dominion government and ask for a disallowance of the law. I held that doctrine in reference to the Streams Bill. I am glad to find that some hon. members on the other side of the House who held contrary views to mine at that time are now disposed to agree with me.


Hon A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: As I do not intend to offer any opposition to the motion of my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke), I might, I suppose, without impropriety, leave to the coming down of the return asked for the answer to much of what the hon. gentleman has said in regard to the reasons which impelled me to give to His Excellency in Council the advice which I did give in this matter. But the question is of so much general interest, and so directly and intimately affects the principles of jthe

constitution under which we are carrying on the government of this country, that it seems to me I ought to say a few words before this motion is put in regard to the difficulties which arose in the consideration of this matter. In the first place, I wish to add an item to the circumstances as detailed by the hon. member who moves this resolution. There was not only the application for disallowance, to which he has referred, by those who were the assignees and successors in title of the man who said that he had made a discovery of valuable minerals under Cobalt lake in March, 1906, but there was an additional and independent-so far as appeared- application for disallowance made by one Henry Dreany, who asserted that he had recorded a claim in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario statute to a part of the bed of Cobalt lake on the 17th to 18th July, 1905, at a time when there never was any dispute but that this location was open for purposes of prospecting and exploration. He asserted that fact, at all events. His right, whatever it may he, as fixed by the actual step of recording his claim, was one of the rights which, under the legislation which has been referred to, were taken away, and his claim, as well as that of Green, or of the Florence Mining Company, who had bought from Green, were absolutely divested from him and from them and vested in the purchasers from the government, the company now claiming to own the property. So, in considering what advice ought to be given with reference to this legislation, there were the two claims to be taken into account. And I want it to be understood that, in coming to a conclusion as to the advice or recommendation I ought to give in the matter, I did not attempt in any way to pass upon-even in my own mind to pass upon-the justice or stability or validity of the claims in question; that, I think, is something with which no person is concerned except the parties directly interested. A much larger question, it seems to me, arises here. One of these claimants was asserting that he possessed the right and litigating that question in the courts. He or his company have demonstrated already by the expense to which they have gone that they have faith in their claim, that they are, in good faith, asserting that claim, that they are presenting it to the regular, constituted, judicial tribunals of the country for adjudication, and that they are prepared to back it up and establish it if an opportunity is given them to do so. So far as the other claimant is concerned, he has not, that I am aware of, entered upon litigation at all. Perhaps he has thought that it is too big a task for one man to undertake. He would have-as the litigation which is on foot has demonstrated-not only to fight a Mr. AYLESWORTH.
company, able, at all exents, to pay over $1,000,000 for the property involved, but to fight as well all the strength and all the financial resources of the Ontario government itself. And perhaps it is not to be wondered at that Dreany has not entered upon litigation with such a prospect as that before him, but that he simply asserts that the records show that he had made a discovery, and had recorded himself as entitled to the benefit of it, months before this property was in question at all or any order in council had been passed by the local government seeking to withdraw it from exploration and location. Now, application to disallow a piece of legislation which purported to vest property, to which there were adverse claims, in some other person or some other purchaser presented itself for consideration. And, in what I have to say upon the subject to-day, I want, so far as possible, to discover the point of view which should be taken, I think, by any one occupying the position I have the honour to hold, and the point of view from which these matters may properly be looked at by a citizen and resident or property owner of the province of Ontario. The two are standpoints, which, I feel, necessarily differ very materially, and I want first to speak of this matter entirely from the standpoint of the official of this House, of the member of the government who is called upon to advise as to the course which His Excellency ought to take in a matter of this character. The large question of principle which was presented for consideration was simply whether or not the provincial legislature has the power, without control, to take one man's property and give it to another and to take away from the person injured any right of redress in the courts. It is sufficient to say without passing upon the validity in any way of the claim which was made by the man who says he was wronged, that he had a claim which in good faith he was presenting to the courts, and that the legislation in question, in so many words, took from him the right to litigate and declared in unmistakable language that the courts must award the property in dispute to his antagonist. Now, I think I may safely say-anid especially in view of the remarks which have just fallen from my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart)-that if this identical question had arisen before 1896 this legislation would have been disallowed. I think it is simply the misfortune of the applicants for disallowance that this occurrence did not take place before 1896, because, up to that time at any rate, the rule in such matters, so far as I am able to gather that rule from the records of the Department of Justice, and from the public records of this country, had been in accordance with the views which have to-day been enun-

ciated by the hon. member for South Lanark. And I will say at once that I believe that was the intention with which the framers of the British North America Act provided the right of disallowance in the statute. I am old enough to have a memory of the days before confederation, and dissever the point of view which should to remember as current events the views discussed in the newspapers of the time of the purposes and ideas and intentions of those who assembled at Quebec and framed the resolutions and_ what the earlier ideas of the relative positions of the provincial legislatures and Dominion government were, in the days before 1870. Speaking from that memory, as well as from the reports of the opinions that we have, I express the view here that, beyond doubt, the idea with which the power of disallowance was conferred upon the Dominion government was that it might be exercised upon principles such as have been stated by the hon. member for South Lanark this afternoon. Not only do I say that as a matter which I hold as within my own recollection, but I am fortified in more respects than one by official utterances to the like effect. In 1873, there was in question in the province of Ontario a very famous piece of litigation known as the Goodhue will case, in which the provincial legislature had passed an Act to make a new will for a very wealthy gentleman named Goodhue then not long deceased. On that measure coming under consideration of the Ontario courts, Chief Justice Draper, speaking in 1873, and speaking as a man who was not only at the time a distinguished and experienced judge and Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for the province, but also in the light and knowledge of an eminent statesman of the parliament of the two Canadas in the days before confederation, used this language:
Such Bills are still subject to the consideration of the Governor General, who, as the representative of the Sovereign, is entrusted with authority, to which a corresponding duty attaches, to disallow any law contrary to reason or to natural justice and equity.
That language is to be found in vol. 19 of Grant's Ontario Chancery Reports, at page 384. And no more distinct judicial utterance describing the purpose of the power of disallowance could well be found. These views then obtained. And, a few years later, in discussing the proposed disallowance of what is known as the Rivers and Streams Bill, passed by the Ontario legislature, Sir John A. Macdonald, in 1881, used this language in recommending disallowance:
I think the power of the local legislatures to take away the rights of one man and vest them in another, as is done by this Act, is exceedingly doubtful ; but assuming that such right does in strictness exist, I think it devolves upon this government to see that
such power is not exercised in flagrant violation of private rights and natural justice, especially when, as in this case, in addition to interfering with private rights in the way alluded to, the Act overrides a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction by declaring retrospectively that the law always was and is different from that laid down by the court.
But those views, expressed in 1873 and in 1881 were not the views merely of the earlier years of confederation, they were substantially repeated as lately as 1893 by the Hon. J. Aldric Ouimet as acting Minister of Justice. In referring to an Ontario statute then under consideration he used this language:
Assuming the statute to have the effect which the railway company attribute to it, the case would appear to be that of a statute which interferes with vested rights of property and the obligation of contract without providing for compensation and would therefore, in the opinion of the undersigned, furnish sufficient reason for the exercise of the power of disallowance.
So that not only in the earlier years of confederation but) as late as 1893, we have the most distinct statement by the minister of that day that if provincial legislation interfered with rights of property without providing compensation that circumstance afforded sufficient reason for the exercise of the power of disallowance. Speaking for myself I say at once that, perhaps from the influence of earlier education or perhaps from the consideration of maturer years, I entertain in all honesty and sincerity the view that it is of vital consequence to the well-being of this Dominion that the rights of the provinces to legislate within the scope of their authority should not be interfered with, and that every provincial legislature, within the limits prescribed for it by the terms of the British North America Act, is and ought to be supreme. I believe that this is a principle of greater importance to the welfare of this Dominion as a whole than even the sacredness of private rights or of property ownership. I am willing to go thus far in the enunciation of the views I am stating to this House, that a provincial legislature, having as is given to it by the terms of the British North America Act, full and absolute control over property and civil rights within the province, might if it saw fit to do so, repeal Magna Charta itself. I know no difference between that most sacred bulwark of liberty and of property to every British subject and any piece of legislation. I take it that no one would dispute the power of a provincial legislature to repeal the Habeas Corpus Act or any other, charter of liberty which Englishmen possess; and in precisely the same view I take the ground that rights of property are subject only to the control of provincial legislatures within Canada. Having that view it seemed to

me in considering this legislation that I was not, as advising His Excellency in Council called, upon to think at all of the injustice, of the outrageous character it might be of thei legislation, but that my one inquiry ought to be whether or not there was anything in the legislation itself which went beyond the power of the provincial legislature to pass a law referring alone to property and civil rights within the province. In that view I had the help c-f opinions which had been expressed by my immediate predecessors in office, the Hon. David Mills and the Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick, and I found in instances in which they had been called upon to consider legislation of somewhat similar character, an assertion of the principles to which my mind adhered and therefore, what I considered a safe resting place in precedent, even if I had not been prepared to make, if necessary a precedent for myself and to depart from the course which had been taken repeatedly before 1896. In 1901 the Hon. David Mills, in reporting upon legislation of a somewhat similar character, used this language:
The undersigned conceives that Your Excellency's government is not concerned with the policy of this measure. It is no doubt intra vires of the legislature and if it be unfair or unjust or contrary to the principles which ought to govern in dealing with private rights, the constitutional recourse is to the legislature, and the Acts of the legislature may be ultimately judged by the people. The undersigned does not consider, therefore, that Your Excellency ought to exercise the power of disallowance in such cases.
In the same year, speaking, with reference to legislation of thei province of British Columbia which was then under consideration, he said:
The undersigned bases his refusal to recommend disallowance upon the fact that the application proceeds upon grounds affecting the substance of the Act with regard to matters undoubtedly within the legislative authority of the province and not afiecting any matter of Dominion policy. It is alleged that the statute affects pending litigation and rights existing under previous legislation and grants from the province. The undersigned considers that such legislation is objectionable in principle and not justified unless in very exceptional circumstances; but Your Excellency's government is not in any wise responsible for the principle of the legislation, and as has been already stated in this report with regard to an Ontario statute, the proper remedy in such cases lies with the legislature or its constitutional judges.
A year later Mr. Fitzpatrick, reporting upon British Columbia legislation, used these words:
It appears that litigation was pending between the government and the petitioners, at the time of the passing of the Act, with regard to the peitioner's liability to pay these royalties; and no doubt a very strong case Mr. AYLESWORTH.
is made out by the petitioners in support of the view that the legislature should have allowed the existing law to operate and should not have undertaken to legislate so as to diminish or affect existing rights.
The undersigned cannot help expressing his disapprobation of measures of this character, but there is a difficulty about Your Excellency in Council giving relief in such cases without affirming a policy which requires your Excellency's government to put itself to a large extent in the place of the legislature and judge of the propriety of its acts relating to matters committed by the constitution to the exclusive legislative authority of the province.
I share these views. I believed, as I still believe, that this is the true spirit of our constitution. We have advanced since the days of 1867, or even of 1881 or 1893. The doctrine of provincial rights, which has always been, I am glad to think, the peculiar property of the political party of which I am a member, has of late years found strong supporters even in the ranks of our political opponents. We welcome this accession to the principles for which the Reform party in Canada has fought ever since confederation, and, acting on these principles and because I was brought up to believe in them and because I do sincerely and honestly think it is best for this country that each provincial legislature, within the sphere of its authority and jurisdiction, should be supreme and amenable only to its constitutional judges, the electors of its own province, I concurred in the opinions expressed and precedents laid down by my immediate predecessors. I shared their views and I acted upon them in this case. I advised my colleagues and, through them, His Excellency that this power of disallowance which was vested in us wa3 one which, in the interest of the commonwealth, it was better should not be exercised even though the Act which was sought to be disallowed went the length of taking my farm from my possession and handing it over without any compensation to my neighbour, or, it might be, to my political opponent. These are considerations entirely for the provincial legislature. It represents the people of the province; its members are elected by the same electors who send us to this House, and I certainly seek to put every provincial legislature, within the scope of its jurisdiction as laid down in the British North America Act, upon an absolutely level footing with the parliament of Canada itself so far as its legislation is concerned. I know no difference and can see no distinction to be drawn from the true reading of the language used in the British North America Act. Both this parliament and the different provincial legislatures have limits placed by that legislation upon their jurisdiction and legislative powers and it is of equal importance that each should keep and be kept entirely within its own

limits. It would not be proper, in declaring some provincial measure to be one which ought to be disallowed, that this parliament or its representatives, this government, or its Minister of Justice, should transgress the limits of the jurisdiction w*11?j British North America Act intended to confer upon them. My view was, and is, that any measure of this sort is regard to which the only appeal from the provincial legislature ought to be to the people who elect that legislature, and who, if they please, may dethrone the gov-of the day and deprive it of power. This was a question, it seemed to me, to have been fought out at the polls. This was not a question which it was right to relegate to the Minister of Justice or the government of the day at Ottawa, and ask that minister or that government to decide and. acting upon that view and no other, I gave the advice which I did in this matter.
Before taking my seat I want to say just one word, and I shall be extremely brief about it, with regard to this legislation looked at from the standpoint of the voter in the province of Ontario. I do not blink in the least degree the importance of the principle involved. I wish to state it in the plainest language at my command. It simply means, in my judgment, speaking as a voter of the province of Ontario, that our present provincial government, that our recent provincial legislature, have arrogated to themselves the right to say to any citizen of the province:	You shall not litigate;
it makes no difference how just you think your claim, we have the right to decide it and to deny you the open door of the courts; we have the right in this particular instance and we choose to exercise it. Of course, in this matter, the Minister of Justice did not act without sending to the representative of the Crown in Ontario, and, through him, to the provincial government, a copy of the representations which were made in asking the disallowance with the invitation that they should make any observations they might see fit in the way of an answer. When the papers come down the House will be possessed of the observations which the government of Ontario saw fit to make in regard to this legislation. I shall not go into that more than to say that one, at all events, of the nrincipal pounds upon which the propriety of the legislation in question was rested was that it affected the revenues of the province. No doubt it did. There was a million dollars hung up before the eyes of the voters of the province of Ontario, and because the Ontario government had secured from this operation the magnificent sum of $1,000,000 the voters of the province were asked to ratify what they had done and to say that it was a proper and legitimate transaction. I wonder if it occurred to any of my fellow electors
that the government of Ontario could at any time make a good many millions of dollars if they pleased for the revenues of the province by confiscating farms enough and by legislating those farms into the possession of anybody willing to pay for them. That exactly was the principle upon which this legislation was defended before the people of the province at the polls. My fellow voters, or a majority of them, seemed to have been content. I only trust that the day will never come when they may see reason to regret from personal experience that they did not condemn at tire polls, as it ought to have been condemned, thi3 manifest encroachment upon the rights of property and the right to resort to the courts of the province.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: I just want to say one word in view of the very extraordinary speech of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) in giving his reasons for not disallowing this Bill. I am bound to commiserate the minister upon being in the minority in two particulars. He is not only in the minority as a voter in the province of Ontario, but he is in the minority in his own party with regard to this question of provincial rights. In view of the strong statements he has made as to what caused him to advise the non-disallowance of the Act in question, I take this opportunity to urge upon the Minister of Justice to hold a special caucus of his party so that he may say these things emphatically to his supporters in this House and urge them to once in a while vote for provincial rights in the Railway Committee. The Minister of Justice is, I believe, himself a member of the Railway Committee; his name is called over and over again, and every time it is called there is silence. As these are the doctrines he is so anxious that parliament should carry out, I hope the Minister of Justice will during the session favour us with his attendance in the Railway Committee once in a while, and see that his followers there do not vote against provincial rights every time a railway charter involving provincial rights comes up for consideration.


Mr. GEORGE GORDON (Nipissing).: I did not intend to speak on this motion but as a shareholder in the Florence Mining Company I think I ought to say something.
I am a new member of this House, but already I have been surprised to find how time is frittered away by hon. gentlemen talking a great deal on things they know nothing about. I venture to say that the member for Essex who brought this question up to-day does not know whether discovery was made of mineral in place by the Florence Mining Company in Cobalt Lake, or by the party who turned it over to them. Does the hon. gentleman know that?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Do you know?


George Gordon: I am pretty sure I do know. 1 was a shareholder and I am a shareholder in the Florence Mining Company and I want to tell my hon. friend that the courts did perfectly right and treated the Florence Mining Company justly when they threw out their case. I do not believe the Florence Mining Comnany had a case at all. I do not believe there was a discovery of mineral in place, but I do believe that the Florence Mining Company had nothing upon which to back up their claim. When people who know nothing about a subject interfere, they are pretty certain to get into trouble. I say here to-day that I candidly and honestly believe that the Florence Mining Company never had a discovery of mineral in place, and never were entitled to the rights in that lake. And when the Minister of Justice speaks about the Ontario government as he did this afternoon, I want to tell him. so that he may understand the independence and honesty of the Ontario government, that the four names which were on the petition were the names of four prominent Conservatives. That, I believe, was done to endeavour to influence the Ontario government in some respect, but it resulted in failure. I am sorry to say that my name was put down on that petition and obtained in a manner it should not have been by any person who wanted to do the right thing. I was told that if I subscribed to the Florence Mining Company and put up $100 the same as the others were doing we would stand to make something very big, and that at the most we could only lose $100. I did not know at the time what they were driving at. I gave the money over and pledged my word to go in with these people before I knew what it was all about. I did not know what they were after, but I asumed that the gentleman who offered me such a prospect was doing something that he need not be ashamed of, and so I signed my name. But, afterwards when I found out what it was, and when I read the evidence, I came to the conclusion that they never had a discovery of mineral in place, and that they were not entitled to the property. I believe that the people who are justly entitled to that propery have it today. ,


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I rise for a moment to a question of privilege. I understand that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has said that he has heard mv name called time and again in the railway committee of which, he said, I am a member, and that I have not been present to assert provincial rights. I beg to inform the hon. gentleman that I am not a member of the railway committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Gordon: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As explanations are in order, I would ask the Minister of Justice to reorganize the management of that committee, and to see that his name is not called by the clerk of the committee every day.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: It would have been better if the Minister of Justice after delivering his very able and instructive speech upon this subject, had concluded without attempting to make an absolutely unwarrantable attack upon the Ontario government. This is not the place for that. In the previous portion of his remarks the Minister of Justice stated most distinctly that he was not called upon as Minister of Justice to pronounce either upon the justice or injustice of the legislation which had been passed, and having put himself in that position before this House, and speaking still as Minister of Justice he saw fit to indulge in very strong invective against men who are not here in place to defend themselves. To say the least such language was unwarranted by the occasion. I do not know any of the circumstances of this legislation, or of its allowance, but I am bound to say that any man who considers himself injured by legislation of that kind has always the right to go back to the legislature, make his arguments there, and ask that the injurious enactment be repealed. I had occasion to do that once myself in the legislature of Nova Scotia when certain legislation had been passed affecting rights which were then in litigation. I went to the legislature of Nova Scotia and after a very hard fight I succeeded in obtaining for my clients what I believed in that case to be justice. But I would like to say something more to the Minister of Justice. If the refusal to permit litigation of claims against the government is an outrage, as the Minister of Justice has declared, I would point out to him and to the Prime Minister, that in no less than in 30 or 40 cases arising in connection with the Post Office Department the government of Canada absolutely refused to certain men the right to litigate their claims. And, I would ask the Minister of Justice to begin his invectives against that administration of which he is a member, in view of his declaration this afternoon that a claim against the Crown whether in the right of the province or of the Dominion ought to be put into litigation when once that claim is made. I myself rose in this House not fewer than four or five times and I asked that a fiat should be granted in justice to the men whose contracts had been rescinded by the Postmaster General of the day upon the assumption that he possessed the authority in connection with these contracts, which authority was controverted bv the men with whom these contracts had been made. And. notwithstanding my repeated protests in this House and

notwithstanding that over and over again these men not only by petition to the Crown but on the floor of this parliament, have presented these claims, they never were permitted to be put in litigation, and to this day the claimants remain without the privilege of recourse to the courts of the land. It cannot be possible that the Minister of Justice is ignorant of all this. I would suggest to him that at the earliest possible occasion when he meets his colleagues in council he will use on them some of these forcible expressions to which he has this afternoon given voice, and insist, upon peril of his own resignation as a Minister of the Crown, that that right so long denied to these men shall be at once conceded, and these claims referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. TELEPHONE RATES IN CANADA.
Haughton Lennox: That in the opinion of this House the experience of the provinces which have taken over the telephone system and the evidence collected by a special committee of this House appointed to inquire into the question of telegrams and telephones more than four years ago, establish the fact that the people of Canada, outside the zone of provincially operated lines, are paying far higher rates for telephone service than they should be called upon to pay.
That i tis the immediate duty of the government to initiate and carry out such measures as will remove long existing abuses in this regard and secure to the people of Canada, ether than the people of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, a rate of service at least as moderate as, having regard to local conditions, nrevails countries where a national telephone service is maintained.
He said: Mr. Speaker: This is a business proposition, and I propose, in my activities in this House, to limit myself as far as possible to business propositions, and to endeavour to bring about, as far as I can, better conditions for the people generally. The question of an amelioration of our condition as regards telephone service is, comparatively speaking, new. It did not occur to our people perhaps as early as it did to the peonle of the United States, that we were not enjoving as good conditions in this respect as we were entitled to. Even in the United States, down to the year 1894. the Bell Telephone Company had practically a monopoly of the service in that country, and it was only about that time that the people began to awake to the fact, that thev could do better than to allow this monopolv 56
to continue. It was considerably later than that before it began to dawn upon us that we also were entitled to a better condition of things. Perhaps it was not until about the beginning of this century that we began to realize that we were paying too much, and not getting as good a service as we were entitled to; and from that time onward the feeling has been gradually growing stronger in Canada that we should do something to rid ourselves of the monopoly of the Bell Telephone Co. But, although there was a good leal of agitation on the subject in the House, no definite action was taken until 1904, when Sir Wm. Mulock moved the resolution which resulted in a special committee being appointed to investigate the matter. This government was certainly not more alert than it ought to have been in appointing that committee. Now, I w.ould suppose that that committee was appointed for some business object, and that object, as I understand, was to ascertain whether or not we could put ourselves in a better position; and if the result of that investigation was to show that the conditions were not satisfactory, some action would be taken. From that time down to the present no action has been taken; nothing has been done to relieve the people of Canada from the conditions under which they were suffering. There are many men in this House far more familiar with telephonic conditions than I am, and better able to stir up the government to get a move on in this matter, but in the absence of anybody else taking it up, I took it upon myself at. the beginning of this session to place this resolution on the Order Paper with a view of righting the wrongs which the investigation of the committee of 1904 showed to exist in the Dominion of Canada.
Now my resolution aims at two things. My first proposition is that we are paying too much for our telephone service, and I may add that our telephone service is not as complete or as good as it ought to be. My second proposition is that we are entitled to have as cheap a service as those countries where national telephones have been established. The members of this House are very familiar with these propositions. When we talk of nationalizing our railways or any of our public utilities, the answer from the honourable gentlemen opposite is this-and I have heard it from the right honourable the leader of the government down-that we can get a cheaper service and a more efficient service from a company service. Now. we have a company service, and according to the decision of the government we are to continue _ to have a company service, and that being the case, it is for us to see to it. as far as possible, that a company, being able to give a cheaper service than a government can, shall give us at least as cheap a service as


PEV.SED E'HTION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
is enjoyed in countries where a government service is given. At the time the investigation took place, the committee took evidence from various important bodies as to what they thought was the best system for Canada. There were two classes of advocates: One was for the ownership by the government of the entire telephonic system in Canada, the other was for the ownership by the government of the trunk lines only, with the branch lines and local services in the hands of companies or other parties. Among those who advocated complete government ownership were the Toronto city council, the Owen Sound board of trade, the county council of Bruce, the city of Nanaimo, the town of Simcoe, the township of Pickering, the town of Port Perry, the Regina board of trade, the Montreal chambers of commerce, the Stratford board of trade, the town of Morris, Man., the municipality of Pipestone, Man., the municipality of Batisean, Que., the municipality of Matsqui, B.C., the municipality of Jordan, B.C., the municipality of Maple Creek, N.W.T., the municipality of Rama, the county of Essex, the town of Hespeler and the councils of the towns and county, the trades and labour councils and the boards of trade of the county of Waterloo.
Among those who advocated government ownership of long distance lines, were Kelowna in British Columbia; the Ontario Municipal Association; the Union of Canadian Municipalities, which is an important body representing the matured thought of the entire municipal bodies of Canada, which I think is not an unimportant element in the discussion of any public question in Canada. There was the town of Peterborough; the Winnipeg Printers' board of trade; the retail merchants of Ontario, 5,000 strong; the Guelph board of trade; town of Orangeville; town of Neepa-wa; town of St. Andrew's, New Brunswick; Union Telephone Company, Florenceville, New Brunswick; municipality of Gormley, Ontario, county of Elgin; township of York; town of Weston; Halifax county, Nova Scotia; town of Sarnia. I have said that the government pronouncing judgment in this House and repeating it everywhere, that we can have a better and more efficient service by leaving it in the hands of companies than we can by having it operated under government authority, directly by the action of a minister or indirectly through the action of a commission, it is up to the government, if I may use that expression, to see to it now that we have at least as cheap a service, as efficient a service. as they have in those countries where nationalization has been established. Now, the House will remember that in the course of that investigation we employed an eminent expert, a Mr. Dagger, who was expected to collect material and boil it down, as it were, to crystallize it and to present it to the committee. That being the case, I Mr. LENNOX.
venture to read a line or two of his report, at page 16 of the evidence of the select committee I have referred to. He says:
On seohule ' F ' to this exhibit will be found the long distance fee9 charged in the principal countries of the world. From it will be seen that the charges in the United States and Canada are the highest of all, being double the British rates and four times as much as the German. There would appear to be no satisfactory reason for this, as it is well known that the cost of the English trunk lines is very much greater than those upon this continent for the following, among other reasons-
1.	Much heavier copper wire is used, the main lines weighing 800 pounds to the mile as against about 200 pounds here.
2.	Poles have to be imported and creosoted whereas here native cedar is used.
3.	Porcelain insulators and iron bolts are used in England, glass insulators and wooden pins here.
I am satisfied that the present rates in Canada could be out in two and still leave a satisfactory profit on the working.
State ownership is, however, the only way to demonstrate the truth of this assertion.
Now I am not going to argue to-night either for or against state ownership. I take it that the government has pronounced their policy to be a policy of company ownership and government control. But taking it that way, I am here to urge upon the government to act now, and to see to it that we shall have at least as cheap rates as they have in countries where a national system has been established. Now I refer hon. gentlemen, -though I will not read it, to a schedule found on page 33, being the schedule 'F' referred to in the evidence I have just read; it gives a comparison of the rates in various countries where national ownership exists. I will not read it, because it is a somewhat complicated table and hard to follow, but I will deal with it in another way, because I propose to use some figures contained in that schedule. Now, I want to give another quotation from this volume, it is the statement of the chairman of the committee, Sir Wm. Mulock, and it establishes so far as his view of the matter is necessary to establish it, that we are not getting in Canada as cheap rates, or anything like as cheap rates, as the countries in which a national system exists.
THE CHAIRMAN, Sir Wm. Mulook. (Referring to exhibit No. 2, schedule ' F ') the i ates for Canada and the United States are apparently the highest in the world. There is nothing to compare with them.
Mr. MACLEAN.: These are the charges for three minute conversations, are they not?


Mr.   DAGGER@: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN. Three minutes in the day time and half the rate at night. These are day rates, are they not? A. These are day rates.
THE CHAIRMAN. The rates, according to this sohedule, in Canada and the United

States are the highest in the world, being 100 per cent higher than in Great Britain, and more than that in comparison with other places, as you will see when you analyse the schedule. But it is sufficient for the people to know that at present we have the pleasure of paying 100 per cent more in Canada and the United States than in any other part of the known world.
Now, Sir, that is the view that the chairman of that committee enunciated, and I am not going to say why it was not carried out. out. We know of the common rumour which may or may not be true, that he parted company with hon. gentlemen opposite because he could not get that desirable policy carried into effect. I am not going to argue whether the nationalization of our telephones would be desirable or not, I am arguing, though, that for four or five years before that investigation took place, and for four years since it took place, it was the duty of the government to do something to relieve the people from paying the very heavy and unfair prices which they were obliged to pay by reason of the monopoly which exists in Canada. Now I wish to refer briefly to a few figures that ought to be interesting to the representatives of the people of Canada. And let me say here that I do not feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary for me to elaborate my argument tonight, for the reason that I have, to a great extent, succeeded already. We passed an Act last year, but nothing was done under that Act, and so I put my notice upon the Order Paper. I have, however, the satisfaction of knowing that since I put my notice upon the Order Paper the government have begun to get busy, and they have taken action on the Act of last year within the last couple of weeks. Not only have they taken action, but having referred the matter to the Railway Board, the board has issued its order for the telephone companies to file their tariff of fees, and so we may expect, I think, some amelioration of the condition under which we have been suffering far too long. But all the same, although part of the benefit has been obtained, yet I feel that it is of importance that the government having requested the Railway Board to act in this matter, should give the Railway Board some indication of their policy as regards the tariff rate that shall obtain. So I have every faith that this resolution will be accepted by the government, and will be the policy adopted by the government upon which the Railway Board is to act in determining the rate that the company shall be allowed to charge the people of Canada.
I wish to give the rate in different countries for a three-minute conversation for sixty miles or over. These figures are taken, to a very considerable extent, from the records of the committee to which I have referred. In other . cases they are 561
obtained from an expert whom I have consulted, and I believe they are all absolutely correct according to the records of tho various countries referred to:-
Kates-3 minute conversations 60 miles-Comparison by Countries.
	Cents.
Canada		.. .. 35
Russia (55f m.)		.. .. 26
Australia (up to 75 m.).. ..	.. .. 24$
Germany (up to 80 m.).. ..	.. .. 24,
iSpain (up to 120 m.)		.. .. 24
About two-thirds of our	rate.
France (up to 120 m.)		.... 20
Belgium (up to 160 m.).. ..	.. .. 19$
About five-sevenths of our	rate.
Great Britain		.. .. 18
About one-half of our rate.	
New Zealand		.. .. 12$
Bavaria		.. .. 12
About one-third of our	rate.
Switzerland		.. .. 10
Norway		.. .. 9$
Denmark		.. .. 9$
Sweden		.. .. 8
About one-quarter of our	rate.
Finland (80 m.)		.. .. 4$
Less than one-eighth of our rate.
Yet, Canada is the home of the telephone, the place where the telephone was invented. If there is anywhere any country in which you would expect an up-to-date telephone system and reasonable rates, it would naturally be in the country of the telephone's origin. Now, I have referred to Australia, and as that country is a country of long distances, like our own, and we might expect telephones to be;: as expensive there as with us, it may be worth while to give some details. Here are some figures of local and long distance:-
Australia-Local and long distance rates.
Each
Distance	First additional
miles	3 minutes. 3 minutes.
[DOT] 15.	$0	04	$0	0415	to	20	0	06	0	0620	to	25	0	08	0	0625	to	50	0	16	0	1250	to	75	0	24$	0	1875	to	100	0	32$	0	24$100	to	150	0	45	0	32$150	to	200	0	57	0	42$200	to	250	0	69	0	51250	to	300	0	82	0	61300	to	350	0	96	0	69350	to	400	ll	05	0	80600	a	22	600	after 8 p.m..	0	61	
Let me give some further comparisons:
Rates-3 minute conversations-Comparison by countries.
For 300 miles.
Canada	$1	65Great Britain	
0	86Australia	
0	82
About one-half our rate.

Russia	$ 0 62
Less than one-half our rate.
Denmark (up to 400 m.)	 0 54
Bavaria (up to 280 m.)	 0 48
Less than one-third our rate.
Norway	 0	33J
Less than one-fifth our rate.
Belgium	
0	19iSweden (up	to	400)	
0	20Less than one-eighth our rate. Switzerland	(up to 240 m.)	
0	15
Exactly one-eleventh of our 300-mile rate. For 160 miles.
Wurtenburg charges 10c.; Canada, 96c. Finland charges 9c.; Canada, 96c.
For 200 miles.
Finland, lie.; Canada, $1.20.
For 240 miles.
Norway-Sweden, Finland, 13c.; Canada, $1.44.
Switzerland, 15c.; Canada, $1.44.
For 400 miles.
Cents.
Spain	 72
France	 66
Austria	  60
Denmark	 53
Norway	44
Germany	 36
Sweden	 20
Canada, $1.50 to $1.65.
For 600 miles.
Great Britain	$1	80Austria	
1	22Spain	
1	00France	
0	96Holland	
0	36Sweden	
0	27
Canada, $3.60.
Canada pays double the British rate, three times Australia, ten times the French rate and nearly fourteen times the rate paid in Sweden.
Some European rates for comparatively short distances are as follows:
Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland, 20 miles for 6 cents.
Norway, 120 miles for 7 cents.
Finland, 20 miles for 21 cents, or 40 miles for 21 cents, or 80 miles for 4J cents, or 120 miles for 6 cents.
This is sufficient for illustration and sufficient to give a clear and reasonable idea of the conditions existing in other countries.
It is well known that independent telephone lines have been established in the United States and the result has been very beneficial to the people. As I said the monopoly was first invaded in 1894 and I shall read just a line or two from the evidence collected by the committee in reference to one state, Indiana. This evidence is to be found in the proceedings of the committee. The passage is headed-


Haughton Lennox: What happens when the people and not a monopoly control the telephone situation.
The passage proceeds:
The independent telephones of Indiana number 166,255.
The annral exchange rentals for these telephones amount to $3,048,885.
The same number of telephonies, at the rates charged by the monopoly, before the independent movement began, would cost the people of Indiana annually $7,275,300.
The independent telephones, therefore, save the people of Indiana to-day:
Annually. Quarterly Monthly.. Weekly.. Daily.. ..

Besides all this the independent movement has covered the field.
- In the reign of monopoly there were only 7,000 telephones in the state of Indiana, or one for every 350 of population, and not one m the house of a farmer.
Now there are 166,255 independent telephones, or one for every 16 of population, and 30,000 of them in the houses of farmers.
The new Long Distance Telephone Company has, upon its own lines, within a radi-ous of 50 miles of Indianapolis, 61,286 subscribers, who use no other than independent telephones.
It will be seen what the people of the United States were losing. The question is how much are we losing, how much are we losing to-day and how much will we be losing as long as we continue to have the state of things the government are permitting to exist. It is not an entirely irrelevant inquiry, how much have the people lost in the four years the government have sat quietly doing nothing since this subcommittee developed the fact that something ought to be done by the government m order to better the condition of the people of Canada in this respect. The result in Indiana is that they now have one telephone for every sixteen of the population. It is hard to ascertain exactly what we have in Canada. I have seen it stated by some persons that we have one telephone for every 65 of the population, but as in Ontario we have only one for every 89 and in Quebec one for every 102 of the population, I am inclined to think we have not so good a showing for all Canada as one for every 65 of the population. What the independent companies are doing in the United States will be found at vol. 2, page 766 and following pages and what they are doing in Canada will be found at page 738 and following pages, but I shall not take time to refer to that to-night.
I wish to refer to just one other matter by way of comparison. At page 20 of vol. 2, will be found evidence showing the differ-

ence in charges between the company owned system and the independent telephone companies. The figures for a number of cities in different states of the Union are as follows:-
City.	Bell rates. Independent.
Bus. Res. Bus. Res.
Columbus, Ohio	
72	36	40	24Elizabeth, N.J	
100	54	36	30Erie, Pa	
60	30	40	28Grand Rapids, Mich.. .. 36	24	30	18Indianapolis, Ind	
72	48	40	25Mobile, Ala	
48	30	30	18Rochester, N.Y	
60	40	40	30St. Joseph, Mo	
50	36	40	30Wilkesbarre, Pa	
72	57	28	24
That is perhaps sufficient for illustration and the question arises, can we lower the rates and can the government by adopting the resolution I have put forward effect that beneficial reform for our people? I submit that we certainly can, fur while according to the doctrine of the government a state-owned system cannot be as economically managed as a company-owned system, in all those countries where the telephone is operated by the nation as distinguished from operation by companies, we have the undisputed fact that the rates are enormously below the rates we are paying in Canada. We could state it better by saying that our rates are outrageously above the rates they are paying in other countries where the telephone system has been nationalized. We had a very recent example in the case of Manitoba. I shall not go minutely into the Manitoba figures because that is a matter which is right on the surface.
Every one sees that in his morning paper. 1 am trying to bring before this House something that is not altogether on the surface, that might have escaped the vigilance of some hon. members. In the case of Manitoba they have a surplus of $380,000 odd for the eleven and a half months in Which they have been operating. They have added 1,468 miles to their long distance lines, they have established 2,168 new stations and, by increases in their system, they have added to; their expenditure over $80,000. Yet they have, as the result of eleven and a half months' operation, $380,000 surplus.


Mr. BRODER.: They have not changed their rates yet.


Haughton Lennox: Have they changed their rates yet.?


Andrew Broder: No.


The Rt.   H@: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: The other night, in the House at Winnipeg, Mr. Rogers made an announcement as to what they would do, what the method of operation in future would be and he announced very consider
able reductions, which will be seen in one or two items that I propose to refer to:
Winnipeg.
Present Reduced rate, rate.
Joint users, business	$25	00	$15	00Single line, residence, unlimited service	
30	00	25	00Tvro party line, residence, unlimited service	
24	00	18	00Joint users, residence	
15	00	5	00
Extension rates in residence,
wall or desk	 12	00	6	00
Brandon and Portage la Prairie.
One party, residence, unlimited service	$25	00	$20	00Two party, residence, unlimited service	
21	00	15	00
Residence extension sets, desk
or wall	 12	00	6	00
Small Towns.
Single line, business, unlimited service	$24	00	$20	00Single line, residence, unlimited service	[DOT]	
18 00	15 00
Farmers' Lines.
$24 00	$20 00
30 00	25 00
There are other reductions. I have just picked out a few of those that appeared to he very substantial and decided.


Mr. DANIEL.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether that surplus in Manitoba is a surplus after paying interest on cost or not?


Haughton Lennox: I understand it to be a clear surplus.


John Waterhouse Daniel: After paying interest?


Haughton Lennox: I have not analysed it sufficiently.


Mr. SPROULE.: After paying $61,000 interest on cost.


Haughton Lennox: What I want to say in reference to Manitoba is this, and it is only because it is a matter that is not in everybody's mind that I refer to it at all. Manitoba has not as yet had a reasonable opportunity of demonstrating what it can do in this line. But we do not need to appeal very much to Manitoba in order to fortify our argument because we have such ample fields to afford us evidence in other countries where this system has been in operation for many years. I merely referred to Manitoba in passing. We have established the fact that they ars giving a vastly cheaper service in other countries than in Canada. Now we come to the point of how these other countries are doing it. Are they doing it out of the general funds of the state or out of the earnings of the business? We find that Russia, which has already been referred to and which performs its service at one-third of our rate shows large profits, that Norway which has been furnishing the service at a cheaper rate than Russia had a surplus at the time the evidence was taken


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear.


Haughton Lennox: I have been trying to go with them hand in hand, as it were, and I hope I shall be able to do them a great deal of good. This measure which I advocate in my resolution is one which affects almost every person in Canada. Take a telephone rate of four cents for fifteen miles in Australia and of 4$ cents in some countries for 120 miles, and you can see that if we can get telephone rates on anything like the reasonable basis in effect in these countries where they have nationalized their system, we will be extending a great boon to the people of our rural districts. It is the rural districts in which I am most concerned. I feel that what is driving the young man away from the farm is that he has not the modern conveniences and advantages which are possessed by his relatives in the cities, and if you want to get the young man back to the land you have to make rural life more comfortable. I hope that when we conserve our water-powers and by their means carry the electric light into every barn and the dwelling of every farm in Canada, and when we bring the telephone and the telegraph at reasonable rates to every farm home, and when our postal facilities give a daily mail service to almost all parts of the country, then will our young men be encouraged to live upon the farm, and then will a great step be taken for the betterment of Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The closing words of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) remind us that when the millennium comes we will be a happy people living in a happy world. We are told by the hon. gentleman that his resolution is moved in a spirit friendly to the administration, and I will allow that statement of his to pass without comment, further than to say that if it was intended to be friendly its language is certainly deceptive. The first part of the resolution contains the premises upon which the hon. gentleman bases his conclusion, and a portion of it reads:

That in the opinion of this House the experience of the provinces which have taken over the telephone system establish the fact that the people of Canada, outside the zone of provincially operated lines, are paying for higher rates for telephone service than they should he called upon to pay.
The language employed there is certainly not very clear, but I assume the hon. gentleman intended these words to mean, that in the three prairie provinces in which they have assumed the ownership and control of the telephone system, there has followed a reduction in rates, which causes the existing rates to be lower than the rates in other provinces. If there is any efficacy in an argument based on that portion of the resolution, the hon. gentleman must have failed in his proof because the telephone rates in the three prairie provinces are not lower than they are in any of the other provinces of Canada. The resolution was placed upon the Order Paper on January the 21st last, and it is hardly fair for the hon. gentleman to claim that by reason of its publicity at that date he forced the government of Manitoba to make some slight reductions recently. The conclusion of the resolution is based upon another statement of fact, which, as is the case of the former portion of the resolution, is not correct. It says:
"That the evidence collected by a special committee of this House appointed to enquire into the question of telegraphs and telephones more than four years ago, established the fact that the people of Canada, outside the zone of provincially operated lines, are paying far higher rates for telephone service than they should be called upon to pay.'
Now, Mr. Speaker, I assume that when the hon. gentleman undertakes to state that in any one province of Canada we are paying higher telephone rates than we should, he means that the private or company owned and operated telephone lines are earning more than a reasonable profit. I can quite understand that the telephone rates in certain European countries are lower than they are in Canada, but surely the hon. gentleman must see that he has failed to give to the House a scintilla of evidence to show that in any one province of Canada the people are paying a higher telephone rate than they should, although I am not going so far as to say that in some cases, that may not be so. My contention is that by citing the telephone rates prevalent in European countries the hon. gentleman does not prove that the rates in any portion of Canada are higher than they should be.
Mr. hon. friend, in commencing his remarks, referred to certain statements made some years ago by one Mr. Dagger, before a select committee of this House. If I am not wrong, it was upon the statement of Mr. Dagger that the
premier of the province of Manitoba promised a reduction in the telephone rates of that province anywhere from 100 to 200 per cent.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see how any tolls can be reduced 200 per cent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is right-50 per cent. On one occasion the premier of Manitoba made the public declaration that the telephone rates in the province of Manitoba would be materially reduced by reason of representations made to him by the same gentleman, Mr. Dagger. Now, in that portion of Mr. Dagger's evidence to which my hon. friend for South Simcoe has referred, I find this statement:
I am satisfied that the present rates in Canada could be cut in two, and still leave a satisfactory profit on the working.
The man who makes that statement is not one whose judgment respecting telephone rates and telephone operations in this country should be accorded the smallest measure of credit. The experience of every telephone company, the experience of every individual who knows anything about telephone operation in this country, would stamp that statement as being so absolutely absurd as to deprive any opinion offered by Mr. T agger on this subject of any value whatever. Mr. Dagger, on page 12, makes the following statement respecting the experience of the city of Glasgow in municipal telephone operations :
Before the establishment of the Glasgow municipal exchange the rates were $48.70 in the city, and $97.40 to $121.75 in the suburbs. The telephone area of the municipal system is 143 square miles, and the rate is $25.60.
Now, it is very unfortunate that while Mr. Dagger presented that statement to the committee as evidence of the ability of a municipality to give lower telephone rates than a private corporation could do, very shortly afterwards, the corporation of Glasgow went out of the telephone business. I will give a resume of the experience of the city of Glasgow in the telephone business from a book entitled ' Public Ownership and the Telephone in Great Britain,' by Mr. Meyer, as follows:
The corporation of Glasgow embarks in the telephone business, expecting to install a plant for about $95 per subscriber's line. In May, 1906, its expenditure had been $183 per subscriber's line. The corporation lays its wires under the streets; at the same time denying the National Telephone Company all public way-leaves. It expects to destroy the company's business in Glasgow; but it is beaten ' to stand-still.' In September, 1906, the corporation sold its plant to the post office for $1,525,000 that is, at a net loss of $58,980.


Haughton Lennox: Why did the Post Office Department buy it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Because the city of Glasgow could not operate the plant at all, and asked the Post Office Department to take it off their hands; that is the only reason. (Reading):
Shortly afterward the Postmaster General announced that he would have to reconstruct the main exchange, as well as replace every one of the 12,800 subscribers' telephones in use. Those operations probably will cost from $500,000 to $750,000.
That is the case to which Mr. Dagger referred as proof of the wisdom of municipal ownership and operation of telephone lines. The city of Glasgow expected when they went into the business very materially to reduce the rates to subscribers, but after a year or two's experience they found that they could not give the rates promised, or even the rates given by the National Telephone Company, a company which was operating under very serious disadvantages, and they were obliged to sell their plant to the Post Office Department.


John Allister Currie: Have the rates been increased since they sold to the Post Office Department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Haughton Lennox: I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that there is no such allegation in the resolution whatever. The fact is that these three provinces are dealing with the matter provincially, and therefore we cannot deal with it. Any person who will read the resolution can see that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is difficult to understand what the resolution means, and the hon. gentleman cannot find fault with me for so saying. It is difficult to explain it to the House. I do not mean to say that my hon. friend deliberately made this resolution beautifully vague so as to give ample opportunity of dancing all around the green, and drawing any conclusion he cared to. It looks very much like that. My hon. friend says that the experience of the provinces, mainly the prairie provinces, established the fact that the people of Canada are paying too high a rate to-day. Now that may mean something in my hon. friend's mind, but surely no other conclusion can be drawn than that there has been a reduction of rates in these three provinces by reason of the fact that the governments have taken over the telephones in these provinces.


Haughton Lennox: It does not mean anything of the kind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would take my hon. friend too long to make that clear to the House. I am not trying to misconstrue the resolution of my hon. friend, but I do in all sincerity submit that it is not capable of any other construction.


Haughton Lennox: Does not the hon. gentleman know that these three provinces, because they found the rates were excessive, took over the lines themselves? Is not that the obvious meaning of the resolution?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then my hon. friend goes on to say that therefore Canada should do something in the same line.
His argument is" ineffective, unless he shows that there has been some improvement of conditions in these provinces. Otherwise what is the good of referring to these cases ? What is the good of making

these allegations? I do not propose to argue against the naturalization of telephones. My judgment is that it would be a very unfortunate thing for Canada to engage in it; I hope that no gentleman on either side of this House would affirm such a policy. The experience of other countries of the world would be against it, but particularly in Canada, I believe would it be an impossible policy. Once in a while, a province does become the proprietor of the telephone system and engages in its operations. I fear, however, that the motive prompting provincial governments to engage in this work is not so much commercial as political. I think that is fairly true of Manitoba. Two or three years ago, the government of Manitoba embarked upon this work. The leaders of the government promised the people reductions in telephone rates. I could read to the House, but it is not necessary to do so, the statements of Mr. Roblin and Mr. Rogers promising tremendous reductions. Perhaps it might not be out of place for me to give the substance of a statement by Mr. Campbell, the Attorney General of the province. Referring to the telephone system in Grand Rapids, Mich., he stated that there the house telephones cost $24 and business telephones $36, against $30 for house and $50 for business in Winnipeg; and he made the specific statement that the cost of a telephone for Winnipeg should not exceed $16,' and that for that sum a most satisfactory service could be given. This statement is almost as ridiculous as that made by Mr. Dagger when he said that telephone rates in Canada could be reduced fifty per cent and still leave a handsome profit to the operating company. They had a similar experience in Great Britain. The Duke of Marlborough organized a company called The New Telephone Company. In a series of letters addressed to the London ' Times,' he promised that, if the post office would give his company a license to operate a telephone system, he would give to the five millions of people in the London metropolitan district a metallic circuit service at $50 or $60 a year, very much less than the rates charged by the Post Office, or by the National Telephone Company, the chief telephone company of England. He had an experience of one year and found that he could not give the telephone service at anything like the rate he had led the people to expect. He sold out his plant to the National Telephone Company, and, later, he admitted, in a letter to the ' Times ' that in talking about $50 and $60 telephone rates he certainly had ' done a great deal of bleating.' And I think that Messrs. Rogers, Roblin and Campbell, of Manitoba, have ' done a great deal of bleating ' in promising the telephone reductions they have promised to the public. The provincial government of Manitoba purchased the Bell Telephone Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
system in that province, promising to the people great reductions and I have no donbt


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) allege that they have not given very substantial reductions? Does he venture to say that the figures I read are not correct?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is true that, in the last few hours, forced to it either by my hon. friend's resolution, or by political expediency, or something else, they have made a reduction. But I intend to argue that there was no justification for that reduction, there were no business reasons for it, and they did not have enough telephone experience to warrant them in making reductions.


Haughton Lennox: They have a surplus.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no hesitation in making the prophecy that not many years will elapse before they .will not merely restore the rates the Bell Telephone Company had when they were operating the system, but that in many cases they will increase the rate. The provincial government were not long the proprietors of the system when they increased the rates, the amounts paid for telephones by medical men, veterinary surgeons and nurses were very much increased. The cost of telephone connections to the farmers was also increased, for the government obliged the farmers to furnish the poles to make connections between their residences and the line along the highway, whereas the Bell Telephone Company had always supplied the farmers with poles. They also made a regulation that long distance calls requested for the night but made in the day must be charged for at day rates. And in no instance did they make a reduction of the rates.
Now, my hon. friend said, and has repeated while I have been speaking, besides referring to it modestly in his own address, that Manitoba is now reducing the rates. I have said that there was no business reason for Manitoba making a reduction. Every hon. member will agree with me that if it can be shown that the Manitoba government operated the telephone system without producing a surplus they had no right to make a reduction in the rates. It is of very little use to make a reduction if the people have to pay for it at some other time or in some other way.


Haughton Lennox: Will the hon. gentleman deny that they have a surplus?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They have a surplus on paper.


Haughton Lennox: Will the hon. gentleman deny that they have a surplus?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I deny that, according to the methods of book-keeping employed by all well managed telephone companies that they have any surplus, and I believe the Manitoba government are fully aware of the fact that they were not justified in making reductions.


Mr. ROCHE.: Does the hon. gentleman know that the control of the telephone system is not with the government, but with a commission of former Bell employees?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am aware that the telephone system is operated by the commission. But I am also aware that, so far as policy is concerned, the commission is under control of the government, and the revenues received by the commission are paid over to the provincial treasury. The rates are certainly controlled by the government, and not by the commission, otherwise we should not find Messrs. Roblin, Rogers and Campbell making such great promises to the public of telephone reduction. The statement issued the other day by the Minister of Telephones and Telegraphs, of the province of Manitoba gave as total receipts from telephones, $722,612, of which-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was for eleven and a half months only. Add the other half month.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is for the year from Jan. 8.


Haughton Lennox: It is for 11J months.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You should add the other $27,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bell Telephone Company disposed of their telephone system I think on January 8, 1908. The statement given the other day to the provincial parliament at Winnipeg, was up to Dec. 31, 1908.


Haughton Lennox: It began Jan, 15.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The total receipts as I have already said were $722,612, which included $62,698 of uncollected tolls. However, I make no point of that. This statement includes unearned rentals, but the statement does not give any particulars and it is impossible to tell how much of that total revenue was for unearned rentals and I am sure the mover of the resolution and every hon. gentleman in the House will agree that that statement should not have included for the year 1908, unearned rentals.


Haughton Lennox: I will send the full account to my hon. friend if he would like it in detail.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have it, but will my hon. friend tell me if that statement included unearned rentals.


Haughton Lennox: I will send the statement to my hon. friend and he can examine it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That takes considerable time and if the hon. gentleman knows, he will answer my question.


Haughton Lennox: I have not looked at it to-day; I think it does.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I take it for granted my hon. friend does not know because evidently the government of Manitoba do not know or they would make it public, and unless my hon. friend has private advice from them he does not know.
When the Bell Telephone Company sold its assets to the government of Manitoba, they paid to the government $108,000 for unearned rentals. I think it is fair upon this to base some figures as to what the unearned rentals would be on the 31st Dec. last. The telephone system during 1908 increased very largely in Manitoba, in Winnipeg as well as in the rural districts, and if $108,000 was the amount paid by the Bell Telephone Company to the government of Manitoba on Jan. 8, for unearned rentals at that time, surely I may fairly conclude that $120,000 to $125,000 would be the amount of unearned rentals included in the statement issued by the government of Manitoba the other day. Therefore this would leave a total revenue for 1908 of about $600,000. The statement issued the other day by the government of Manitoba also states that the gross expenditures were $530,161. That includes debenture interest upon the bonds given to the Bell Telephone Company in payment of the system they acquired. This would leave a surplus of $70,000 and I am sure no gentleman can successfully contradict my statement that the very best you can make of the year's operation in the province of Manitoba would be a surplus of $70,000 and not a surplus of over $200,000.
I say that the statement does not even disclose a surplus of $70,000, and if the government of Manitoba employed the system of book-keeping that all good telephone companies in the world do and should, they would disclose to the public a deficit. They make very little allowance for depreciation in the telephone plant. This of course varies, different telephone companies employ different methods of calculating depreciation. Some assign values for depreciation of the plant divided up into ten or twelve portions, the wires are given a certain period of life and the poles a certain period; some telephone companies write off ten per cent and some five per cent, but I think that in most cases eight per cent would be considered a very fair amount to write off for depreciation. The government of Manitoba spent $104,000 for

maintenance of their telephone system in 1908, and they did not write off anything in addition for depreciation. The question of telephones in Manitoba was inquired into before a special committee of the legislature of that province in 1906. The Hon. Mr. Campbell, attorney general of the province, questioned the general manager of the company with relation to the amount that should be written off for depreciation of the plant as follows:
Q- What would you say of the evidence of Mr. Moulton of the Twin City Company (a previous witness) when he says that 5' per cent is sufficient to write off for depreciation in any one year?-A. From our experience ot a year in the business we still think a company is justified in charging at least 10 percent.
Taking the figures given by Mr. Moulton to that committee, viz., five per cent, the telephone system cost the government of Manitoba say $4,000,000. They paid more for it. Five per cent of that would be $200,000 a year, and surely that is a very low estimate.	There is
probably no telephone company in the world which provides less than five per cent for depreciation. The Manitoba government provided nothing whatever for depreciation unless it was included in maintenance, and that amounted to $104,000 so that in addition there should have been written off in that statement some ninety odd thousand dollars for depreciation. Figuring maintenance and depreciation at $200,000, you completely wipe out the surplus which the government of Manitoba have presented to the public, 'therefore I say to my hon. friend that the Manitoba government did not operate its system at a profit, and I say further that they were not justified in making a reduction in the rates. It was not done for commercial or economic reasons, the motive was purely political exigencies and considerations.
The Bell Telephone Company wrote off for depreciation the following percentages of its revenue:
Year.	Depreciation.	
1900.. .) .. ..		per cent.
1901			ft
1902			tr
1903			tt
1904			te
Whereas the government of Manitoba simply provides for maintenance. They provide 17 per cent of their revenue for maintenance, figuring nothing for depreciation. I wish to quote the opinion of the Manitoba ' Free Press,' a paper not friendly to the Manitoba government, with regard to this statement. It deals with it in a fair and able way; I think able, because the writer has apparently reasoned out his statement well. I see no objection to it. The figures employed are incontrovertible.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to just read to the House the conclusions contained in this, and I challenge any hon. gentleman opposite to successfully contradict or weaken anything in it. The ' Free Press ' says this:
1.	That considerably over $100,000 of receipts is improperly charged to 1908 as this amount is in payment for services which the province could not render until the year 1909.
I presume no person could successfully contradict that. I cannot see how any person possibly could.	,


Mr. STAPLES.: Will the hon. gentleman tell the House whether that is an editorial or a statement by some member of the local legislature?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is an editorial, but if it is based upon fact, and if the conclusions which this editorial render to the public are true, it does not matter very much who wrote it. I have read one of the conclusions from the editorial and if my hon. friend will point out wherein he thinks it is incorrect I will be very glad to give him my opinion upon it and possibly I may correct some error which may be lurking in his mind.
2.	That the outlay upon maintenance is equivalent only to two and a half per cent of the value of the telephone plant, whereas the minimum estimate of depreciation is five per cent.
That is absolutely proven by the statement which is issued by the government.
3.	That, whereas the Bell Telephone Company sets aside not less than thirty-four per cent of its ordinary income for maintenance, the province last year set aside only seventeen per cent.
4.	That the outlay upon maintenance for telephones in the city of Winnipeg last year was not more than one-half what it was in the year 1904, when the telephones were owned and administered by the Bell Telephone Company.
5.	That the surplus, upon the figures as set forth in the statement of the government, is $70,000 and that this amount has only been obtained by expending on maintenance an amount equivalent to only half the minimum estimate for depreciation.
6.	That, putting the maintenace at twice the amount given in the figures, that is, at $208,000 in place of $104,000, the Manitoba government telephone system was operated last year at an actual loss of between $30,000 and $40,000.
I say that the last statement, according to the financial statement issued by the Manitoba government is absolutely correct.
I challenge any person to controvert that in the slightest degree whatever, and I repeat W'hat I have already said, that the result is not favourable to the administration and that the telephone system in 1908 in Manitoba was operated at a loss. I deny that my hon. friend who moves this resolution

can obtain anything from the experience of the province of Manitoba to justify the conclusions which he asks this House to affirm. Then, there is this to be remembered t The government of Manitoba have been in charge of the operation of this system for but one year, and I think it is fair to say that they have not yet had that experience which would warrant them in embarking upon the policy of rate reduction. I submit that the people of Manitoba would have justified the government in abstaining from any reduction of these rates for a further period at least. Again, it should be remembered that Manitoba is a growing province, and that it is a peculiar thing that the telephone business is different from almost all other commercial businesses in that as your volume of business increases your profits do not necessarily grow, and there comes a period, in the telephone business when, if you receive a certain number of subscribers, you commence to lose money. In most other businesses the greater the volume the greater the profits. This is rather an important point, and I wish to read what a telephone paper called ' Public Service ' says in answer to a question asked upon this point. This question is often asked concerning the telephone business. Take, for instance, the city of Brandon. It is a young and growing town. The average length of wires in that town to-day is half a mile. This town will grow in all directions and what change will this effect? They will have to increase the length of the wire lines per subscriber, and consequently there will be a greater initial cost per station and a larger maintenance cost. In the second place, the increased number of subscribers increases the number of calls at the central office, and this necessarily increases the labour in connection with the central office. Of course, it also means an increase of rates. Now, I wish to read one of a series of answers given to a question by a correspondent of this paper, the question being: Why are telephone rates higher in a large city than in a small city or town? The writer who answers this question says:
As the number of subscribers increases, the number of calls per station increases correspondingly, and, as an operator can only handle a certain number of calls per hour, extra operators are required. This item of expense in a large exchange, as compared to the same item of expense in a small exchange, is very large. By way of illustration, and to account for the increase in the number of calls per station with the increase in the number of stations, it can readily be seen that in an exchange of 1,000 stations a subscriber can only call 999 other subscribers, whereas a subscriber in an exchange of 10,000 subscribers can call 9,999 other subscribers, and being able to do this it is natural to suppose that the calls per station will be materially increased with the addition of other subscribers.
The above reasons are only a few of the many that can be advanced to show the necessity for charging higher rates in a large city than in a small one. It is now a generally well known fact that the telephone business is altogether unlike any other, for where cost is usually decreased the bulk of business increases in any commercial business, the reverse is true in the operation of a telephone plant. As the number of subscribers increases, the cost of installation and operation increases proportionally, which necessarily compels the charging of higher rates from time to time as subscribers are added to the exchange.
The hon. gentleman in his resolution refers also to the other provinces, of Alberta and Saskatchewan. He does not mention them, it is true, but in general terms he refers to them, as I assume they are included in the prairie .provinces. My hon. friend attempts to draw some conclusions from the experience of these prairie provinces and, as he asks hon. gentlemen to base a judgment favourable to this resolution upon that experience, I beg to say there is nothing in the experience of the province of Saskatchewan to justify anybody in supporting his resolution because in that province they have had no telephone experience as yet. At the last session of the legislature the government of that province took power to instal and operate trunk lines, to empower municipalities to engage in the telephone business and to aid farmers' lines to the extent of giving them free poles. I therefore say that the hon. gentleman can find nothing in the experience of Saskatchewan to sustain his resolution, and consequently his resolution is, at least to the extent of one-third of it, absolutely vitiated. I might at considerable length give the result of telephone operation in the province of Alberta, but I wish to be brief, and I will simply say that there has been no reduction whatever in rates in that province since it took over the Bell Telephone system. Neither the government nor any member of the government has made any promise to the public that the rates would be reduced, and indeed I may say that the telephone rates in Alberta are higher than they are in the county represented by the hon. gentleman.


Haughton Lennox: Does the honourable gentleman say that his friends in Alberta and Saskatchewan were wrong in taking over the telephone system?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the honourable gentleman wants my own personal opinion,
I will answer that I believe it was a bad policy. I say that the telephone rates in all the western provinces are no lower to-day than they are in any town or city in Ontario of corresponding size. There has been no reduction of rates in Alberta, and on the authority of statements made by the Calgary newspapers and the Calgary

Board of Trade, I say that the province of Alberta is not giving to its subscribers as good a service as was given by the Bell Telephone Company. The honourable gentleman says that Canada is suffering from a telephone monopoly and that we are in an inferior position to other countries with respect to the telephone service, but he also tells us that he offers no argument for or against government ownership. As I have pointed out it is not fair to compare telephone rates in this country with the rates prevailing in France ot in Italy or in Australia. The question is:	Are the private
telephone companies in this country giving as good a service as they possibly can, and are they giving that service at as cheap a rate as they can consistent with maintaining their plant efficiently and allowing themselves an adequate return on the capital employed? I do not think that Canada is prepared at this stage to assume the enormous financial burden of taking over the telephone systems. It would be a serious matter also to add to the Civil Service list of the country the employees of the telephone service. Successive postmasters general and chancellors of the exchequor in Great Britain have given as a reason against the taking over, of the National Telephone Company that it would be a menace to the country to add its employees to the already over burdened civil list. The experience of the British post office is that they cannot get the same efficiency in the unit in the telephone service as the National Telephone Co. gets from its operators. However, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a grievance against the telephone companies, is there not a better remedy than nationalization of the telephones? After the evidence was taken by a select committee of this House some years ago the government no doubt took this matter into consideration and last year the Kailway Act was amended by placing telegraphs and telephones under the control of the Railway Commission. By that Act of last year the Railway Commissioners are given control over the rates of telephone companies within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada; all telephone tolls are made subject to the approval of the board; tolls may be dealt with in the same manner as standard freight rates; the telephone companies are compelled to file with the board the tariff to be charged from time to time; the railway board can compel the company operating a long distance system to grant connections to any telephone system owned and operated by any company, province or municipality; the board can compel that company under terms to make provision for the use of connections; the board is authorized to apply the provisions of the Railway Act with respect to joint tariffs to the interchange of business Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
between telephone companies, and all working agreements between telephone companies as to interchange of business are to be approved by the board. Now, the question is, does not this legislation put the telephone companies of this country sufficiently under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners to ensure to the people due and ample protection as to telephone rates? I submit that it does, and I submit that the policy at present contained in our legislation in this regard is the proper policy. The Railway Commissioners have already taken a great deal of evidence concerning telephone rates in this country, and they should be given ample opportunity to study this question, and no doubt m due course they will make such regulations as to rates as will afford ample protection to the public. The Railway Board has, I think, secured a reputation _ for business which is commendable to itself and is satisfactory to the people of this country generally; and if the telephone companies operating in this country are doing an injustice to their subscribers and to the public generally, as the mover of this resolution suggests, I think we may well hope that ample relief will be accorded by the Railway Commission. I do not wish to delay the House further on this matter; but m closing, I desire, seconded by Mr. Sinclair, to move this amendment:
That all the words after the word 'that* in the first line be struck out and the following substituted:	'This House re-affirm its
approval of the legislation recently passed by the Canadian parliament placing telephone companies under public control through the Board of Railway Commissioners and expresses its opinion, that until such times as the remaining provinces of confederation follow in the footsteps of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the acquisition of the business and property of telephone companies within their limits, such government control is ample to protect the interests of the publio both as to telephone tolls and service. *


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean), whose splendid ability in placing a case before (he House I have often admired, but from the manner in which he floundered around to-night in the attempt to say something to offset the arguments of the hon. member for South Simcoe, (Mr. Lennox) I am sure he will agree with me that the arguments that he has advanced in support of his position are not such as will meet with the general approval of the people of the country. He tells us that the western provinces do not give lower telephone rates than the provinces of the east. The hon. gentleman knows that the statement issued by the Manitoba legislature within the past few days is sufficient to convince any fair minded man that the government of that

province have succeeded not only in showing a surplus of $250,000, but in giving to the people of Manitoba a substantial reduction in the annual rate for phones. I desire to congratulate the hon. member for _ South Simcoe on the able manner in which he has presented his case to the House. We cannot sufficiently appreciate the efforts which that hon. gentleman has put forth to obtain for the useTs of telephones in the Dominion of Canada a substantial reduction of rates and, judging by remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. A. K. Mclean) I would be inclined to think that the reduction of rates in Manitoba by the legislature was due to the observations of the hon. member for South Simcoe. I want to remind the hon. gentleman that it is the Conservative party in the province of Manitoba that has reduced the rates within the last few days, and I have no doubt that when the good Liberal governments in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan come to investigate their systems and place them on a proper basis, they will, like the province of Manitoba, be able to give the people of those provinces a substantial reduction in rates.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member for Lunenburg has no faith in them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is quite true; he is more conversant with the telephone conditions in the western provinces than the people of those provinces, who are most enthusiastically in favour of establishing provincial telephones, managed and controlled by the provincial authorities, with national trunk lines to connect with the provincial systems. There is no doubt m my mind that the day is not far distant when the trunk, lines of this country will be controlled by the Dominion parliament. With regard to the reduction of rates in the province of Manitoba, I may say that the rate to joint users, businesses, in the city of Winnipeg, now $25, are reduced to $15; single lines, residences, unlimited service, now $30, reduced to $25; two party line, residence, unlimited service, now $24, reduced to $18; one party line, residence, and two cents per outcall, $15; joint users, residence, now $15, reduced to $5; extension rates in residence, wall or desk, now $12, reduced to $6. These men have been able to give to the people of Manitoba not only an efficient service, but a substantial reduction in rates. The hon. gentleman said that there was nothing for depreciation of plant, but finally admitted that 2i per cent was set aside for that purpose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not admit that at all.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If he :did not admit that, will he be kind enough to listen to
this statement that comes from the legislature of Manitoba:
The maintenance and. efficiency of the plant, equipment, long distance and farmers' rural lines have been kept up during the year by the expenditure of $98,699.99 for material, travelling expenses and labour.
All the telephone companies, municipal systems and others in the province who are doing business independently of the Bell Company, have been accorded connection with the government system, thereby adding to the value of all telephones which now comprise a system of over 20,000 subscribers. The independent companies in the eastern provinces want similar connections with the Bell Company but can't get it.
The hon. gentleman lives in a province inhabited by progressive people, and I am satisfied that many of the independent telephone companies in his province would be glad if the Railway Commission would compel the Bell Telephone Company to connect with the independent lines. I could show him in the western part of Ontario many telephone companies, who have been doing the expensive work of telephone building, and are begging and pleading to-day at the doors of the Railway Commission, to grant them connection with the Bell telephone lines.
Take one instance in my own riding. Only a few days ago it was my privilege to go to some members of the Railway Commission and show them that the Bell Telephone Company, in delivering messages in that district, would go to work and hire a horse and carriage and charge it up to the farmer who had an independent telephone in his house, and he had put his hand in his pocket for $2 to pay a man to deliver the phone message, when that same Bell Telephone Company could have transferred it in a moment to the independent telephone company's line, and it would have been delivered to the farmer. I only hope that the Railway Commission will take into consideration the importance of this question of independent telephone companies throughout our land. They are the men who are building up companies composed of farmers, and who find it impossible to get the Bell Telephone Company to put in their lines at any reasonable figure. I would like to take you into a township I have in mind at the present time. On the one side the Bell Telephone Company is charging the farmers $20 a year and compelling them to subscribe for three years, and to furnish enough subscribers to build a line several times over before they will begin operations; while on the other side of the township is an independent telephone company with some 200 subscribers, and they only charge $6 per annum, and are able to show a splendid surplus at the end of the year. I have in my possession the annual statement of that independent company and it shows that these men, through good business

management, had been able to develop a spleindid telephone service that covers a great deal of territory and are able to give to the people in those rural districts that service for $6 per annum, and show a surplus at the end of the year.
Now my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is simply urging upon the government the necessity of investigating this important question. Four or five years ago we had a great deal of useful information placed before that Telephone Committee, information that has never been given to the public except through the medium of the speeches of my hon, friend for South Simcoe. What we need is a more progressive policy along the line of telephones and telegraphs in this country. From what I was able to gather when I was over in the old land in regard to telephone and telegraph systems, I am satisfied that with proper business management and government control of these public utilities we could make them paying concerns, and at the same time cut the prices in two. The hon. gentleman from Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) gave us the example of the city of Glasgow; he said the city of Glasgow had turned over the independent telephone company to the Post Office Department. But he had to tell us at the same time that the reason they had a deficit was chiefly owing to the fact that they were fighting the National Telenhone Company in that great city of Glasgow. No other reason can be brought forward to show that if they had exhibited reasonably fair business abilities, they would have had a surplus at the end of the year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The city of Glasgow had a tremendous advantage over the National Telephone Company, because the corporation of Glasgow would not allow the National Company to put its wires under ground. They were obliged in many cases to string their wires from housetop to housetop. It was sheer inability on the part of the municipality successfully to operate a telephone company.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: At the same time the government turns round and buys it out, and to-day what do we find in regard to the management of telephones in Great Britain? It was my privilege only last year to show to the Prime Minister, answering a statement of his in regard to telephones and telegraphs in Great Britain that I do not think he would attempt to repeat to-night, that instead of the companies not being paying investments there, they are paying investments, and they are giving a most satisfactory service to the people of that country. I agree with my hon. friend from Lunenburg that a few years ago the telephone system of Great Britain was anything but satisfactory, and we would not like to see in the Dominion of Canada the system they Mr. ARMSTRONG.
had there at that time. But I want to tell my hon. friend that that system has been wonderfully improved, and that to-day it is getting to be almost as perfect a system as you can find anywhere.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to remind my hon. friend of this fact also, that Great Britain is only in the telephone business to preserve her telegraph business. They know they will always lose money by the telephones.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 
Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.).: I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), in fact I always listen to him with much interest, because he prepares his speeches well and is usually fair in his presentation of his facts. I have listened also to the somewhat impassioned appeal of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) on behalf of the farmers. I think many of those on this side, as well as those opposite, can join in that very laudable aim. In so far as these hon. gentlemen are asking the government to take steps to make sure that the people of this country get their telephone services as cheaply as possible, I am heartily in accord with them, as also, I am sure, is every hon. member on this side. I am hardly at one, however, with my hon. friend from South Simcoe in his interpretation of the meaning of the first part of the resolution he has moved. As I understand this resolution, it asks this House to declare that the result of the operation of telephones in those provinces of Canada in which they have been controlled by the government is that the people receive their telephones cheaper than do the people of those provinces in which the telephones are not controlled by the government. If that be the case, I must say that I do not agree with him. I can speak very intelligently so far as one province is concerned, and I think I can speak with some intelligence so far as another province, the province of Manitoba, is concerned. I am not going to follow my hon. friends in their statements concerning telephonic affairs on the continent of Europe.



I have not been there to examine into the subject, and, so far as I know, neither have the hon. gentlemen who have spoken. I read the evidence taken before the Telephone Committee with a great deal of interest, and have listened with interest to the quotation of it by these hon. gentlemen. But I would point out that that evidence was given four years ago, and that in the four years that have elapsed there have been a great many changes in the telephone business. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) referred to the fact that Glasgow, one of the cities put forward as a model from a municipal standpoint, has gone out of the telephone business because it could not make the business pay. And I would point out that, notwithstanding that there has been a very serious agitation for better control of telephones all over Canada and the United States in the last four years, in nearly every part of Canada and the United States telephone rates have increased rather than decreased. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Lunenburg, the more the telephone business increases the greater in proportion will be the increase in the cost. It is different from other public utilities or other businesses. In my own town four years ago we were getting business telephones for $10 and residence telephones for $5, and those long distance telephones at that. Five years ago we were able to talk from Woodstock to St. John, 140 miles, for 25 cents. To-day we pay 55 cents. All over Canada you will find the rates have been increased. In any province of Canada, so far as I know, five years ago the long distance rate was based on a five minute conversation; to-day it is based on a three-minute conversation in every province except Manitoba, where it is two minutes. I point this out only to show that, notwithstanding the agitation that has been carried on in the country, telephone rates have been going up and the municipalities have not been taking control of this public utility or going into the telephone business. The only province in Canada which has gone into the telephone business with anything like thoroughness has been Manitoba.
It is not my purpose to deal with telephone matters in European countries. I need not point out that the conditions in Europe are very different from those in Canada. In the first place we know that wages are much higher here than in continental Europe, that you can operate a telephone system, so far as wages are concerned, in most European countries for fifty per cent of what you have to pay in Canada. I can apply almost the same percentage to Great Britain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would that apply to Australia?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I do not think so.
I want to be fair and I think that in all the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) to-night the Australian proposition looks to be the cheapest telephone communication we have discussed. But I want also to point out that my hon. friend did not state the capital involved in Australia, whether or not there was a deficit or anything with regard to the maintenance of the telephone system there, for instance the amount set aside for depreciation.


Haughton Lennox: If I recollect I read out what the service was in Australia.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then I did not catch it, but if the hon. gentleman did give that information I stand corrected. My purpose is to discuss this subject from a Canadian standpoint. It is not to my mind a question of what they have done in England, in France, in Bavaria, in Sweden or in Norway. Conditions are different in these countries from what they are here. The important question is what have we done in Canada up to the present and what can we do in the future? I again assure my hon. friends that although I am somewhat interested in the telephone business in one province, I am as anxious as my hon. friends to see the people of Canada get telephone communication at a proper rate. My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) spent some time discussing the iniquities of the Bell Telephone Company. I hold no brief for the Bell Telephone Company. I am willing to admit that in many cases all over Canada the Bell Telephone Company have been monopolists and I dare say they have many sins to answer for. I am not trying to excuse or exculpate or even to apologize for them, but I wish to discuss for a few moments the actual conditions of the telephone business as they exist in Canada to-day. It has been said here to-night, and I presume will be again by my hon. friends on the other side of the House, that the experience of the province of Manitoba in the last year has justified the statement made so many times by hon. gentlemen opposite in the last three or four years, that all public utilities should be owned, operated and controlled by governments and municipalities, and not by corporations; or in other words the doctrine of public ownership.


Haughton Lennox: Oh, no.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad my hon. friend says 'oh, no,' because the only logical conclusion of the argument we have heard to-night is that the government should take control of these utilities and operate them themselves.


Haughton Lennox: No one on this side has made any suggestion, and I distinctly said I was not arguing the question of public

ownership pro or con. I was saying we should have as cheap a service in Canada as having relation to the conditions existing in other countries where they have a national system would be possible.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman has correctly repeated what he said earlier in the evening, but I again repeat that the logical conclusion of his argument is that we must have public ownership because the only instances he has given where they have cheaper telephones than in Canada are in those countries where government ownership is in existence and telephones are owned and controlled by the government.
In Manitoba the government have been operating their telephone system for a year and as was pointed out by my hon. friend they had a surplus in that year of something like $380,000. I think lie was wrong in that, that he was including in it $161,00 ) which should have been paid for interest.


Haughton Lennox: I think my hon. friend is right in that statement; I looked it up afterwards.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So it should be $220,000 or $230,000 instead of $380,000. But I make the statement here to-night, and I propose to prove it, that instead of the Manitoba government showing a surplus of $230,000 in their year's operation they had actually shown a deficit. I know my hon. friends opposite will not say * hear, hear ' to that statement but I shall give a few figures which will prove it. In the first place I am quoting now from a speech made by the Hon. Robert Rogers, in the legislature of Manitoba, on Thursday last, as reported in the ' Winnipeg Telegram,' a paper not unfriendly to the local government of Manitoba or to hon. gentlemen opposite. He stated that the total receipts of the Manitoba telephone system in eleven months and a half were $722,612. It is true he stated that at the same rate they would have received $27,000 for the remainder of the year which would have brought the receipt up to almost $750,000. But while they would be receiving $27,000 in receipts, they would also be expending a large amount in operation and management and therefore for the purpose of my argument I am confining my remarks to the actual receipts and expenditures in eleven months and a half. According to the same statement I find that they expended in operating $186,436; in maintenance $104,478; in general expenses, $35,107; and in miscellaneous, principally insurance, $16,589; or a total of $342,610. If you arrange these figures a little differently I would say that the total cost of management instead of being $186,436 is $238,132 and these are the figures used by Mr. Rogers because these were operating expenses, general expenses and miscella-57!
neous. Therefore we have $238,132. I lay it down as an axiom in the management of telephone companies, and there is no telephone expert in or out of Canada, no man who knows any thing about telephones, who will not state that you should pay as much in every year for maintenance and depreciation as for operation.
The Manitoba government admit they have spent $238,130 for operation. Therefore, if you take the result of the cost of maintenance and add to it another $238,000 you will have about the proper amount which will have been paid out for operation, maintenance and depreciation. I want to go back and take it in another way. If you take the items of expense and add them together you get $342,610 and, taking that from the total receipts, you have the seeming result of $380,000 to the good. But, it is admitted by my hon. friend that out of that vou must take at least, $161,000 because that is the interest on the debentures as stated by the Minister of Public Works for the province of Manitoba. Then, you must take out of that sum an amount for unearned rentals. I want to discuss that question of unearned rentals for a moment because I may say that this is one of the most misleading, one of the most unfair, and, if I were speaking in the presence of the man who made the statement, I would almost be justified in saying the most dishonest portion of his statement. But, it might not be fair to so characterize it in the absence of the man who made the statement. When the Manitoba government took over the Bell telephone system a little more than a year ago it was admitted that they should receive $108,000 from the Bell Telephone Company as unearned rentals. There is probably not a gentleman in this chamber to-night but who is the user of a telephone and I do-not believe there are very many gentlemen who have not to pay their telephone rental in advance, some three months, some six months and some a year. I am saying what every hon. gentleman knows to be the truth. I know that the custom prevails in Manitoba and I know that at any time the Manitoba government have in their hands not less than $100,000 in money which they have not earned or paid for. I find from an analysis of the statement issued by the Minister of Public Works for the province of Manitoba, about the 22nd or 23rd of February, that last year they received from rentals-and that means what we, as subscribers all over the country will pay for having a telephone in our house-at least $535,465. Now, to be fair you have to take away from that $100,000 or $120,000 in order to ascertain what the actual receipts in rentals for that year would be which would bring down the actual receipts to $415,000 or $420,000. Assuming that you are only paying three months in advance, you have

one quarter, or $100,000, of this amount paid in advance every three months. At no time in the year would they have less than $100,000 in their possession, representing rentals that had not been earned. But, if in January, 1908, they had $108,000 in their hands, it is only fair to assume, if they obtained 2,000 additional subscribers, that they should have $120,000 in their hands at the end of the year, and therefore I am going to assume, when they made up this statement and when Mr. Bogers made this statement in the legislature of Manitoba that thev had in their possession $120,000 which they had not earned. Any person must admit that that should be deducted from the gross revenue of the province for that year.
Now, that brings us to another question and that is the question of depreciation. I do not have to argue to any hon. gentleman in this house nor to any gentleman in the country, farmer, or merchant, or telephone manager that there will be a depreciation every year in a telephone line. I can tell you what the experience of the New Brunswick Telephone Company has shown that our poles, which are always 25 feet long by 6 inches at the top, have to be renewed every twelve or fifteen years on the average, and that cross arms which cost about forty *or forty-five cents each have to be renewed every seven or eight years on the average. That is what is called depreciation. I can point out to you more than that. There is not a telephone company in Canada that has not, in the last twenty-five years, been compelled, practically to discard every switchboard in its service. They have been compelled to discard the Blake transmitter and the short distance transmitter by the thousands and tens of thousands all over Canada. Go to the Bell Telephone Company, the Nova Scotia Telephone Company, the New Brunswick Telephone Company, or any big telephone company in Canada or the United States and they will show you whole warehouses almost filled with discarded telephone instruments. They have been compelled to put in long distance equipment and in less than ten years they will be compelled to discard the present apparatus and put in some other arrangement. These are some of the incidents that, go towards depreciation in plant which must be provided for by any well regulated telephone company. There are various items which go to make up the amount that should be set aside to provide for depreciation. The New Brunswick Telephone Company consider that they must set aside eight per cent of the total cost of the investment in order to provide depreciation. Some companies go as high as ten per cent and some companies as low as five per cent, but in no company is it possible to get along with an expenditure of less than five per cent for depreciation-not Mr. CARVELL.
maintenance. My hon. friend from Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) will pardon me if I tell him that he is a little mixed as to the meaning of these terms. The word ' maintenance ' means ordinary little expenses that have to be incurred every day in the week and every month in the year in keeping your line in fairly good working order. It means that if a cross arm breaks you must put it up again, it means that if an insulator breaks, as thousands and thousands do in the year, it must be repaired, it means that if you have a sleetstorm, such as we had a month ago by which tens of thousands of dollars worth of wires and poles are broken down to the ground, they must be repaired. All of these things are incidents in the operation of every telephone company which must be provided for every day and every week and these are the incidents which go to make up the maintenance. When we speak of five per cent tor depreciation we do not mean this at all. We refer to a sum of money not less than five per cent on the cost of the investment which is actually necessary to renlace a pole that becomes rotten, to replace a cross arm when it becomes rotten, to replace a switchboard when it becomes obsolete, or in other words to keep the whole telephone system in such a condition that it will be a well working concern. If you add to the statement of the Manitoba government the sum of five per cent for depreciation you make an addition there of $165,000. There is no telephone man on earth who will say that you can keep the Manitoba telephone system up to a proper state of repair, system costing $3,300,000. for less than $165,000 per annum and if you add these sums together you have a total of $446,000 and your total balance, after subtracting expenditures from receipts will be only $380,000; or, in other words, if these figures be correct the operation by the Manitoba government of the telephones lines for eleven and a half months, instead of showing a surplus of $232,000, shows a deficit of $55,998.
I am prepared to meet any actuary or any practical telephone man whom the province of Manitoba may appoint and go over these figures with them, and I am satisfied they will not differ with me to the extent of $10,000. I have stated that no telephone company would for a moment hope to get along by expending for maintenance and depreciaion a less amount than for operation, and if you take the operation at $238,000, and the depreciation and maintenance at a like amount, and the unearned rentals at $120,000, and the interest at $161,000 and add these together you have $757,264 as against a total revenue of only 722,612, or a deficit of $34,632. I therefore repeat that instead of having a surplus of $232,000, by any mode of intelligent figuring which they possibly can devise there

must be a deficit of anywhere between $25,000 and $50,000 in the operation of the telephones in Manitoba last year. I state here to-night, and I think I can prove it to the satisfaction of the House, that the proposed reduction foreshadowed by the Minister of Public Works in Winnipeg on Thursday night are in reality no reductions at all. The hon. gentleman from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) read a statement to the effect that they had reduced the joint user telephone from $25 to $15. But, does the hon. gentleman realize what joint user in telephone means. I doubt if there is a gentleman in this chamber who ever knew of the joint user of a telephone. I do not know of one in my own town; if there are any in New Brunswick they are very few, and I venture to say that there are not one hundred joint users in the whole city of Winnipeg. Joint user of a telephone means that once in a while in a big city you will find, say a collecting lawyer and an insurance agent occupying adjoining rooms as offices and they both pay a certain amount for the telephone they use in common. I doubt if you will find one hundred such in Winnipeg, and yet this is one of the lemons that the Manitoba government throw out to the people and say look what we are doing for you. And, as the joint user in residences; where will you find two families using the same phone.


Haughton Lennox: You will find hundreds, perhans thousands of instances in Toronto where families occupying flats use one telephone and contribute jointly to the rental.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would be in an hotel.


Haughton Lennox: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would be what we call P.B.X., or private branch exchange.


Haughton Lennox: We get a telephone in Toronto for $50 and all the people in that house use it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Meanwhile the telephone company is getting $5 for the telephone.


Haughton Lennox: You can tell the company that two families will use the telephone in a private house and instead of charging $30 each they charge $50 and there are hundreds of cases of that kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is so, but does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the government of Manitoba will allow two families to have a telephone in their house and charge them only $10.


Haughton Lennox: My opinion is that the government of Manitoba will allow two families the joint use of a telephone in a private residence for $10.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what you mean?


Haughton Lennox: That is what I understand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then I simply say I
don't believe it.


Haughton Lennox: And the last announcement of the Postmaster General in England provides for the same kind of joint user.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are discussing Manitoba, not England, and I do not believe the government of Manitoba will give two families the right to use a telephone for $10, when they will charge one family $24. If my hon. friend can find any comfort in a reduction of that kind he can have it, but there is a great big nigger in the wood pile somewhere in this proposed reduction of the Manitoba telephone rates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a reduction from $24 to $18.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am willing to admit that there is a genuine reduction of from 15 per cent to 25 per cent in the residential telephones according to the statement of Mr. Rogers, but outside this residential reduction and the farmers' lines there is practically no reduction at all. This talk about joint user is only a delusion and a snare because people do not go in for joint user. This two party reduction is another delusion and a snare because business men will not use a two party line. A farmer will use a two party or a four party or an eight party line because he cannot help it, but fancy a banker or a lawyer or a doctor or a professional man of any kind using a telephone with another man on the same line; for a two party line means that one can listen to what the other may be saying. In the city of Winnipeg or in the city of Montreal or in any large city there are no two party lines to any extent. I have asked from my friends here about the conditions in Winnipeg and so far as I can learn there are no two party lines in that city. I may be wrong about that, but that is the informaiton I have obtained.


William James Roche: What about the reduction of rates in the towns?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I understand it the
rate is reduced to *39, and I can tell my hon. friend that in the city of St. John and in the city of Halifax we get a single line for $45, and in the city of Ottawa which is probably as important as the city of Winnipeg, you get a business telephone for $45.


Haughton Lennox: What about the extensions; is there not a reduction there?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Once in a while you will find a man who has a telephone in his hall or his library and he wants another in his bedroom, and he has an extension set put in and that means another

telephone on the same line which will ring at the same time as the main telephone, but the reduction on the extension sets is another delusion and a snare. I do not suppose there are more than two or three gentlemen in this chamber who have in their residences extension sets.


Haughton Lennox: All the government people have them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think so. I know something about the telephone business, and I can say that not one per cent of the telephones in this country are extension sets; so that when the government of Manitoba tells the people that it is reducing the extension rates from $12 to $6 they are merely deluding them. They charge for business telephones $25 and 2 cents per outcall. Let us see what that means. I do not suppose that any man who uses a telephone in his business makes less than five calls a day; that is 10 cents a day or $30 a year. That means $55 a year for his telephone service, whereas he can get the straight telephone for $50 a year. That is what they call a reduction. Then, to carry this thing to the point of absolute nonsense, they say they will give a residence telephone for $15 and 2 cents an outcall. Now, is there any man whose wife would not use the telephone more than three times a day? That is 6 cents a day or at least $21 a year for outcalls and $15 for rental, which brings the residence telephone up to $36 a year, whereas you can get a general residence telephone for $24 a year. And they call that a reduction. Now, we will come to the smaller towns of Brandon and Portage la Prairie, and there the same policy is carried out. They give a two-party line for unlimited business service for $27. They give a one-party line for $17.50 and 2 cents per outcall. For five calls per day this would bring the cost of the telephone up to nearly $50, or nearly twice as much as the regular telephone would cost. The whole thing is simply an attempt to hoodwink the people. Next, we come to the small towns. The rate for single lines, business, unlimited service, is reduced from $24 to $20, and for residence from $18 to $15. But they have never touched the big source of revenue, the big tax on the users of the telephone, amounting to 60 per cent of the total receipts of the telephone companies by way of rental, that is, from the business telephone. In Winnipeg the business telephone was $50 under the Bell Telephone Company; it is $50 to-day under the Manitoba government. In the cities of Brandon and Portage la Prairie the rate for the business telephone has not been reduced one cent. Now, I make the statement that the farmers' lines and residential telephones all put together do not yield more than 40 per cent of the total rental revenue of the province of Mani-Mr. CARVELL.
toba, and I want to show this House what amounts to, figured out from a telephone the whole reduction standpoint. Mr. Rogers states that his total revenue for twelve months has been $750,000. I say that is not true. My hon. friends will admit that you have to take off $120,000 for unearned rental, which brings your revenue down to $630,000. Sixty per cent of this would be for rentals and 40 per cent tolls. The 60 per cent would amount to $378,000. You have again to take 60 per cent of this as representing business 'phones, which will amount to $226,800, leaving $151,200 as the total receipts of the government of Manitoba last year from residence and farmers' telephones, and these I will admit they have reduced about 20 per cent. Twenty per cent of that $151,200 amounts to the magnificent sum of $30,000. I challeng any telephone man to contradict the statement I make, that the total reduction proposed by the Manitoba government through Mr. Rogers last Thursday in the Manitoba legislature will not amount to $30,000 in the next twelve months, and I am prepared to prove that the increases which the Manitoba government have imposed on the users of telephones since they took power amount to more than $30,000. When that government took power the users of telephones for doctors, veterinarians, nurses and people of that class were only paying $40, and they at once put up the rate to $50. When they took power the service for long distance 'phones was for a three-minutes' conversation, and they immediately reduced it to two minutes. I submit to any business man that he cannot carry on any kind of satisfactory conversation over a long distance line in two minutes, and a conservative estimate; based on the experience of telephone companies, is that this amounts to at least 25 per cent of increase in the rate on long distance telephones. Last year the Manitoba government received in tolls for long-distance service $164,000, and if to that you add 25 per cent for this reduction of time, it amounts to $61,000, twice as much as they will save by the cut on farmers' lines and residence rates. And they claim that they have cut the telephone rates in two, for which they are entitled to credit, and hon. gentlemen opposite want other provinces and the Dominion of Canada as a whole to adopt the same policy as the province of Manitoba. Now, I want to give some figures which are rather interesting. You would think to hear hon. gentle-*men opposite talking that the Manitoba government were giving telephone services away. I tell you that there is not a province in Canada that is not to-day getting a cheaper telephone service than Manitoba. Let me give you a few figures in proof. In Halifax the rates are, business, $45; residence, $30; in London, Ont., the rates are

$45 and $25; in Hamilton, Ont., $45 and $30; in Sydney, Cape Breton, $40 and $30; in St. John, N.B., $40 and $23.50. Our friends in Manitoba would go crazy if they could get telephones as cheaply as we are getting them in New Brunswick where the New Brunswick Telephone Company controls practically all the business of the province. And these are all single, individual lines-no three or four-party lines. Now, let us come to some of the smaller places. But you will please remember that in Winnipeg the rates are $50 and $24.


William James Roche: What is the population of Winnipeg?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose around 100,-
000.


William James Roche: Add about half more to it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman may be pardoned, because that is the true western spirit. But we are going to talk facts for a while to-night. Now I want to show what the Manitoba government are charging compared with a village which they won't say is about one half the size of Winnipeg. Let me give first some of the smaller towns of Eastern Canada. Sydney, $34 business and $27 residence; Guelph, $30 business and $25 residence; Moncton, $30 business and $25 residence; Fredericton, $25 business and $25 residence; St. Stephen, $25 business and $25 residence. Now those we may place against towns like Portage la Prairie and Brandon which are not half the size of the towns I have named, in many cases not one third the size. In Brandon, I am told, the rates are $35 and $20 under the new rate. But there is hardly a city in eastern Canada twice the size of Brandon and Portage la Prairie which does not get telephones at the same rate. Take a few more comparisons. In Manitoba, under the new rate, the city of Winnipeg has 7,000 subscribers, and pays $50 for a business phone and $25 for a residence phone. The city of Ottawa with the same number of phones, 7,000, pays $45 and $25, or $5 less than Winnipeg taking the two instruments together. Now coming to Brandon with 700 users, the business phone is $35 and the residence $30. Chatham has 780 users, and the business phone is only $30 and the residence $25, or $5 cheaper than it is in Brandon for the two instruments. Then come down to Portage la Prairie, 500 users, $35 and $20; Brock-ville, 535 users, $30 and $25, again $5 less than in Manitoba for the two instruments. Take Manitou, 125 istruments, $20 and $15; Arnprior, 160 instruments, $20 and $20; Alexander, Manitoba, 32 instruments, $20 and $15; Colborne, 60 instruments, $20 and $20. And yet, Sir, hon. gentlemen from Manitoba are horrified when I tell them that in New Brunswick, in a dozen towns with 5,000 or 6,000 population, we do not pay as much as they do in Manitoba under the
new schedule. Why, we give an unlimited single line service in towns of that size in New Brunswick for $20, and we give them a great number of lines for $18; we give them a residence phone on a single line for $18, and a party line for $15. I want to tell my hon. friends more than that. In the province of New Brunswick we have in those towns nothing but the very best up-to-date telephone. Not only have we a central energy system in all our small towns, that is, the same as they have in Ottawa; but I doubt if they have in Manitoba, in any of these towns, anything like copper metallic circuits. I am told that in most towns of Manitoba they have only iron circuits, in many circuits not even metallic circuits, they are simply grounded systems, and in New Brunswick our telephone rates are at least 20 per cent lower, and in many cases 50 per cent lower, than they are in Manitoba under the new schedule.
Now I want to speak for a few minutes on the question of the long distance telephones. My hon. friends opposite when dilating upon the virtues of the Manitoba government and the virtues of public ownership as exemplified by the operations of the Manitoba government, took good care not to refer to the question of tolls. I am going to refer to that for a few minutes, and I make the statement here that the Manitoba government to-day are charging the same tolls which they charged last year, and which the Bell Telephone Company charged, and they are charging ten per cent to 15 per cent more than they are charging in any other portion of Canada for the same service. Let me give a few instances showing a comDarison between Manitoba and New Brunswick-I take New Brunswick because I am best acquainted with that province. I will admit that the service under ten miles is similar in both provinces, 10 cents. When you go above that, beyond 10 miles, there is not a solitary rate in the province of Manitoba but is at least 10 per cent higher than in the province of New Brunswick, or anywhere else in eastern Canada. Now take a few illustrations. In Manitoba, over 10 miles and not exceeding 15 miles, the rate is 15 cents. In New Brunswick I will give a concrete example, namely from St. John to Westfield, a distance of 14 miles, where the rate is only 10 cents. I have here a statement which I will let my hon. friends examine if they care to, showing the rates from the city of St. John to Woodstock and a hundred other points in the province of New Brunswick, and they can figure the distance for themselves. Moreover, the distances in New Brunswick are air lines, and not lines which follow the roads. I do not know whether they figure air lines in Manitoba or not. Now from 20 miles to 35 miles, in Manitoba the rate is 25 cents; while from St. John to Hampton, 22 miles, the

rate is 20 cents. From 45 to 55 miles, the rate in Manitoba is 35 cents, while from St. John to Apohaqui 39 miles the rate is 25 cents. From 85 miles to 130 miles, in Manitoba the rate is 50 cents, while from St. John to Moncton 90 miles the rate is 45 cents. From 130 to 160 miles, in Manitoba, 60 cents; from St .John to Woodstock, 140 miles, 55 cents. From 185 to 200 miles, in Manitoba, 80 cents, from St. John to Andover, 190 miles, 70 cents. From 260 miles to 285 miles, in Manitoba the rate is $1.10; while from St. John to Camp-bellton, 276 miles, it is $1. Those Manitoba rates are all for a 2 minute conversation, ours are for a 3 minute conversation. And yet our friends opposite hold up the results of government ownership in Manitoba as a sample which we should follow in the other provinces of Canada. God forbid that we should ever follow the pace set by the Conservative government in Manitoba in respect to a telephone service.


Mr. BURRELL.: What is the rate for a 5 minute conversation on the Dominion government owned system, for about 50 to 100 miles?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a very intelligent question and requires an equally intelligent answer. I may surprise my hon. friend to tell him that the Dominion government does not own a telephone line, that I know anything about .


Martin Burrell: I may inform my hon. friend that the Dominion government he supports is operating and owning a telephone system.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now that I think of it, there are two, I think, in Canada operated by the government. I am told there is one somewhere on the Pacific coast going toward the Yukon, and another away down the St. Lawrence river, somewhere on the Labrador coast.


Martin Burrell: Allow me to correct the hon. gentleman. Allow me to inform him that there is a system owned and operated by the_ Dominion government extending a good distance down the riding of Yale-Cari-boo. And I think that, as they have adopted the principle of government ownershin. the House should have some explanation about the operation of that system and its result.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) will have a chance, so far as I know, to give all the information he wishes to. But, to be fair, I would say that the Dominion government is not in the telephone business to such an extent that we can even discuss it at all. What is the use of men talking nonsense and bringing in little quibbles, when we want to deal with facts? I know the Dominion government Mr. CARVELL.
are operating a telephone line on the Labrador coast. And I suppose my hon. friend would want me to go into an elaborate discussion in which the operation of that line in Labrador would be compared with the operation of the lines in the great city of Winnipeg.


Martin Burrell: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) is using rather strong language


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman wishes to ask me a question, let him ask it.


Martin Burrell: I desire to make the statement


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Never mind your statement. Ask your question.


Martin Burrell: Does the hon. gentleman know how far this line runs and how the telephones

.f-'ARVELL. No, and I don't care. I am talking telephones, not quibbles. There are a number of questions I wish to dis cuss before I leave this important matter. I stated earlier in my remarks that I would attempt to prove that so far as Manitoba is concerned, they have not shown a surplus but a deficit, and have not reduced the rates; and I am willing to leave it to the judgment of this House whether or not I have substantiated my statement. I think I have substantiated it, and I think my hon. friends opposite will get but cold comfort from the consideration of the report presented by the government of Manitoba after their first year's experience in the operation of the telephone. My hon. friend from South Simeoe referred to the remedy, and stated that, in many instances, independent telephone lines have come in and have been able very materially to reduce rates. I admit that four or five years ago, and even as long as ten years ago, there was a great boom of independent telephone lines all over Canada and the United States. And there is no reason why they should not exist to-day. In my own constituency, we have three independent telephone lines, all doing a splendid business. My hon. friend from Lambton thought it a most remarkable thing that an independent telephone line could exist giving a telephone service at six dollars. In my constituency, hundreds of farmers' telephones cost only seven dollars, eight dollars or nine dollars. But, alongside of these, the New Brunswick Telephone Company are getting fifteen dollars for farmers' lines. If hon. gentlemen will take even a few moments to consider it, they will see that a farmers' line can be run at a very cheap rate. But you have perhaps twenty or even thirty subscribers on a line, and a cheap iron wire at that-[DOT]


Mr. TALBOT.: And fastened to a picket.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, to anything. But it is an accommodation to the people, and while I have some interest in the New Brunswick Telephone Company, I have encouraged the incorporation of farmers' lines as far as I could. In less than three years,
I have had a hand in incorporating two of them. They are a good thing. The farmers are able to have their social gossip. But the man who tries to do business over the line must allow for the fact that every one else knows what he is talking about. And there cannot be a social function any where in the country but every one knows about it. The farmers can get the state of the market, can learn what hogs, potatoes, or oats are worth, the line is a good thing for them. But, when you come to talk about telephone business, the comparison is not at all a fair one. For, in order to have a telephone business, you must have exchanges, you must have long distance connection and every thing else that makes a telephone service. I suppose there is not a switchboard on any farmers' line in Canada that costs $100. But the central switchboard in a town of 4,000 or 5,000 people will cost from $5,000 to $10,000. So, when the hon. gentleman talks about farmers' lines at five dollars or six dollars a year, his discussion is not germane to the subject. There is a big question staring us in the face-are we in Canada paying too much for our telephone service? I must say that the evidence furnished by the government of Manitoba does not prove that the government telephone service is an ideal condition of affairs. How are we to get the rates reduced ? My hon. friend from South Simcoe says by independent companies. I say, all honour to the independent companies. I like to see them go ahead and do all they can. But, I must say, the result of the experience of the independent companies has been anything but favourable from a financial standpoint. I have in mind the case of an independent company started in Portland, Maine, six or seven years ago. They put in what is called the automatic system. Under this system, no central is required; by the manipulation of a portion of the instrument you make your own connection and your own call. At first the company gave ridiculously low rates Afterwards they increased their rates to almost what the old line was charging, but, at the end of five years, they went into a receiver's hands and the shareholders lost about half a million dollars. We find another illustration in Red Deer, Alberta. The Bell Company were charging thirty dollars for business telephones and twenty dollars for residence telephones. A gentleman named
Morte came along from the United States, and claimed that he could give them telephones at about half of what they were paying. The municipality gave a franchise and made a contract, and the system was installed. The rates charged were so low that the Bell Telephone Company got out and left the place entirely to the municipal system-municipal in effect because it was run under municipal control. They started in to give a service at twenty-five dollars for business telephones and ten dollars for residence. After running for a year or two, they found they could not possibly carry on the business at these figures, and gave notice to the municipality under their contract that they would apply for arbitration to fix the rates. The arbitrators, I should judge, were men who would be competent to deal with the matter. One was Mr. Roland Winters, of Lethbridge, the second Mr. R. S. Iielsch, the well known electrical engineer, of Montreal, and the third William Cousins, the mayor of Medicine Hat. After hearing the evidence and taking every thing into consideration, the arbitrators gave their award, which allowed the company to fix its rates at twenty-three dollars for residence telephones and thirty-five dollars for business telephones -about ten or fifteen per cent more than the Bell Company had been charging before the independent company went there at all. Now, let me give a few figures illustrating what independent companies have done in the United States. I state that not an independent company has been doing a telephone business-I differentiate between a telephone business and a farmers' line-for ten years, or even five years, that has not been compelled to increase its rates :
City.	Original rate.	Present rate.St. Ltouis.. ..	.. $60-$36	$72-$48


Cleveland .. ..: .. 48- 36	72- 48
Pittsburgh.. ..	.. 48- 36	72- 58Toledo	.. 44- 26	52- 32


La Crosse .. ..: .. 30- 18	36- 24
Madison		.. 24- 18	33- 21


Galesborough ..: .. 30- 18	36- 24
I have another list of 201 different companies organized in the different states and every one has been compelled to raise the rates in the last five years from twenty-five to sixty per cent. It only illustrates the truth of my statement that they cannot do telephone business for less than it costs- neither can the government of Manitoba, neither can the government of British Columbia and neither can a corporation.
I find I have still a good deal of matter to discuss and as it is getting late I would beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Haughton Lennox: 1 rise to oppose the adjournment of the debate except on some

reasonable terms. We have sat here hour after hour listening to hon. gentlemen opposite speaking well, speaking eloquently I admit, but not speaking to the question we should be discussing, not speaking to the question I brought forward. The government have a duty to perform in this matter, but they have not made any statement as to what course they intend to pursue. The country will expect us to debate this matter and dispose of it in some reasonable way. I ask the right hon. gentleman who leads the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he will say that he will give an opportunity of continuing this debate. In that event I have no objection to its being adjourned; otherwise, I must insist that we should either dispose of it by vote now, or decide upon the question of adjournment as the rules of the House provide.


Righ Hon.   S@: In the few words just uttered by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) there are many things to which I could take exception. He said the question has not been debated on this side. In my humble opinion it has been well debated. In so far as the government are concerned, I may say we are disposed to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean). I will not undertake at this period of the session to say whether it will come up again; perhaps it will, perhaps it will not. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) has had at least six or seven different opportunities of bringing up this question before to-day.
House divided on the amendment to the amendment that the debate be now adjourned (Mr. Carvell).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Ayle9worth,
Beauparlant,
Bickerdike,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Boyer,
Brodeur,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash.
Champagne,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex),
Currie (Prince
Edward),
Delisle,
Demers,
Dugas,
Ecrement,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Fortier,


Haughton Lennox: MoCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre (Strathcona), MoKenzie,
McLean (Sunbury), McMillan.
Mareile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's).
Martin (Regina), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
, Miller,
Molloy.
Murphy,
Nesbitt.
Papineau,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,	____
Girard,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lanetot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanetot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laver gne,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Lunenburg), MaoNutt,
McAlister,
McCoig,
McColl.
Rivet,
Robb,
. Ross,
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinolair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sutherland,
Talbot,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgeo-
Turriff,
Verville,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval).-101.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Barnard,
Barr,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Currie (Simcoe), Doherty,
Edwards,
Elson,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Kidd,
Lake,
Lennox,
McCall.
Magrath,
Middltbro,
Northrup,
Owen,
Per ley,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes.
Roche,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster),
Thoburn,
Thornton,
W allaoe,
Wilson (Lennox and Addington).-17.
Amendment (Mr. Carvell) agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business may we expect to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take the Bills which are on the Order Paper, that is if they are printed, and afterwards we will take Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: In their order?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: What Supply? Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Canals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 2, 1909.