1909-12-15

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. T8) respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.

Bill (No. 79) respecting the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company.- Mr. Harris.
Bill (No. 80) to incorporate l'Institut de Notre-Dame des Missions.-Mr. W. M. Martin.
Mr. J. D. REID.: As I understand this 12th report, it is a report allowing the application of the company seeking incorporation as the St. Lawrence Power Company to be put through without the proper notice having been given. Am I right in understanding that?


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am informed that the report of the examiner of petitions will go to the Committee on Standing Orders.



REGULATION OF HORSE RACING.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WALLACE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 81) to regulate horse racing.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


Mr. WALLACE.: This is a Bill dealing with horse racing in Canada. The object of this Bill is to limit the length of race meetings in Canada, which will stop gambling at least to a certain extent. We do not desire at all to interfere with the legitimate sport of horse racing, and this Bill does not interfere with it, but there are many race tracks at which race meetings are held for forty, fifty or sixty days. These tracks are not being operated for the sport of it at all but for the gambling end of it. We want therefore to limit horse racing to thirty days in the year divided between fifteen consecutive days in the spring and fifteen days in the fall there being a proviso that between spring and fall meetings there must be an interval of at least forty days.


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


Mr. BARNARD:: 1.	Has William Cullum been appointed inspector of boilers under section 572 of the Canada Shipping Act? If so, what was the date of his appointment?
2.	Did the said William Cullum before his appointment receive a certificate from the Board of Steamboat Inspection, as required by section 573 of said Act?
3.	If so, what was the date of such certificate, and by whom was it signed?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes, June 1, 1908.
2 and 3. Yes, as the result of an examination held by the Board of Steamboat Inspection at Victoria, British Columbia, in March, 1898. The Chairman of the board, Mr. E. Adams, issued his certificate on May 12, 1908, that Mr. Cullum was qualified under the Act. ,


TONNAGE TAX ON CANADIAN VESSELS.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE:: '
1.	Have any representations or complaints been made to the government relative to the imposition of a tonnage tax upon Canadian ships operating on the Great Lakes entering United States ports?
2.	What is the amount of this tax, by what law imposed, and how collected?
3.	Was there any reciprocal arrangements as to freedom from any tax of this kind in force until this year? If so, when was this arrangement made, the nature of it, and by whom ?
1.	Does this tax abrogate the arrangement made also as to the reciprocal free use of the canals?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to impose a similar tonnage tax upon United States ships trading on the Great Lakes to Canadian ports?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	No.
2.	Turn cents per registered ton, not to exceed in the aggregate ten cents per ton in any one year. This tax is imposed by section 36 of the new United States tariff and is collected by the collector of customs at the port of entry.
3.	Yes, under the authority of an order in council of the 21st of November, 1884, application was made to the United States government for the abolition of all tonnage tax on vessels entering a port in the United States from any port in the province of Ontario. On the 31st January, 1885, president Arthur issued a proclamation exempting vessels arriving at a port in the United States from any port in the province of Ontario, from the tonnage tax of three cents per ton, not to exceed fifteen cents in any one year.
In consideration of the privileges enjoyed by the Ontario vessels in ports of the United States, the collection of Harbour Masters' fees from United States vessels arriving at ports in the said province was waiv ed by the Dominion government.
4.	No.
5.	The collection of the fees-imposed under section 862, of the Canada Shipping Act, which has been waived since 1885, was resumed on 1st December, 1909.


PERMANENT FORCE-ENTERTAINING ALLOWANCES.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1. Are there any regulations governing entertaining allowances for the officers of the permanent force? If so, in what manner are

such allowances made, and to what officers?
2.	Has the officer commanding Quebec district been entitled to or in receipt of such allowance? If not, why not?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN :: 1.	No regulations on the subject. Enter taining allowance is granted to the following officers and messes :
The officer commanding maritime provinces command, Halifax.	,
Royal Canadian Garrison Artillery mess, Quebec.
Royal Canadian Mounted Rifles mess, Winnipeg.
The allowances at Halifax and Quebec have been granted in consequence of the necessity arising for entertainment of Brit ish and foreign men of war, and in view of the fact that, prior to the garrison at Halifax being transferred from the imperial government to Canada, the officers commanding received similar allowances.
At Winnipeg, owing to the very few officers in the mess, it is impossible for them to maintain their position in a proper manner without some assistance.
2.	The officer commanding Quebec command at Montreal is not in receipt of an entertaining allowance, and it is not considered necessary at that station.


PERMANENT FORCE-SCHOOLS OF INSTRUCTION.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	What is the establishment of the royal schools of military instruction, below mentioned, and how many certificates have been issued from each, during the last financial year, to officers, non-commissioned officers and men, of the active militia, respectively: Royal School of Cavalry, Toronto; Royal School of Cavalry, St. John; and the Royal School of Instruction, Winnipeg. Royal School of Artillery:-Horse and Field Branch, Kingston ; Heavy Branch, Quebec; Coast Defence Branch, Halifax; Coast Defence Branch, Es-quimalt; Royal School of Infantry, London; Royal School of Infantry, Toronto; Royal School of Infantry, Quebec; Royal School of Infantry, Frederiction; Royal School of Infantry, Halifax, and the Canadian School of Musketry, Ottawa?"
2.	How many provisional schools of instruction were formed during the last financial year, and how many certificates were issued therefrom ?
3.	What amount was paid out on account of provisional schools of instruction during the period above mentioned to officers, instructors, etc., of the permanent force, lodging and subsistence of members of the active militia attending such schools for instructions, respectively ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1. The establishment of the separate units of the permanent force which constitute the schools of instruction, in addition to per-Mr. WORTHINGTON.
forming the other duties allotted, by law, to the permanent force, and the number of certificates issued is as follows:
	-t-3 [DOT] c jc a>
Certificates granted.	
-	3 ~ eg 09 H	m i o g	N.	C. | O.	and 1 Men.Royal School of Cavalry, Toronto.	90	44	9Royal School of Cavalry, St. John.	95	34	17Royal School of Instruction, Winnipeg 	90	129	118Royal School of Artillery, King-	285	21	81Royal School of Artillery, Quebec	197	5	10Koyal School of Artillery, Halifax	411	8	27Royal School of Artillery, Esqui-malt	80	2	6Royal School of Infantry, London	75	35	34Royal School of Infantry, Toronto	85	58	11Royal School of Infantry, Quebec.	80	73	39Royal School of Infantry, Frederic-	80	19	14Royal School of Infantry, Halifax.	600	22	50Canadian School of Musketry,	15	32Schools of Signalling	28	203
2. There were, in addition, 28 provisional schools of instruction conducted at various local centres by the Royal Schools of Instruction above mentioned during the last financial year, from which a total of 606
certificates were granted.
3.	Permanent force-
Officers and men-lodging and subsistence. ._	 $1,402
Active militia-
Officers and men-lodging and subsistence	 1,814
Horses and forage	 4,936
Total	 $8,152


ESTABLISHMENTS OF CANADIAN MILITIA.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Are the establishments of the Canadian militia, including' the permanent force, fixed annually, by the Governor in Council?
2.	If so, are they based upon the appropriation made by parliament for the period concerned?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.	.
2.	They are based on the appropriation voted by parliament, but provision is also made in the establishments for the authorization of new units to anticipate the growth of the force.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1. Are any Ross rifles Mark I, at present on issue to any corps of active militia, or to any

rifle clubs? If so, to what corps and clubs, and how many?
2.	In view of the defects discovered in Mark I, does not the government consider that a serious set-back might be given to the developing cadet system by any issue to cadets of rifles of that pattern ?
3.	How many Ross rifles Mark I, were accepted from the manufacturer?
4.	In view of its defects, and the fact that it is widely considered unsafe for use, does not the government consider that it would be sound policy to scrap the issue and write it off the books entirelv?
5.	In view of the difference in length of barrel, weight, attachment of barrel and receiver, twist of rifling, change in pattern of locking bolt and safety catch, trigger action, bayonet attachment, and backsight, will the government explain the process through which any previous pattern of Ross rifle was converted into the pattern known as Mark II**?
6.	Did the contract for the supply of 500 rifles Mark II** call for their conversion from any pattern already manufactured, or did it call for the manufacture of 500 new rifles at an increased cost over existing contract rates, against which cost an allowance would be credited for such parts of the Mark II pattern as could be utilized in the manufacture of the Mark II**?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	List of changes No. 255, published with general orders, May 1, 1909, authorized the issue of Ross rifles Mark I. to selected units, rifle associations and cadet corps, to be designated. These rifles have been issued in accordance therewith, and they are expected to be all issued during the ensuing calendar year.
2.	No serious defects have been shown to exist in Mark I. rifle, and the only danger of a ' set-back in the growth of the cadet movement consists in such unfair and persistent attacks upon the rifle as are involved in questions of this kind.
3.	9,000.
4.	Such slight defects as were found to exist have been remedied, and the allegation that the rifle ' is widely considered unsafe for use ' is not believed to have any foundation in fact. Any such impression, however, that may exist is largely due to the persistent efforts of the hon. member to discredit the rifle. To do what the hon. member apparently proposes would be both wasteful and ridiculous.
5.	The process to which the hon. member alludes has been simply one of evolution such as many other service rifles have undergone.
The present British service rifle, for example, differs from the original Lee-Metford rifle in length of barrel, weight, nature and twist of rifling, pattern of safety catch, trigger action, method of loading, bayonet attachment, pattern of backsight, pattern of foresight, clearing rod, magazine, attach- *
ment of barrel to stock, cover for barrel, and many other details too numerous to mention.
6.	Contract called for conversion from existing pattern, viz., Mark II.


Mr. MONK.: I rise to a question of order. I notice that in the answer given by the hon. minister he went' beyond the purport of the question by alleging that the disrepute attaching to this rifle was due to the efforts made by my hon. friend (Mr. Worthington) who put the question. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is quite out of order, and I would ask that that part of the answer ba expunged.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Then I would ask that the question be eliminated. The hon. member who put the question- I did not take exception to his doing so- has made certain statements as to the alleged fact that defects existed and that in the public mind the rifle is considered unsafe for use. These allegations are possibly improper in a auestion, but I answered according to the law of scripture that w'e are bound to answer a fool according to his folly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the question was out of order exception should be taken to it, but the answer certainly was out oT order.


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: If there is anything out of order about it it is certainly the answer. If any one can tell me how you can build a Mark II rifle into a Mark II** when the length of the barrel is an inch and a half longer in a Mark II** and the rifle much heavier, I would like to know it. The only process of conversion is by giving an order for 500 new rifles and paying for these rifles and charging the-difference up to the country.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the point of order is insisted on I will look into the matter. The rule is of course, that no argument of any kind and no allegation can be put into a question. I am under the disadvantage of not having seen this question until it went on the Order Paper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What about the answer?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the question is irregular and is ruled out of order there would be no answer.



DRILL HALLS OR ARMOURIES.

Arthur Norreys Worthington: In the construction of drill halls or armouries, or the leasing of sites for camps of instruction, in how many and what instances have municipalities, regiments, or individuals, contributed to the cost of the same in the way of concessions, sites, or moneys, and to what amount since 1901?


Frederick William Borden: As the information required by the question is

lengthy I would ask the! hon. member move for a return.
to
Rifle Company in this connection? what nature, and the cost?
If so, of


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The question stands as notice of motion for a return.



MILITIA INSPECTION PAY.

Arthur Norreys Worthington: Are the rate9 of inspection pay fixed by article 43, Pay and Allowances for the Militia, drawn by officers of the permanent force appointed inspectors of cavalry, artillery, infantry and signalling, during the periods employed on inspection duties only, or for all days on which they draw regimental pay and command pay?


Frederick William Borden: Inspection pay is paid to inspectors of cavalry, artillery and signalling for every day they hold these appointments.
There are no inspectors of infantry.



PEACE RIVER LAND COMPANY.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	Have the lands which form part of the grant by the Crown to the Peace River Colonization and Land Development Company, been disposed of in any way, or are said lands in the possession of the government Without any reservation whatever?
2.	Have the said lands or any of them been dealt with in any way since the cancellation of the grant to the Peace River Colonization and Land Development Company?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	Several homestead entries have been granted within the tract, otherwise the land is in the possession of the government without reservation.
2.	No; except in so far as homestead entries may have been granted.



SDTHERLAND RIFLE SIGHTS.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Has delivery been made of any of the
36,000	sights contracted for by the government with the Sutherland Rifle Sight Company, the period for which was extended from March 15, 1908, to September 15, 1909?
2.	(a) If so, how many, and (b) what payments, if any, have been made thereon?
3.	Does the contract price for such sights include the placing of the same on the rifles?
4.	(a) If not, by whom is the work of changing the sights to be done, and has any contract been made therefor? (b) If not, what is the estimated cost?
5.	If delivery of sights has not been made, has the time been further extended, or has the contract been cancelled?
6.	Has any other sight been contracted for or taken into consideration?
7.	If so, what is the proposed cost of the sight, and placing the same on rifles, and by whom are sights to be supplied and work of changing sights on rifles to be done, including all expenses incidental thereto?
8.	Has any offer been made by the Ross


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Yes. '
2.	(a) 35,000.
(b) The entire quantity delivered has been paid for. Total payment $42,000.
3.	No.
4.	(a) Regimentally, or by the armourers of the Canadian Ordnance Corps.
(b) At no expense to the public.
5.	Answered by 1 and 2.
6.	No other sight has been contracted for, but the department has constantly under consideration sights which are submitted to it by inventors.
7.	Answered by 6.
8.	No.



DOMINION GOVERNMENT STEAMERS.

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the name, cost, date of construction, place of construction, and gross tonnage of each of the steam vessels now owned by the Dominion government?
2.	What are the names of those built in Canada ?
3.	Were they all thrown open to Canadian
competition? If not, what ones were thrown open ?	,
4.	In each case that was open to Canadian competition, what was the difference between the lowest Canadian tender and the price paid ?
5.	In each case where a contract was made
with a builder for the construction of any of said steam vessels, what was the month and day when each of said contracts were signed, and when each of the said contracts called for delivery of vessels?	.
6.	What price would each of the said steam vessels have cost if the government in each case had paid the current Canadian customs duty chargeable on vessels constructed outside of Canada?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY.: As this question involves the preparation of a good deal of information I would ask my hon. friend to put it as a motion for a return.


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



WATERWAYS TREATY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents and papers not already brought down touching the treaty with the United States of America, known as the Waterways Treaty, or any modification thereof.-Mr. Borden.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I presume the government still desires this to stand.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.



RULES OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron) moved:: That in the opinion of this House it would be in the public interest and facilitate busi-


Frederick William Borden: ness for the answers to all questions put by members under rules 36 and 38 to be submitted in writing without being read. That Wednesdays after six o'clock p.m., be taken up with consideration of the estimates.
He said: If I am not encroaching on the work of the committee appointed by the House to consider the rules, I may say that the people of the country as well as a great many members who are now listening to me are strongly in favour of the procedure that the questions should be answered in writing, published in * Hansard,' and not read in the House, or any change which will shorten the sessions. It is well known that very seldom are the answers heard by those who are any distance from Mr. Speaker, and as a rule the members know they can get it in the ' Hansard ' next morning and so they do not listen. In the Imperial House of Commons, on whose rules ours are based, they have such a rule as I now propose, in force for a number of years. If any hon. gentleman desires that a question should be answered orally then an asterisk is placed before the question on the Order Paper, but otherwise the answers are given in writing. Last Thursday there was an hour and ten minutes of the time of the House absolutely lost in answering questions and reading petitions.-I contend, Sir, that five minutes before six, for the good of the subject which an hon. member wishes to have introduced, is worth an hour afterwards, because what is said after six o'clock, is very seldom taken note of by the press of this country as their columns are filled up by that time. I hold Sir, that the press of the country is the cradle that rocks the idea into shape. It has been said that I pay to much attention to editorials in the press, but I wish to say here that I do not believe that any one can pay enough attention to the importance of the press. They are the brainiest men in the country and they have studied for years the feelings of the people. From one end of Canada to the other, the press on both sides of politics has discussed this matter in leading editorials, some a column in length, and all in favour of a revision of the rules. In Redlich's study of the British constitution, the only real authority on legislative procedure and a very able work-I am sorry the author was not an Englishman-it is stated that the understanding of the rules is that it shall not be made a party matter, but as something due to the country. The purpose of that part of the motion that Wednesday after six o'clock should be devoted to the estimates is that while those who are not concerned in the estimates set down for that evening could still devote it to social purposes, the time of the country would not be lost.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker,
there are two suggestions made in the 49
motion of my hon. friend, and I suppose that he will agree with me that since only yesterday the House adopted a committee for the purpose of revising our rules, it would be preferable that this motion should be sent to that committee instead of being dealt with by the House. So far as I am concerned, I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of my hon. friend's first suggestion, that is, that the answers to questions should not be read in the House. But there may be some answers which, for the purposes of public convenience, should preferably be given orally to the House, those to which it is desirable that public attention should be drawn or as to which the country would like to be informed. In that way the information would very likely get into that cradle of which my hon. friend has spoken. With regard to taking up the estimates on Wednesday evening, this would involve a departure from the present rule, which was adopted at the time of the last revision some years ago, making Wednesday evening a free evening. I think the members of the House have been rather in favour of that change; the freedom given to them on that evening has been very much appreciated. I do not know whether we would meet the sense of the House if we departed from that rule and forced the House to sit on Wednesday evening. If the House sat, I do not know exactly what my hon. friend means- whether that the House should mechanically take up the estimates without members having the privilege which they now have of bringing up any question or moving an amendment on the motion to go into Supply. Is that the meaning of my hon. friend?


Edward Norman Lewis: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware whether this would be acceptable to the House or not. That privilege is more for the protection of the opposition than the government. If we sat on Wednesday evening, I do not know that the government would have any objection to taking uPg the estimates without an opportunity being given to move an amendment; but this is a question which particularly concerns hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I am concerned, I would be entirely opposed to any such proposal as that which I gather is the intention of the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Lewis), in the latter part of his motion; I am speaking of the last paragraph of this resolution. There would be no object in doing any such thing unless the privilege of bringing up public matters for discussion on the motion to go into Supply were abused. I do not think any hon. member of this House will say that that privilege has been abused or



is abused at the present time. To adopt a rule of mechanically going into Committee of Supply would cut off a safeguard and a privilege that has been sacred to parliament for eight hundred years, and it ought not to be taken away without very grave reason. So far as the other part of the resolution is concerned, with regard to _ the mode of answering questions, I am entirely in accord with what I understand to be the object of the hon. gentleman and what I understand to be the view of the Prime Minister. There are certain questions which it is desirable in the public interest to answer orally, perhaps not a very great number. With regard to that, the English practice might very well be adopted in this House. I concur entirely in the view the Prime Minister has expressed, that, as a committee has been constituted to revise the rules of the House, the motion of my hon. friend from West Huron should go to that committee, which will no doubt take it into consideration. I am very glad that my hon. friend from West Huron, although I am not able to concur in one of his proposals, has bestowed some attention on this matter, and I have no doubt that the result of his investigations will contribute something _ of value. I presume there will be no objection on the part of the committee which has been constituted to hear my hon. friend or any other hon. member who desires to make that committee acquainted with his views concerning the lines on which a revision of the rules should proceed.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: If the hon. member for West Huron has in mind the doing away with the Wednesday evening recess, I must certainly, speaking entirely for myself, take the strongest exception to such a proposal. I plead guilty to having had most to do with the bringing about of that change. I was not on the committee, but took the trouble to go to several members of the committee to urge that it should be brought about. I am thoroughly persuaded that it has worked well. I think it is in the interest of the business of the House that there should be one evening of the week when members are free to engage in social affairs, to entertain or be entertained, or to rest if they wish to rest. I am certain that the exceptions taken at the beginning of that new rule were not well taken, and I venture to believe that in the light of experience the House will agree that it is wise to retain the Wednesday evening recess. This is a hard-working House, that is, to the members who are willing to work. Between the work of the committees and the work of parliament, every man who does his duty here will do it quite as well if he has the Wednesday evening recess. It is certainly in the inter* Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
est of good relations between the members, it is in the interest of many things that make, I think, for the advantage of our parliamentary institutions, that the Wednesday evening recess should be retained, and I do make this personal appeal to the committee that they will not agree to abolish that Wednesday evening recess without the very fullest consideration.
As to the question generally, I think the committee should give some consideration to the point whether our questions are not too broad, too long and too cumbersome. Very many questions put on the Order Paper might, I think, properly be ruled out of order, but we on this side of the House do not wish to take that point. Many questions ask for information which an hon. member could get for himself by walking into the library or asking a sessional clerk to compile it. Many questions are long, they call for long answers and again and again ministers occupy ten minutes in reading an answer to a question. The proper procedure for obtaining information of an extended character is not by a question but by a motion for a return. Again, I think very many questions travel away beyond the line of what is the proper business of the House. I only make these remarks to suggest that the gentlemen who are on that committee may consider whether they cannot keep the questions within better bounds, and I think that if that were done my hon. friend would find that the time occupied would be much less than it now is.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF.: Mr. Speaker, no doubt there is a great deal in what the Minister of Finance has just said about the Wednesday evening recess. At the same time, there is a large number of members of the House who feel that if the House sat on Wednesday evening greater progress would be made with the work, and there is a large number of members who come from very long distances to attend the session here in Ottawa to whom getting home a week or two earlier is a matter of very considerable importance. A number think that many members might* devote Wednesday night to social entertainments but there would still be plenty of members left to go on with the business of the House. On Monday nights,and more especially on Friday nights a number of members are away, but at the same time the business goes on and very good progress is made, very often better progress perhaps than if all the members were present to take part in the discussion, because if there is anything that we are troubled with on both sides of the House, it is the tendency to long speeches. I am glad to notice that in the last year or two there seems to be an improvement, and the members generally are speaking more

shortly than a few years ago. It seems to me, however, that if the House would sit on Wednesday nights it might be an advantage, and I trust that when the committee come to revise the rules they will give this question their full consideration and see if it is not possible to revert to the old practice of sitting on Wednesday night. Of course as to what business should De taken up, I think it would be better if we just went on in the ordinary way, rather than confine the work of that special evening to Supply. That, however, is a matter that could easily be decided on later. As to the other part of the proposition that the answers to questions be handed in in written _ form, I am sure there can be no two opinions on it. Just this session we have seen a great deal of valuable time wasted in reading answers that very few members could hear and would have to read in ' Hansard ' anyway. I trust that at least that part of the resolution will be carried out.
. Mr- F. D. MONK. I agree with the Minister of Finance that it would be a great pity to obliterate the weekly half holiday, if I may so call it; but it seems possibly it might with advantage be changed to another day. It has often occurred to me that if we could stop at six o'clock on Friday it would be better.


An hon. MEMBER.: Then you would have to eat fish dinners.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I find the provision of fish in Ottawa is very generous and I would be satisfied to get on with a fish dinner if the House did not sit on Friday night. I think that, without abolishing the half holiday, it might be changed to advantage.
I rose particularly to refer to a remark of the Finance Minister as to circumscribing the field of questions. I would be sorry to -see the committee, that is doubtless going to perform a useful work, place any limit on questions. Some of them may appear to be useless, but they have always held in England, since the mode of questions existed, that the utmost latitude should be accorded and as a matter of fact one is surprised at the number and the strange character of the questions that are sometimes put in England. Members there have been known to ask why the walks about the parliament grounds were not cleaned, why the corridors of the House are not properly swept and a large number of other questions which may appear to the casual observer to be useless; but in spite of that no attempt has been made to circumscribe the field of questions. I hope that this committee will find some means of limiting discussion, without, of course, coming to the question of closure, which was brought about in England by extraordinary circumstances that have no reason to
exist in this country. With that reservation, it seems to me that we might advantageously keep along the line of the English rules in regard to discussion and the division of the work. Some years ago I remember that this question was amply discussed in this House on a motion by Mr. Charlton, which I warmly seconded then. The right honourable the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) expressed the hope when that motion was presented to the House that we would ourselves, with time, correct the abuses that existed then. Experience seems to have proved that without a change in the rules those abuses cannot be eliminated. I therefore hope that this committee will take up the work seriously and make some improvement in our mode of deliberation.


Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL.: throughout the world. And it would be no matter of surprise to me were it to be shown that this interruption oi warfare on Wednesday evenings was initiated^ at the suggestion of some compatriot of mine. For it has always been understood among peoples of latin race, and especially among people of French origin that diplomacy has not the floor of parliament for its only vantage ground, but that there are otheT places and other means at its disposal whereby rancour may be mellowed down and harmony and conciliation enthroned in its place.
Now, I believe that these special meetings of Wednesday nights held outside this Chamber, though still within the precincts o? parliament, have oftentimes afforded an opportunity to hon members to understand one another more thoroughly and gain jl better appreciation of their various artistic and social accomplishments in the *course of conversations and exchanges of views which would have been out of question during a regular sitting of the House. That is what makes me say that it would be a mistake to do away with these social confabs of Wednesday evenings.
There is still another reason, it is this. We have not the training of our predecessors as regards parliamentary practice. That should not be lost sight of, considering that the difficulty of grasping all that is going on here is constantly increasing. Of course, old parliamentarians are familiar with the workings of government; they are in a position to expedite their business in much less time than we the newcomers could do. It requires more than the ordinary tension of mind to go over the innumerable orders appearing on the Paper, to keep up with the work carried on by the committee and follow the protracted discussions which go on from day to day and are taken down in the official reports. Add to that the daily correspondence, the calls to be made in the various departments, and you will acknowledge that the task imposed upon us is a heavy one. It seems that the old members should take all that into account and show some sympathy for us. For all these reasons, I consider the mid-week holiday a very desirable thing and which should not be done away with.	_
That viewpoint of the question should appeal to members who live more through the mind than through the heaTt, for I think that good legislation must be the outcome of a co-operation of both.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express myself as favourable to the resolution which has been placed on the Notice Paper by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Lewis). The first part of the resolution says:


Mr. TURCOTTE.: That in the opinion of this House it would be in the public interest and facilitate business for the answers to all questions put by members under rules 36 and 38 to be submitted in writing without being read.
I cannot see what objection any member of the House can have to that part of the resolution. For I know, from my personal experience here, that very few of us hear the answers of the questions, but have to read them in 'Hansard' afterwards. A large amount of time would be saved almost every day by having these answers handed in and printed for the benefit of hon. members and of the country generally. With respect to the latter part of the resolution-
That Wednesdays after six o'clock p.m. be taken up with consideration of the estimates.
____from my observation during the short
time that I have been here I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that at least one-third or one-half the time of the House is taken up in Committee of Supply. I cannot see, personally, why a large part, or the whole, of these estimates could not be referred to some smaller committee to be dealt with, and only the contested items taken up in the House. I would not urge that if I thought it would interfere at all with the liberty of criticism on the part of opposition members. Every contested item could be reported to the House, and, in that way, everything in the estimates that it is desired to discuss in the House could be brought before the House in exactly the same wav as it is to-day. A great deal of the time now taken up in the discussion of the estimates might be used more advantageously for ourselves and for the people if devoted to some other purpose. With respect to the Wednesday evening sitting, I would favour the taking up of some estimates or other government business during the evening. I come from a place far distant from Ottawa-not so far it is true as other members of the House come-and there are a great many of us to whom two or three weeks at home in our own private business would be a great advantage. There are many wealthy men in the House of Commons, and also a large number who have been here for many years and to whom it has become second nature to be here, and these men do not seem to care how the sessions are prolonged. But I think I voice the sentiments of the members who have to come from a long distance when I say that we do not want to be here any longer than we can help. We want to remain here long enough to assist the government in transacting the necessary business, and when that is over we want to go home. Speaking as one of the younger members, I have no hesitation in supporting this

resolution, and I believe I shall be supported in my expression of opinion by other members who reside a long distance from Ottawa, and to whom, as I have said, two or three weeks at the end of the session is worth something in their private business.


Edward Norman Lewis: What I intended in the latter part of that resolution, although, perhaps, not so clearly expressed as it might be, was to do away with the Wednesday evening holiday and use the time for the work of the House. We come down here to work, we do not come for social purposes; and Wednesdays and Thursdays are the only two days of the week when most of the members are here.


William Stevens Fielding: Why not take another evening?


Edward Norman Lewis: Take Friday evening if you like. I speak without political animus; it makes no difference who are on the treasury benches. The fact is that the main part of the estimates is left until Friday night when there is almost no one here. And, without taking away the rights of the opposition in any way, if Wednesday evening were taken up with the work of this House, it would shorten the session considerably. Starting in November, and ending before Easter, we should have only one holiday for the men from a distance to wait through. Circumstances are changing in Canada. We have more and more members coming from places distant from Ottawa and this fact should not be lost sight of. I say here openly, and no man can confute my statement, that we take up a longer time doing the work of this country than is occupied in similar work in any other country in the world. The Imperial House, upon which this House is patterned, takes less time than we do, and we have nine provinces each with its legislature doing a great deal of business which is absolutely done by the one parliament in England.
There is another matter that we should not lose sight of. While we are only seven millions of people, the questions that come before us are more important not only to ourselves but to the world, than the many questions coming before the legislature of the great country to the south of us or before the parliament of the mother country. The reason is that we are the last great country of the world; we are founding a nation; our work is not for ourselves alonp, it is pregnant with futurity, and we cannot tell what will be the outcome of the proceedings of this House. It is easy to understand that a great manufacturing concern, let us say, can be brought into successful operation only by some great genius, but when it is once set in operation it can be run by any sound business man. Great Britain, the United States and other
great countries are each like a great manufactory that has been brought to efficient operation; ordinary business men can manage their affairs. But we here are laying the foundation; our country is yet in the embryo stage. We have the greatest uninhabited arable territory of any country in the world, and we are directing the affairs of that territory not only for the present generation but for a mighty population of the future, our own descendants and those of others who are yet to come to Canada from other lands. It is of the utmost importance that we should have here in this parliament the best men of Canada. But, if we take up eight months, as the Toronto 'Globe' stated, in doing work which could be done in six weeks, we cannot get the best men of the country to come here. I am not finding fault with one side or the other. Some-people say that the difficulty is in the obstruction of the opposition and some say that it is in the delay of the government. I do not believe that, except in some instances, either of these things is the real cause. The real cause is in the procedure into which we have drifted from time immemorial. We have not made changes to meet our changed condition. In the mother parliament they do make changes some of which are applicable to this country and some are not. I ask, if any evening of the week is to be taken up with social duties, let it be Monday or Friday when many members are not here. Sir, I am informed that this motion cannot be referred to the committee of which the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has spoken. I ask leave to withdraw it on the understanding that the matter be brought before the committee and given due consideration there.
Motion withdrawn.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, documents, petitions, reports and correspondence with reference to, or in any way concerning the appointment of a government weigher at Montreal.-Mr. Armstrong.
For a return showing a list of all experts, technical advisers, and special officers generally, engaged by the government in connection with the naval defence programme and its execution, giving names, special qualifications, duration of engagement and rate of remuneration, as well as the total amount expended to date under the above; also amounts expended to date for articles, books, instruments and objects of all kinds in connection with said naval defence programme -Mr Monk.
For a return showing:	At what places
in the several provinces armouries and drill halls have been erected, and when they were erected; the total cost of the site in each case, and when and from whom purchased; the
[Stage Direction]
contract price of each building, and to whom and when the contract was awarded; the total cost of each building; in what places armouries and drill halls are being constructed at present, and the cost of the site, from whom and when purchased, the estimated cost of the building in each case, and to whom, when and at what price the contract was awarded, and the names of places other armouries and drill halls are to be built by the government in the near future.-Mr. Edwards.
For a copy of the pay sheets of the employees on the Lachine canal under the supervision of Denis O'Brien for the months of May, June, .Inly, August,.Septen.ber, October
tHid. JNovember.-Mr. Vervill©.
For a return showing the names of the two hundred and twenty-one members of the Douse of Commons, as provided for in 6-7 Edward VII, Dominion Statutes, 1907, chapter 41, section 1, excepting only such seat or seats as have fallen vacant.-Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
e^Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier) mov-
„-For.a. c°Py of petition of right and pleas f,™ defence m the case of the suit of he INorth Atlantic Trading Company vs. the ivmg, m the Exchequer Court, and of all the correspondence as well as reports and petirsa	^ Up to,.th® government granting a fiat to the suppliant; and a copy of all letters having reference to the said claim now sued upon from the time of the final payment in the said North Atlantic Company.
He said:	The North Atlantic Trading
Company has always had a great fascination for members of this House who sat in the previous parliament, because there is a mysterious element in the history of that company or association. The government entered into a contract with the North Atlantic Trading Company on the 28th of November, 1904. I will not go into the details of that contract, because it is in a sense irrelevant to the object of this motion. But I may say generally, for the information of members of this House who were not in the last parliament, that under the terms of that contract the company known as the North Atlantic Trading Company undertook, under conditions that are set out at length in the petition of right which it has made in the Exchequer Court, i°«n? to !his country immigrants from different parts of Europe, particularly the north western part, from Germany ' German Switzerland. Finland, Holland, Scandinavia and parts of Russia. Under the terms of that contract the company was to receive $4 per head for every immigrant, larm hand or domestic servant, and half that sum for children. Now after the company had begun the performance of that contract questions arose in this House as to how far the company was carrying out its obligation, and whether we were justi-Mr. LEWIS.
fled in paying to the company the very large sums of money which they received during succeeding years up to the date of the cancellation of its contract. Who were the members of that company? What was the company? Strange to say, in spite of the strenuous efforts made in committees of this House and before parliament itself, after the company had received over $300,000 in bonuses and for other causes resulting from the contract, we never were able to find out who were the members of that company or with whom we were dealing. What requires to be emphasized is the fact that the government at all times, and even on the eye of the cancellation of the contract which the company admittedly was not performing to the satisfaction of the country, even then the information which members of this "House sought for was steadfastly refused by the government and in the committees of investigation. That is probably what aroused the curiosity of the House and of the country, and explains the natural curiosity which arises at the present moment when we find that after having paid nearly $400,000 to the company, and made what was alleged to us in this House was a final settlement in payment of what was due that company under the contract, a payment of over $36,000, here, when we thought we had buried for good and all that company which had left such a painful impression upon this House and the country, we find that the company is alive and well, and has obtained permission of the government to sue the government for a sum exceeding $70,000 for damages resulting from the cancellation of the contract, which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior told us when the last payment of over $30,000 was under discussion, was a final payment to the company under the terms of the contract, and was apnroved by the Department of Justice.
This gives one justification for saying that we will be haunted by that company and its claims until some other government succeeds this one. You cannot lay the ghost of the company by any form of exorcism that I know of. It cannot be laid with bell, book or candle. The ghost must be a Ruthenian or Scandinavian one, but certain it is that we cannot get rid of the claims of the company even by making a substantial payment after the cancellation of the contract and observing all the formalities which would seem to be necessary to rid us of what was deemed by the House and the Minister of the Interior at the time an incubus and a deception upon the country itself. I have stated that information was refused when we investigated the payments made to the company. The House, under the direction of the right hon. the First Minister, I am constrained to say, strengthened and upheld our own public servants connected with the Department of

Immigration, whom we had summoned from Europe, brought here from England, and of whom we asked, as representing the taxpayers of this country-a very natural question: Who are the people to whom we are making these payments which we desire to investigate? The question was put in two of the important committees of this House. I put it myself to Mr. Smart, the Deputy Minister of -the Interior, in the Immigration Committee, and Mr. Smart, who admitted that he was well aware of the names of the parties constituting this company, ^positively refused to give the information. He was upheld by the chairman of the committee, the matter was brought before the House, and here my right hon. friend, knowing himself from confidential communications, no doubt, who the. members of the company or syndicate were, made the extraordinary offer of communicating these names privately to the leader of the opposition, but refused to uphold the right for which we contended that we, representing the taxpayers of Canada, were entitled to know with whom the government had been dealing and was dealing then. The same thing happened in the Committee on Public Accounts where the payments were under revision. There the question was put, if. I mistake not, by my hon. friend on my left, the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). At any rate, the question was put to whom?-to Mr. Preston, the superintendent general of immigration in Europe, who knew all about this syndicate, this company, this party of contractors, having organized them himself, and he-a very strange public officer having that mild appearance referred to by the poet of the man who fearlessly scuttled ships and Cut throats-positively refused to give the information asked for, and I remember, particularly his coolly telling my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), in either one or the other of these committees, because the question was put in both of them: You may be a very good watchdog, but you will not find out who the members of that syndicate are. Who were the members of that syndicate? We do not know. We never were able to discover, and at the present moment the government, in pleading to the action brought in the Exchequer Court, declares that it ignores who the members of the syndicate are. That is one of the allegations of the plea. Yet the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Preston, questioned in both committees that I have re-lerred to, and Mr. Smart, then Deputy Minister of the Interior, who was in Europe at the time of the organization of the syndicate, and who seems to have taken an active part himself in the organization of that syndicate, knew who the members of the syndicate were. All the circumstances surrounding the organization of that svndieate
gave rise to suspicion and seemed to indicate something which was altogether irregular, but at the time these matters were being probed before the committees here, the government cabled to the Canadian High Commissioner in London in regard to this syndicate and we found out that we were dealing with a company intended to shelter the real interested parties, a company that Mr. Preston, if you please, the superintendent general of immigration, the main actor in the organization of this scheme of immigration, had incorporated, not in London, not jn the countries where he was going to operate, but in one of the Channel Islands -the Island of Jersey. He had incorporated a company with a small capital, composed of, I believe, his son-in-law, or his father-in-law, a hotel clerk and a bar-keeper or livery stable keeper, but both he and Mr. Smart told us in the committees that these were in reality prete-noms, the shadows of the real interested parties and that these real interested parties refused to give their names. They were upheld in what we contended at the time was a rebellious position as public servants, but they were upheld by the vote of the majority of this House. On the other hand, it now appears from the plea of the government, and also from the allegations of this petition of right that that company, incorporated under the cir eumstances I have indicated, the Island of Jersey, really never -was the actual company in this scheme of immigration at all, but that the promoters of the scheme formed a commercial association whose business place was in the city of Amsterdam, and I am led to believe by such parts of the pleadings as I have read that the contention is to-day that if you have settled, you have settled with the wrong party. You may have dealt with the Jersey association, but in reality the real party entitled to be paid and entitled to claim damages for an amount exceeding $70,000 is the Amsterdam legal partnership with whom you now have to settle. Which of the two is it with whom we have settled? To whom have we made payment? Who are the parties really entitled to claim? Even at this late date when I thought we had gotten rid of that company, these are matters upon which we should like to be reassured by the Minister of the Interior. I find at page 1928, volume 1, * Hansard,' 1907, that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked as to the amounts paid to the North Atlantic Trading Company as shown in a return to an order of the House dated November 28, 1906. The question he put was:
Are there any accounts still unadjusted or any claims for compensation. If so, what are they and for wliat amount?
In that question my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) referred to a return in reply to a
[Stage Direction]
motion made by my hon. friend from Lennox and Addington (Mr. Wilson) on the 9th of January, 1907, from which it appears that even at that date we had paid to this company over $306,000, and to that question the reply of the Minister of the Interior was:
Yes, there is under adjustment the balance of an account amounting to $31,801.18, on account of 6,536 immigrants.
Well, that account was adjusted and it seems to have given rise to a controversy which the House will find in the Auditor General's Report for 1908, volume 2, page K-103. I may say that we appear to have paid in the year 1908 to the North Atlantic Trading Company, as a balance, not $31,804, but the sum of $36,901.50, and referring to that payment the Auditor General writes to the deputy Minister of the Interior under date of September 10:
I am in receipt of your application of the 6th inst., for the issue of a payment in favour of the Bank of Montreal, for letter of credit cheques issued by your department during the month of November, 1907. On examination of the cheque list I find that immigration cheque No. 1322 was issued on November 29 in favour of the North Atlantic Trading Company, for $36,901.50, in final settlement of their claim. Before passing your application I would be pleased to have the vouchers in support of this payment.
The deputy Minister of the Interior replies to Mr. Fraser, the Auditor General, stating that this sum of $36,900 was a final adjustment of all claims under the contract. I do not wish to detain the House unduly. There are in the ' Hansard ' debates of last parliament a great number of references to the manner in which this company acted and as to its inadequacy to the fulfilment of the task we had expected it to perform. There is a long discussion as to the absolute right of the House to obtain the information which under the ruling of the majority was refused us. I do not wish to recall that discussion, but what I wish to point out particularly is that when the contract was cancelled the Minister of the Interior announced in the House, that he had been advised by the Department of Justice that he had an absolute right to cancel the contract. The minister was asked at the time by the hon. member for Lennox and Addington (Mr. Wilson) if he was fortified by the opinion of the Department of Justice and he said he was and that he had that opinion in writing and was ready to lay it on the table of the House. We expected many useful changes in regard to immigration when the present Minister of the Interior took over the department, and we have his statement that the company was unsatisfactory and that it was time we should cease dealing with it in any way. Then, after the payment had been made
Frederick Debartzch Monk: and in answer to several questions put in different shape by my hon. friend from Lennox and Addington (Mr. Wilson) we had the statement of the minister that we had finished with this company. But, last summer it appears anew upon the scene and it finds that it can chisel the ratepayers of this country out of another large amount for damages by a claim, which in the opinion of the Minister of the Interior had no existence whatever at the time he cancelled the contract and finally settled with the company. What is the explanation of this? In order to obtain a fiat the suppliant must have presented a petition of right and as I understand it, a fiat is not given by the government unless it finds there is some jdstifiable ground for granting it and that the petitioner has really some valid right to urge. I believe the matter is then referred preliminarily to the Department of Justice. Did the suppliant in this instance obtain from the Department of Justice an opinion at variance with the previous one given by that department: that the cancellation was unduly made, and that we had no right to cancel that contract although it is laid down in express terms in the contract that we had the absolute right to cancel it if we found it was unsatisfactory. I must assume that the Minister of Justice found there was a prima facie case and therefore advised the Crown to grant a fiat. The Crown did grant a fiat and now we have a suit for over $70,000 damages pending over the country. I think we must watch that suit with the very greatest care because, having obtained according to the contention we made at the time, large sums of money from the public treasury, which this company, mysterious and unknown, was not entitled to, I think we are in a fair way to see a renewal of these depredations and I hope we will take the proper means to prevent them.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: 
Mr. S. BARKER (East Hamilton).: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) tells us that it is of no moment to this country, and not even a matter of curiosity to him, who may or may not have been members of the syndicate that he speaks of as The North Atlantic Trading Company. Now, I think that if there was one thing that was brought out clearly before the committee it was that there was no corporation, no company in existence until Mr. Preston formed one in the Island of Jersey, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has mentioned. The people who entered into these contracts with the government were a syndicate, a number of ticket sellers, not a corporation. It was never pretended that they had formed themselves into a company. And, although the Minister of Justice may have thought that it is of no moment, not even a subject of curiosity, I think it is a matter of moment to the people of this country, and will certainly be a subject of curiosity to hon. members on this side, whether, from the very outset, two gentlemen connected with the Department of the Interior were or were not in collusion with that syndicate to reap part of the rewards that the syndicate were getting to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is not a subject to be treated lightly, I think, in the way the Minister of Justice seeks to treat it; it is a genuine subject of inquiry and one that, perhaps, may have a bearing on this litigation. There were two men particularly connected with the negotiation of this contract with the syndicate. One was Mr. Preston who represented the Department of the Interior in England and the other was no less a gentleman than the deputy minister of the Interior. Both of these gentlemen were in England when the bargain was made; both of these men knew who the persons were that formed the syndicate, and both have persistently refused to tell who these people were. Why is that? It was not a company such as had' been spoken of; as I have said, it was simply a combination of a few agents, ticket-sellers on the continent, who were making a good thing out of the very valuable contract with them which had been made by Mr. Preston and Mr. Smart. Now, what is the connection


Robert Laird Borden: One or two words before the motion is put. Although it is quite true, as the Minister of Justice has said, that the pleadings in this case are of record in the courts and may be inspected by any hon. gentleman; still it is a very proper thine that they should be laid upon the table of the House in order that the House may be seized, in the first place, of the nature of the claim, and in the second place, of the nature of the defence which the government has put in to that claim. I do not observe, in looking over a copy of the statement of claim which I have under my hand, that the Minister of Justice is quite accurate in his description of the nature of the claim. The company does not, so far as I am able to understand, take the ground that the government had not a Tight to cancel the contract by notice: but the company does take the ground that there was no information in the Dossession of the government to iustify them in giving that notice; in other words, that the reason assigned by the government for the cancellation of the claim in the notice which the government gave, was a false reason, and was false to the knowledge of the government at the time it was put forward, and that for that reason the cancellation of the claim was in law, null and void. That is in -ifect the statement made by this company. But in their claim filed in court I do not observe any statement denying the right of the Crown, under proper conditions, to cancel the claim under -the terms of contract. Quoting from the statement of claim I observe this:
4.	The said notice of 14th April, 1906, was given and the decision of the Minister of the Interior therein referred to was taken without any previous notification or intimation to the suppliant that it was failing, or had failed to carry out its obligations under the said agreement of November 28, 1904, and without giving the suppliant any opportunity of defending itself against the charge of having failed to carry out such obligations.
5.	The decision so taken by the said Minister of the Interior to cancel the said agreement was taken ex parte and without any investigation being made by the said Minister of the Interior, to satisfy himself that the suppliant was failing to carry out its obliga-

tions, and the said Minister of the Interior had before him no evidence or information establishing or tending to establish that there was or had been any failure on the part of the suppliant to carry out its obligations under the said agreement.
6.	On the contrary, ever since the execution of the said agreement of the 28th November, 1901, until the said notice of cancellation was sent to the suppliant on the 14th of April, 1906, the suppliant had in fact carried out and fulfilled all its obligations under the said agreement, and had expended in the carrying out of the work called for by the said agreement more money than it had actually covenanted to expend under the terms of said agreement.
7.	The decision of the said Minister of the Interior was not a bona fide exercise of the powers conferred on him by clause 12 of the said agreement, but it was unreasonable, unfounded, capricious and unjust, and the action of the said minister in that' regard and in the cancellation of the said agreement bv the said notice of 14th April, 1906, was against the principles of natural justice and was illegal, null and void.
That in short amounts to this, that the reason put forward by the government in its notice cancelling the contract was not a true reason, but it was false, to the knowledge of the government at the time it was put forward, and therefore, being contrary to natural justice, was null and void in law, and that the contract was never properly cancelled. So I cannot agree with the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice of the effect of the pleadings in this case.
Now that the Minister of Justice says that this was an ordinary company, just like any other company, and to be treated just as any other company would be treated, in respect of any contract entered into by that company with the Crown. ' It was an ordinary company.1 Let us look at one or two circumstances in regard to it. In the first place, it undertook, by the terms of its contract, to make a yearly expenditure of between $15,000 and $20,000, and it had a cash paid up capital of about $243. In the second place, as has been observed by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), it was composed of a hotel keeper and three or four clerks, got together by a solicitor closely in touch with a prominent official of this government, and was incorporated in the Island of Jersey, I think, where such incorporations can, under the law, be carried out without too much publicity; and in the third place-mark this in connection with the assertion of the Minister of Justice that this was an ordinary every day company, that this was an ordinary every day contract-that company entered into this contract with the government of Canada six months before that company had any corporate existence. The Minister of Justice regards this as an every day affair.
By his own pleading put upon record in the Exchequer Court of Canada, he sets out that the corporate seal of the company purported to be attached to that contract, and the company purported to enter into that contract in January, 1904, when, as a matter of fact, that company did not acquire any corporate existence, or become incorporated, until June following. Yet my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that this is an every day contract, and an every day company and that there is nothing in all these circumstances which should excite the curiosity of any member of this House, or call for any special information to be brought down in connection with the contract. Sir, there never was a more extraordinary and outrageous condition of affairs in connection with any government contract than that which has been disclosed and admitted upon the floors of this House in connection with this very contract. The Minister of Justice, if he knows anything at all about the matter, ought to be the very first one to admit that.
He ^ tells us that the fiat was granted in this matter because there was an arguable case, because the company's advisers believed, although the Minister of Justice did not believe, that that company had a valid claim against the government of Canada. I would like to ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister if that is the principle upon which this government has acted in the past since it came into power in 1896? My right hon. friend and every member of the cabinet, knows that this is not the principle upon which they have acted in many cases. I can recall to the attention of my right hon. friend ten or twelve cases at least in which a fiat was asked against the government of Canada, and under very similar conditions, except that the contracts were in those cases ordinary every day contracts for the carriage of mails -I can tell my right hon. friend that although the legal advisers of those men whose contracts had been cancelled by the government under a similar reservation of power contained in the contract itself, believed they had a valid claim, we vainly pressed session after session upon the floor of this House that these men should have the right to bring the Crown into court and to have the courts of the country determine whether the government possessed the right to cancel that contract. And because those contracts happened to have been made before 1896 the government refused then, and has refused up to the present time, to those men the right to implead the government in the courts of this country, and to have it determined by the courts whether they had just cause of action against the Crown. But they had a very different regard for the North Atlantic Trading Company, a much more tender regard. As soon as the North
15C3

Atlantic Trading Company come to the Minister of Justice and to this government with their claim for $71,000 for damages, although they had been paid $36,000 which we were assured across the floor of this House was paid to them in full, a flat is granted, while other men, to whom I have alluded, under circumstances which would better justify the granting of a flat by the government of Canada, have still gone without justice, and have gone, as far as I am aware, without any opportunity whatever to make good their claims in the courts of this country. It cannot, therefore, be possible, under these conditions, for the government, or the Minister of Justice, or any other minister of the Crown to say that the North Atlantic Trading Company has been treated as every other suppliant has been treated, because the reverse is the case and the reverse can be proved from the records of ' Hansard ' and from the records of the Department of Justice.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I am sure that the country, as far as its memory of the question that is now before the House is concerned-I mean the question as it has been discussed, not as it has been asked-will think that this parliament has very little to do on this day c.f the year, in this important session, in spending its time discussing a matter which has been the subject of discussion during so many previous sessions of parliament and during so many sittings of the Public Accounts Committee, a matter of business that has been dead and buried for three years, a question which is now before the Department of Justice and before the courts for settlement, even after the motion has been agreed to on the part of the government. However, the subject has been understood. I think, by the country, and now the position, as it appears to me, is something like this: An Englishman, a very large man, was subject to chastisement very frequently by his wife who was a very small woman, and being asked why he permitted such a little woman to thrash him, the large man replied: It pleases she, and it doan't 'urt oi. If it pleases our friends opposite to discuss the North Atlantic Trading company, session after session and month after month, I can assure them that it does not hurt us.


Robert Laird Borden: No, because you pay the damages out of the public treasury.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend might wait until these damages are paid before he makes this assertion. His assertion is of a like kind with that of my hon. friend who sits behind him (Mr. Monk) who declared to the House in good set terms that this company was to-day suing the government for the balance of payments due. The eom-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
pany is not suing the government for the balance of payments due. The government has paid every dollar that the company claimed for work done and holds receipts for these payments. The government has not paid any damages to the company, and we believe that the Department of Justice is sound in its advice that the government will not have to pay a cent of damages to the company.
My hon. friend who asks the question, said that we were not likely to be rid of the ghost of this North Atlantic Trading Company for an interminable period. Might I say I do not think it is a ghost that we are in danger of, it is merely the mania that possesses the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. If we have had dealings with the North Atlantic Trading Company, and if we have ceased business relations with the North Atlantic Trading Company, surely this House has something more important to concern itself with than questions surrounding the North Atlantic Trading Company, or the question of who composed the company or who did not compose the company. However, as I have no doubt the hon. members who have already addressed the House have done so with the view of instructing their followers who are more recently in the House than themselves, with regard to this question in order to be sure that they shall be aware of all the facts surrounding it, perhaps I may take the opportunity of giving some of tire facts as well for the information of these gentlemen and of the country at large.
The contract with the North Atlantic Trading Company was entered into on the part of the government for the purpose of directing emigration from Europe to Canada. I do not know whether my hon. friends will agree that that was a desirable object or not.


Glenlyon Campbell: From what part of Europe, may I ask?


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) will keep his hat on and bide his time he will know.


Glenlyon Campbell: Perhaps I ought to feel belittled by the remark of the hon. gentleman, but I do not. I took my hat off in courtesy to the hon. gentleman. '


Frank Oliver: The contract was entered into with the North Atlantic Trading Company in connection with emigration to Canada, and I ask the House if that was or was not a proper and a desirable object to be achieved? We might just as well divide on that point here and now. On this side of the House we believe the object was desirable, that it was a proper object, and in so far as it has been achieved by means of the contract entered into with the North Atlantic Trading Company and otheT

means, I believe the government is entitled to credit and not to blame, and I believe that the Dominion of Canada has reaped many, many millions of dollars of advantage from these efforts on behalf of emigration to Canada.


Glenlyon Campbell: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Glenlyon Campbell: Was it embodied in the -contract that the immigrants should be from Galicia?


Frank Oliver: It was not embodied in the -contract that the immigrants should be from Galicia; it was embodied in the contract that they might be from Galicia.


Glenlyon Campbell: Does the minister remember his speech in the House in which he reflected on the Galician immigrants?


Frank Oliver: The minister remembers very well that he said in the House and out of the House on many occasions and is prepared to say on as many more occasions that there are immigrants who come to Canada who are more desirable, from many points of view, than the Galicians.


Glenlyon Campbell: The minister surely does not take in as one of these occasions that he now refers to, the eve of -an election when he was expecting 2,000 Galicians to vote for him?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, the minister has never had any occasion to alter the views that he has expressed in this House in regard to the different value of different classes of immigrants coming to this country. If I might take the liberty of making a reflection, it is not my custom to vary my arguments to my audience as I have no doubt it is my hon. friend's. If it is of interest to the House, I will say that I have nothing to take back of anything I ever said in this House or out of this House in regard to immigration. I hope my hon. friends opposite understand my position. I said that the purpose of the government was to promote immigration from Europe to Canada, and that the contract was entered into with that purpose in view, and as a part of the general immigration scheme of the government. The country has benefited to tne extent of many millions of dollars as the result of the government's general policy of which this was a part. I see my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in his place, and I remember very vividly that yesterday he told the Minister of Finance, that the financial management of the affairs of this country was disgraceful, but that what really saved the situation was the fact that production had increased so stupendously. I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) will admit that the reason of that increase of production is the increased number of people in the country. I have the hon. gentleman as a witness, and he is as good a witness as I want, in support of the assertion I have just made.


Mr. FOSTER.: Don't quote me in favour of the North Atlantic Trading Company.


Frank Oliver: I have quoted the statement of my hon. friend made only yesterday that the 'prosperity of the country and the success of the Minister of Finance was due to the increased production of grain, and I think I may say of western grain. Now, that increase in the production of western grain was as surely and as definitely and as perfectly the result of the immigration policy of this government as any on,e thing can be the result of any other thing. Therefore, we have no apologies to offer for our efforts on behalf of immigration. Now then, as to the propriety of the special efforts that were made and the reasons for them. There are countries in Europe which are just as anxious to keep their people at home, to prevent them from leaving, as we are to get them. Amongst these are countries whose people it will be admitted by every one are as desirable settlers as the people of our own country in every particular, except that they are not the peonle of our own country, and I will admit that is an important particular. I speak for instance, of Germany and Switzerland and Scandinavia. These were the countries to which the government desired to direct its efforts, outside of Great Britain, France and Belgium, in which countries there was no restriction on our carrying on an aggressive emigration campaign. An agreement was entered into with the North Atlantic Trading Company, whereby, in consideration of payments made to the company on immigrants brought to Canada, the company was to use its efforts through its agencies in Switzerland, Germany and Scandinavia, to secure immigrants for Canada. There is certainly one feature of the bargain that no fault can be found with and that is the feature of payment by results. The North Atlantic Trading Company was paid on the immigrants they Tended in Canada, these immigrants having passed an inspection to the satisfaction of the government. If they did not land the immigrants they did not get any pavment. Surely that is a fair businesslike arrangement. The work of the North Atlantic Trading Company was carried on for some years, but I suppose that even the friends of the company who are now arguing their case so eloquently and so ably from the benches on the other side will admit that even the North Atlantic Trading Company may not in all particulars have lived up to all its agreements

or fulfilled the expectations which the government had with regard to it. As a matter of fact, when I had the honour of taking charge of the immigration department and after the arrangement with the North Atlantic Trading Company had continued for some years, it appeared to me that the company was depending for its revenue rather upon the movement of people from countries where the emigration was occasioned from causes existing within these countries, than upon efforts made in the countries where such reasons did not exist. In other words, they were depending for their revenues upon the people who were the easiest to move and they were not making due exertions to move the people from countries whence emigration was desirable, but where it was not so easy to accomplish. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition read from the pleadings of the company which assert-and he gives all the publicity of 'Hansard' and all the weight of his position as a leader of a party in this House, and all the backing of his party behind him to strengthen the contention of the company against the government before the courts-that this was done without consideration on my part.


Frederick William Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I merely pointed out, in answer to the Minister of Justice, that the issue upon the pleading was not as he stated, but was an entirely different issue. I said nothing in support of it and nothing against it. The matter is before the courts and must be determined there.


Frank Oliver: I said that my hon. friend placed befoTe the country with all the weight and strength of his position as a leader of a party in this House, all the publicity that 'Hansard' can give his statement and all the backing that a political party can give that statement: the assertion that this contract was cancelled by me or on my advice without due consideration and contrary to the facts.


Frederick William Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I made no such statement at all. I simply read the pleadings in reply to an observation of the Minister of Justice, for the purpose of showing what the issue was. I made no assertion on my own part at all.
Some hon. MEMBEES. Eetract.


Frank Oliver: I did not say my hon. friend made an assertion.
Some hon. MEMBEES. Oh.


Frank Oliver: I did not intend to say he made an assertion, but I said he gave the statement publicity and I think he will have to admit that is so. Now, I want to say that this contract was not cancelled without due consideration, and so far as the Mr. OLIVER.
Department of the Interior is concerned it is prepared to stand by and maintain the correctness of the reasons given for the cancellation of the contract, and I am giving them to the House fully and frankly. We believe that the company was depending upon what was easy and was not making due exertions in what was hard. It was from Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia that we particularly desired immigrants, and we believed we were not getting that proportion of people from these countries that we were entitled to under the contract, and because we were not satisfied with the way in which the company were carrying out their contract we terminated it. If we were mistaken in that, and if the company shall be able to establish that it has suffered damages because of the improper cancellation of the contract, I am sure that a great deal of the credit will be due to the attitude of our friends on the other side, who from the very beginning have taken the ground, first, that the government dare not cancel the contract, and next, that it had not the right to cancel the contract. As to whether or not the government had a right to cancel the contract, that' will be decided in due course in the courts.


Frederick William Borden: Is it correct that the contract was entered into six months before the company was incorporated?


Frank Oliver: I was not minister at that time, and cannot answer my hon. friend's question; but, as the matter has been under question in the House and has been before the Public Accounts Committee during several sessions, I am sure that my hon. friend is well acquainted with the facts, whatever they may be. If the company succeed in the case, they will be entitled to give a fair measure of credit to our friends on the other side, who have fought their battles so ably and so well. But I want to call the country's attention to this point, that the greater part of the argument of our friends on the other side was that the government dare not cancel the contract because they were tied up with the company. The slander has been suggested again here to-day, that officials of the government were improperly connected with this company.


Glenlyon Campbell: Well, tell us the names of the company.


Frank Oliver: I do not know the names of the company.


Glenlyon Campbell: Why don't you?


Frank Oliver: Because it is none of my business, nor of my hon. friend's either.


Glenlyon Campbell: It is mine.


Frank Oliver: Then my hon. friend must find out for himself.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am asking for information.


Frank Oliver: I am giving all the information I have.


George Eulas Foster: That is not much.


Frank Oliver: It is true, it is not much, but it is enough. The suggestion was made session after session that the government dare not cancel the contract, because members of the government were involved in it. It has been suggested to-day that officials of the government were improperly involved in the contract. But I ask our hon. friends to remember that the government did cancel the contract, and that the privilege of suing the government for damages, the government was not afraid to let them sue.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: To give them a chance to get some more money.


Frank Oliver: The North Atlantic Trading Company is entitled to every dollar the government owes "it. If an illegal act was done by the government, if the company's rights were trespassed upon, it is entitled to justice the same as any other institution or individual.


Mr. BLAIN.: If the government found that the company were not fulfilling their contract, why did not the government compel the company to fulfil it?


Frank Oliver: Because the government could not compel the company to fulfil it. I suppose my hon. friend has employed a labouring man to do some work. If he found the man inefficient, did he compel him to do the work? He cancelled his contract with him; that was the only thing he could do. He could not compel him to do the work. And we could not compel the North Atlantic Trading Company to do this work; but we could cancel the contract and could cease paying them money for work that in our estimation was not satisfactorily done; and that is what we did.


George Eulas Foster: He might have retained the man's baggage in that case, but you did not know whose baggage to retain in this case.


Frank Oliver: We did not retain any baggage. I do not understand the allusion.


Samuel Barker: If the company had not done their work satisfactorily, and claimed $31,000 to wind up, why did you give them $36,000?	,


Frank Oliver: The government did not pay them $36,000, when they demanded only $31,000. The government paid them the amount of their claim as agreed upon, after careful consideration on behalf of both parties. '


Samuel Barker: Although they had not done the work.
50	.


Frank Oliver: They had done the work, but they had not done it satisfactorily; and exercising our right in that connection, we cancelled the contract.


Glenlyon Campbell: If the hon. gentleman has a field of hay and he hires a man to cut it, and the man does not cut it, does he pay him?


Frank Oliver: No.


Glenlyon Campbell: That is exactly the position of the government. They entered into a contract, and the other fellow did not carry out Iris part of it, and they paid him to get rid of him.


Frank Oliver: I suppose my hon. friend has hired men to cut fields of hay. If a man cut the hay, he paid him; but if he did not cut it satisfactorily-


Glenlyon Campbell: I fired him as high as Gilderoy's kite.


Frank Oliver: He would do exactly what the government did; he would pay the man for the hay he cut, but he would not hire him to cut any more. The government cancelled the contract, and asked for no other consideration at the hands of this company than it would require in any other business transaction. So far as we are concerned, we deal with this matter from start to finish as an ordinary business transaction, and we know nothing else in it or about it.
There is one other side to this question which I wish to put before the House. In the judgment of the government, the company was not living up to its contratct; we were warranted in cancelling it; we did cancel it; and, as a result, from that day to this the government has not been able to put forth any immigration effort in the countries of Germany, Switerland or the Scandinavian peninsula, and as a consequence we have not received from these countries the immigration that we very much desire and that would be very greatly to the benefit o' this country if it were received.


Mr. U. WILSON.: Did you ever tryr


Frank Oliver: Yes we have tried; I need not go into details, I can give them at some other time. As a matter of fact that is the position that under the restrictive laws of Germany, Switzerland and the Scandinavian peninsula, it is not possible to carry on immigration work as it is carried on in some other countries, and as a consequence of the cancellation of the North Atlantic Trading Company contract, Canada has not been carrying on any immigration work in those countries since that time.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister say that these unknown persons possess a monopoly in respect of immigration from those countries?


Frank Oliver: No, but I say that the government of Canada cannot send agents into Germany to promote immigration into Canada; they cannot do that in Switzerland and I am advised they cannot do it in either Norway or Sweden. That being the case, we are not carrying on the immigration effort in those countries, we would desire to carry on. The North Atlantic Trading Company was in a position to carry on immigration work in those countries and this government was not in a position to be held to account for what they did.


Mr. OSLER.: Was there not a provision in the contract that the incorporators should not in anv shape or way do anything unlawful in promoting immigration where there was a restriction? The only inference from the minister's words is that the government deliberately entered into a contract with responsible people on the face of it, to do What was absolutely illegal for the government to do in regard to a friendly nation.


Frank Oliver: If that is the inference to be drawn from my remarks I can only say I did not wish that inference to be drawn. If I may explain a little further I think my hon. friend will agree that that inference is not warranted. While I am not acquainted with the personnel of the North Atlantic Trading Company, my understanding of the matter is that it was an association of what are called booking agents, operating in the European countries which I have mentioned. A booking agent in Europe works under a license, he is licensed to sell transportation. He sells transportation for such lines as he can secure agencies for. He gives bonds to the government of the country in which he operates which ensure that that country shall have due supervision over his operations. Inasmuch as his business is to sell transportation and is authorized and licensed to do so, it is within his power, without contravening the law of the country in any degree, to say to_ the man who comes to buy a steamship ticket to take him across the ocean: You ought to go to Canada rather than to the Argentine or to Brazil or to some other country. I hope I have made my point clear that the agreement with the North Atlantic Trading Company was not an agreement in contravention of the laws of the countries in which that company operated but it was an agreement with people who were licensed by the laws of those countries to carry on the business of selling transportation and by that agreement we enlisted their services on behalf of _ Canada as against other countries to which they were also authorized to sell transportation.


Mr. MACDONELL.: Then how was it that Mr. Smart, in giving evidence said Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
that if the names of the persons composing that company were known, a large number of suicides would be committed.


Frank Oliver: I am not responsible, of course, for what Mr. Smart said, and I am not responsible for my hon. friend's understanding of what he said. I am rather inclined to think there must have been some misunderstanding on his part. It must be clear, however, that in a country where the laws are absolutely restrictive against immigration, but where booking agencies are licensed, while it might not be against the law for booking agents to take a bonus from one country as against another country it might be against the administration or the policy and might put these booking agents at a disadvantage in their own country; and it was to protect them against that feature of the case that it was desirable that their names should not be divulged. That is my understanding of the case, a perfectly fair and legitimate understanding. It is, I firmly believe, according to the facts; and all the ideas which our hon. friends have built up around this question have no more foundation than the idea that the government dared not cancel the contract.


Mr. HUGHES.: Is the minister aware that these booking agents have an organization and have an arrangement with the steamships sailing to the various parts of the world from these European .ports by which a certain proportion of immigrants are allotted to each steamer and that the payment of the bonus by Canada would have no influence on the proportion of immigrants sent to Canada by these agents?


Frank Oliver: No, I am not aware of that fact, and I would be rather inclined to doubt it. I know there is what is practically a Steamship combine. I do not know what the arrangements are in regard to that, but I do know that since the cancellation of the North Atlantic Trading Company agreement, immigration from the especially desirable countries I have mentioned has unquestionably fallen off, but I cannot say more than that on that point.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the minister said it had fallen off before and that that was the reason he cancelled it.


Frank Oliver: 
Samuel Hughes: Has not emigration from Germany decreased to other countries, the Argentine, Brazil and the United States in a greater proportion than to Canada?


Frank Oliver: I could not answer that question, I am not famliar with the facts.
As the question of bonus payment has been up many times, and as I am satisfied the House has a misunderstanding in regard to it, I think it might as well be brought out in this connection that the bonus was paid to an association of licensed booking agents operating in European countries whose laws were such as to prevent direct emigration effort on the part of the government of Canada. The contract entered into was not in contravention of the laws of these countries, but it may have been such as to render the booking agents who were a party to that arrangement liable to the displeasure of the authorities as contravening, not the law, but the policy of their countries. This would be to them a very serious business disadvantage. It surely must be evident that if a man is making his living by selling transportation, he is interested in promoting transportation, and, if he gets $5 per head more on people who go to one country, he is going to use his efforts at publicity towards sending the emigrants to that country as against a country for emigration to which he receives no bonus. By the contract with the North Atlantic Trading Company, and by the arrangements that we have in Great Britain with the booking agents, we secured the active efforts of these men whose business it is to promote transportation towards immigration to this country. But, by the cancellation of the agreement with the North'Atlantic Trading Company, that arrangement was cut off, and we have not been able to carry on an effective propaganda in those countries since.


Glenlyon Campbell: The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and myself have one thing in common, we both come from the west; but I must say that his idea of the west and its interests and possibilities have been widened out in my mind by his speech. He certainly wandered from Dan to Beersheba and back again; he has talked of everything under the sun but has made no argument in the particular matter before us that ought to be considered by this House. He spoke of the matter of the North Atlantic Trading Company as being a dead issue, a matter that has been threshed out for years in this House, and, before the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. minister seems to hold that any matter which has been 504
brought before the Public Accounts Committee and has reached the kind of settlement that it gets in that committee is satisfactorily settled so far as this House is concerned. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I was in the Public Accounts Committee last year when the chief solicitor-shall I call him?-or legal adviser, or defending lawyer, of the government, said that the committee was not there to hear the rights or the wrongs of the case, that the committee was there playing the political game and he was there for the government playing it. And yet because the case of this North Atlantic Trading Company was more or less bruited before the committee, the hon. gentleman is satisfied. I want to tell him that we on this side were never satisfied nor was the country. He may have been satisfied because the government was in a measure whitewashed in the eyes of the people who did not understand the methods that were being operated in that committee. If this be a dead issue why is this claim of $71,000 put forward? Dead men are supposed to tell no tales; they certainly do not bring claims. The hon. minister was asked two or three times to tell the names of the people who composed this company; he does not know; the government pretends to this House that it does not know; and a man who used to have a prominent position in one of the departments here went the length of saying, when he was on oath, that were the names of these men disclosed suicides would occur. I say it is a pity the names were not disclosed, because if the business of these people was so nefarious that on the disclosure of it they would commit suicide, it would have been for the good of the country and the world that that disclosure should be made. The hon. minister refers to the class of immigration that came in under this company. I asked with regard to the Ruthenian immigration. He seems satisfied that the Galicians came in vast numbers into Manitoba and what were then the Northwest territories. And he was well satisfied, in the late elections, that these people were in the country as electors. In the country from which they came they had no voice in public affairs, and, coming here, they understand nothing about the duty that goes with the franchise and are controlled by men, as far as my experience goes, vitiated men who lead them astray and they vote, as it were, in flocks. The minister himself knows that what I say is absolutely true. He need not wag his head as much as to say he does not agree with me, because I can give him an instance in which he recognized the fact that these people can be controlled by a vitiated influence. He recognized the fact to this extent, that the law was subverted so that a man who had been put by this government in charge of the Ruthenians

and Galicians coining into Edmonton district and had afterwards been found guilty of stealing from these people and condemned under the law to serve a sentence of years, was allowed out before that term expired and was utilized by my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) as his forerunner, as it were, among the Galicians, to round them up and get them to vote for himself and his candidates. He knows that that is true. I refer to the case of Wagner


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to interupt the hon. member (Mr. Campbell), but, as he says that I know this to be true, I must give an answer, and the only answer I can give is that I know that it is not true.


Glenlyon Campbell: I thought the hon. gentleman knew what was going on in his constituency when it came to election time. But I am quite satisfied to accept his state-[DOT] ment that he did not know what was going on and what is well known to every man in the part of the country from which he comes. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) as it were, clapped the Minister of Finance on the back because the immigration policy has been conducive to the settlement of the northwest. He knows, away down in his heart, that the only reason why the northwest has settled up in the way it has done is the fertility of its soil. The immigrants who drifted in for one reason or another were so successful in that country that they wrote to their friends in the south and elsewhere, and told them what could be accomplished in the northwest, and their friends came up and helped to fill the country. That is the only reason that the country is filling up at its present rapid rate. The hon. gentleman also said in his remarks-it was rather difficult to follow him because, as I say, he wandered from Dan to Beersheba-that the Conservative party-pretended that the government did not dare to make any change in the contract or to abrogate it in its entirety. I think that statement was made before the present Minister of the Interior took charge of the department. The hon. gentleman also said that owing to the abrogation of the arrangement with the North Atlantic Trading Company,- immigration from Northern Europe had nearly or entirely ceased, and that they were no longer able to get immigrants from Norway, Sweden and other countries in northern Europe. I think that is a very poor argument. Those people from northern Europe, he knows very well, and I know very well, are the best class of settlers we can get,, outside of our own Canadians, and the Canadians who have gone into the United States. Surely, Sir, the Minister of the Interior is making a very lame excuse when he tells us that because a company formed, according to Mr. Smart, of men who would Mr. CAMPBELL.
commit suicide if their names were known, had their agreement cancelled and went out of business, therefore his department could not carry on successfully an immigration policy in northern Europe. He must think that this country offers no attraction to immigrants except the inducements put before them by the North Atlantic Trading Company; he must think that western Canada is played out. That country offers the same advantages to-day that it ever did, and is not dependent and never was dependent upon the advertisement of the North Atlantic Trading Company.
Now, with regard to the Ruthenians who are largely responsible for the presence of the Minister of the Interior in this House, and who are found in large numbers in my constituency, I would like, if I had time, to read to this House the opinions expressed of them by the present Minister of the Interior before he took charge of that office. When they first began to come into this country he looked upon them from a very different standpoint to the one he holds today. He said that when the Ruthenians came into a country to settle, they were a detriment to the country from all points of view, that their presence depreciated the value of the lands, that other people did not like to procure homesteads in their neighbourhood. Now, Sir, I want to tell the minister that I have many of these Ruthenians as my neighbours. I am only a western farmer myself, and my nearest neighbours are Galician farmers, and they are as good settlers as any other settlers that come into our country. They mostly belonged to the peasant class in Galicia, and excellent farmers they make too. The trouble with regard to the immigration policy of the department, as administered by the Minister of the Interior and his officials, is that they have not paid sufficient attention to the kind of Galicians they have brought out. They have brought out men who, in their own towns at home, were mere loafers, and were already a detriment to the towns where they lived in Galicia. For that reason perhaps some of the undesirable ones have given a bad name to the Galicians who have settled in the neighbourhood of towns like Winnipeg. But I am able to bear testimony to the fact that in my neighbourhood the Galician farmers have proved to be a splendid class of settlers. Although they were put upon lands that were practically unfit for any man to live on, bush lands, lands that were stony and undrained, yet they have, by their industry, developed those lands and have shown that even under disadvantageous conditions, they are a hardy and industrious class of people, and are prospering as well as any other class of people in that country. They are inter-marrying with the Canadian people, and in a couple of genera-

tions from now, I have no doubt that their children will become thorough Canadians, and no man will be able to tell, on meeting them, that they were not of British or Canadian ancestry. I have only to say in conclusion that since the Minister of the Interior has spoken in favour of this North Atlantic Trading Company, it is up to him surely to tell this House who were the members of that company.


Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne) (Translation).: Mr. Speaker, three conclusions of some importance are the unavoidable outcome of this discussion. In the first place, I think that if the hon. Minister of the Interior had played the part of a busines man he would certainly have settled that claim and secured a receipt in full when paying over to the company that amount of $36,950. A mere country dealer under similar circumstances would have thought of protecting himself against any future action of the company in that connection and secured a receipt in full, instead of the ordinary receipt.
The company claimed approximately an amount of $31,000 only, and after some discussion a sum of $36,950 was agreed upon. That was an opportune time for securing a receipt in full. Then the hon. Minister of Justice stated a moment ago that conscientiously he was satisfied that the company had no fair claim to make on the government, notwithstanding which he grants a fiat. On occasions such as this the minister is acting in a judicial capacity, and if he is satisfied that the party applying for a petition of right is not entitled to such a privilege, he should not grant the fiat. Lastly, the outcome of it all is that the government is now being sued for an amount of over $71,000 by a company unknown to him for the time being and possibly for-all time.


John Dowsley Reid: I am greatly surprised that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) is defending the rascalities that have been going on in the Department of the Interior. We older members of the House will remember a time when the present Minister of the Interior occupied a seat at the back of the ministry, and when he was held up as the angel of the Liberal party He was for ever finding fault with what the government were doing and we all believed that there was no man in the Liberal party who was more anxious to remedy the rascalities that were going on in the government. At that time, as my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) says, he claimed he was an independent, but, strange to say, the minute he appeared on the ministerial benches he changed his tune. There is not a man in this House, on either side, if he will stand up and tell us what he conscientiously believes, but will admit that this was one of the greatest rascalities that was ever committed by any government. The Minister of the Interior tells this House now that he does not yet know who the gentlemen-


An hon. MEMBER.: Men.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the men were who composed this company. Yet he is doing business and going into this suit with these men although he does not know who he is dealing with. Can any person believe that the Deputy Minister of the Interior (Mr. Smart), who was occupying a good position, and who went over and made these arrangements on the other side, and then resigned and took the management of that concern, was not one of the company, and was not interested in iW Can any man in this country believe that there were not others in Canada also connected with this corporation? I do not believe-there is a man in Canada who does not believe that in some way directly, or indirectly, men connected with the civil service or the government were interested and received benefits from this great piece of rascality which the Minister of the Interior did not hesitate to stand up and defend. Every man believed that a good, righteous, honourable gentleman like the Minister of the Interior, when he saw any rascality, would immediately try to remedy it. But right in his own department a man named Philip Wagner is convicted and sent to jail for robbing immigrants in the Northwest, and immediately when he gets out the min ister gives him a higher salary and a better position. Is there any justification for the minister doing a thing like that? He was one of the members who complained about giving away lands in the Northwest, yet, immediately he comes into the department he is willing to give away 250,000 acres for a dollar an acre when it was proved that these lands were worth $3 an acre and up. It is strange how the gentleman that we believed was the angel of the Liberal party could be converted so soon immediately upon occupying a seat on the ministerial benches. When I saw that contract and when I found out the way the government allowed the payments to be made it appeared to me that there was something wrong in the deal at this end. Instead of counting the immigrants they simply took the ship's register, and perhaps counted the crew, for all we know. They counted the number of people on board and paid $5 per head for all that came in that way. First-class passengers, second-class passengers and all were counted as immigrants and $5 per head was paid. I am awfully sorry to see good men like the Minister of the Interior getting into a mix-up like this. I would like to have seen the

minister continue to be the angel of the Liberal party, but I am afraid he will get down to the foot of the list, and he will find it hard work to get up to the top again unless he changes his ways. I think he will probably find before the session goes by, while he is administering the department, that some little things will appear, and I would suggest for his own good and for the good of the country that he would try and turn over a new leaf and get back to the same good upright ways that he followed while he was sitting in the back seat and when he was recognized as the angel of the Liberal party.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Just one word before the motion is adopted. I am beginning to think there is some foundation in the accusation of my hon. friend from Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Reid) that the Minister of the Interior is backsliding. It would have been better for my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, instead of talking about immigration in general, to have gone to the very heart of this question and to have told us under what circumstances this final payment of $36,950 was made. I agree with what my hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) has said as to the secret of the 'trouble which has come upon us to-day. The contract ceased its operation exactly on the 30th November, 1907. Why, after the Minister of the Interior had stated positively in this House that the only balance to readjust was one of $31,804.18 claimed by this company, did he, in the month of December of the year following, pay that $36,950, nearly $5,000 more than, according to the records of this House, they actually claimed? Why was this payment made? Who was it made to? Was it to Mr. Preston or was it to Mr. Smart? Was that amount, exceeding by nearly $5,000 the amount claimed, paid in London or in Montreal? Why, as my hon. friend from Terrebonne has said, should the minister make that final payment after the close of a contract which he shad declared bad and which had given rise to endless discussion in this House and before the country without guarding against what has come to us since? Not one word upon any of these points has the Minister of the Interior said to-day when he should actually have brought down and put upon the table of the House the receipt which closed our relations with the company and explained to us why he was deceived at that time? I think that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior are wrong when they say that this is a trifling matter. It is not a trifling matter to have paid nearly $400,000 to these unknown people; nor, is it a trifling matter that we should be sued for a sum far exceeding any of the individual payments we made to that company. I will add this: That it is a mat-Mr. J. D. REID.
ter upon which you cannot refresh the memory of the people too much, that at a given moment when members of this House desired to know the names of the contractors to whom we were paying this money, the government and the Liberal party were opposed to what I consider to be one of the fundamental principles which should govern the representatives of the people in this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a return showing:	1. The present indebtedness to the Dominion government of the Montreal Turnpike Trust (a) on capital account, (b) for arrears of interest.
2.	The amount collected at each toll gate belonging to the said Turnpike Trust during the year ending December 31, 1908, and for the first six months of the year 1909.
3.	The names of all parties who have commuted their tolls during each of the two above-mentioned periods and the amount of the commutation money paid to the Trust in each case.
4.	The amount expended on each section or road division under the control of said Trust, during the year ending December 31, 1908, and the contracts given out during the said year, with the name of the contractor and the date and amount of money involved in each case; and a statement in each case also as to whether the contract was awarded after tender called through newspapers.
5.	The amount paid out during the said two first above-mentioned periods at each toll gate for salaries of day and night guardians and any other expenditures at each of the toll-gates maintained.
6.	The names of all parties holding passes for free use of the roads under control of said Trust during the period above-mentioned, with a statement, in each case, of the reason why the pass was so granted.
7.	The expenses of the said Trust during each of the two periods above-mentioned for rent, salaries of the office, inside or outside service, giving name and remuneration of each official and amounts paid to anv civil engineer employed by the Trust.
8.	The actual present indebtedness in detail of said Trust outside of its bonds due to the government of Canada.
9.	The amounts collected by said Trust during the above-mentioned periods from municipalities under special agreements made as to their share pro rata of the bonded indebtedness of the Turnpike Trust.
10.	The names of all members of the Trust elected to represent the bondholders with date of election in each case, during said two periods.
11.	The amounts paid bv the Trust to any of its members or officials during said two periods, whether as travelling or personal expenses, or indemnity for attendance or for any other reason whatever.
12.	The name of any auditor who has acted during said two periods, and the amount paid such auditor.

13.	And exact statement of any amounts paid by the Trust for purchase or lease of any property outside of the city of Montreal and in defraying the travelling or displacement or maintenance expenses of the trustees or their officials generally.
He said: This is a motion which has been made very often since this government has been in power and no objection has been taken to its adoption. It is the only means which the people of the city of Montreal and of the Island of Montreal have to obtain a statement of the affairs of the Montreal Turnpike Trust. That body is governed by an old statute which puts upon it no obligations to give the people the result of its operations. It handles thousands of dollars yearly and the public have no other means than by such a motion as this to obtain information as to what becomes of that money. The statements which this House has obtained from time to time clearly demonstrated that the affairs of the Montreal Turnpike Trust were not being administered in the interest of the taxpayers and the road users of the Island of Montreal, and in February, 1908, I moved in this House for an inquiry under chapter 104, revised statutes of Canada, to ascertain the position of our claim as sole bond-holders of the debentures of the Montreal Turnpike Trust. Upon that motion the Prime Minister said:
My hon. friend by long experience knows that where he is right he can always expect the government to accede to anything he wants, and on this occasion we think he is right and therefore we accept his motion.
The motion for inquiry was adopted, but I regret to say that in the intervening almost two years, the government has not put the resolution of the House into execution and we have had no inquiry, that is a matter for very much regret. However, the Quebec government, aroused by the public opinion in the municipalities concerned and by the statements which were from year to year obtained as a result of this motion regarding the financial position of the trust, instituted a royal commission to inquire into the affairs of that body. The federal government not having instituted an inquiry on its own account I trust they will see that our interests as bond-holders to the extent of nearly $270,000 will be protected by our having a representative at the inquiry in Montreal, if it is ever held.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a copy of the report, plans and correspondence in the hands of the government regarding the construction of branch post offices and postal substations in and around the city
of Montreal, and of all proposals and suggestions made to the government by the post office authorities at Montreal for the establishment, in a systematic way, of postal branches and substations in said city and suburbs?
He said:	The object of this motion is
to place in the possession of the House a report which was made some years ago by the postal authorities, showing where within the limits of the city of Montreal and the adjoining municipalities it was intended to erect postal substations and branch post offices. That report together with a plan accompanying it was laid upon the table, and it seemed to commend itself to those interested as being the result of a careful examination of the postal needs of the locality. The question of having branch post offices in the city of Montreal and the suburban municipalities is very often raised, and I think it would be very advantageous for the members interested to have that report and plan before them so as to enable them to answer the inquiries that are made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Edward Norman Lewis: That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that a petition be sent to His Majesty's government, praying that a Canadian Attache be appointed to the British Embassy at Washington, with a view to providing a direct medium whereby the government of Canada may advise with the British Ambassador at Washington in respect to matters pertaining to international relations-affecting solely the Dominion of Canada and the United States.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since I gave notice of this resolution it has been said to me that if I kept on much longer I would be a separatist. In justice to myself I may say that I am the grandson of one of those men who followed the flag in 1776 to Canada, and I take second place to no man in this House or out of it in loyalty to that flag. I am a great believer in the couplet of that English poet who wrote in reference to Canada:
Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own.
And, Sir, the question I raise now is not a matter of loyalty; it is a matter purely of business relations with our nearest great trade competitor. I submit, Sir, that the manner in which our business arrangements are now carried on are altogether too round-about and that we should have some one at Washington, not to conduct our business relations altogether but to advise the British Ambassador with regard to them. I have in support of this proposal the President of the United States who has said that it

would be a good thing. I believe it is an absolute fact that seven-tenths of the business of the British embassy at Washington concerns Canada. Now, the British Ambassador, as a rule, has never been in Canada and he knows nothing of Canada. The conditions in Canada are different from those in England; our business interests are different, and I submit that we would be better able to conduct purely business relations with this nearest great competitor of ours, in a friedly manner, if wq had a representative of our own at Washington. I trust as time goes on we will be more and more friendly with that great nation to the south because we have all sprung from the same, race; the great American republic was founded by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. I may remark that for the first time in the history of Canada there is now in the press gallery of this House a representative of that great newspaper the New York 'Herald'. Some remarks on this question appeared in the New York 'Herald' on December 10. The Chicago 'Tribune' has also intimated its intention of sending a representative here and had some remarks on the subject in its issue of December 10. We have direct relations with the United States on almost every question. We deal with that great nation with regard to our waterways; why should we not do so in other matters? I could quote various hon. gentlemen who have expressed their opinion publicly in favour of this motion-the hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Thoburn), the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm), the hon. member for St. Lawrence Division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), the hon. member for_ Hamilton (Mr. Stewart)-two from each side of the House. Though at one time I was not in favour of this, I have seen the importance of it, and the cost of it will be small in comparison with the benefit to be gained. I consider that under all the circumstances we should have a representative of Canada to advise the British Ambassador at Washington.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, everybody, I am sure, will agree with the sentiments which have been uttered by my hon. friend from West Huron (Mr. Lewis) as to the character of the relations which should prevail between these two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race. The relations between the United States and the parent state ought naturally to be extremelv cordial. I am glad to be able to say that at no time in the history of the two nations since the war of the revolution have the relations between Great Britain and the United States been so friendly as they have been for the last six or seven vears. We do not hear any more, as we used to hear at one time, in the Mr. LEWIS.
United States of British arrogance or in Great Britain of Yankee aggressiveness. The language uttered now in the two countries is one of mutual respect and cordiality. The war between the United States and Snain, if it did no other good-and I expect that good can very seldom come from war-has had the effect of showing that blood is thicker than water. From the time of that war the relations between Great Britain and the United States, which up to that time had been more or le_s strained, have become very cordial. Indeed, it was obvious that in that war, without going to the causes of it, the English speaking countries generally were friendly to the American side. This improved feeling on the part of the two nations towards each other has had its good effect in Canada's relations with the United States. Those relations have been on the whole very friendly. They have not always been as satisfactory as for my part I think they should have been. For instance, the Alaskan Boundary Treaty was not just what we thought it should have been; still, the arbitration had the good effect of removing a possible cause of contention and settling for ever a difficult question which might otherwise have become dangerous at a very inopportune moment. I am glad to acknowledge also that the British Ambassador at Washington at the present time is giving more attention to the affairs of Canada than was ever done before. There was a time, perhaps 20 years ago, when, if my hon. friend had made the motion he has now made, I would have been strongly inclined to vote for it; but I must say, in the present condition of things, that my ideas on this subject have been very much modified. If we had an attache at Washington, I do not know that it would be possible to have more attention paid to the business of Canada than is paid to it by the present occupant of the office. Mr. Bryce has taken special pains to give to Canadian affairs as much attention as could be given to them by a native Canadian. First of all, he did one thing that was not done by any of his predecessors. As soon as he became ambassador, he visited Canada, coming to Ottawa and some of the other large cities of the eoun-trv, to familiarize himself with all the issues between Canada and the United States. The result has been that, in all our relations to that country, if anything has not turned out well, no blame can be attached to Mr. Bryce, because he has taken no action with regard to Canada except after amnle conference and with the full sanction of the Canadian authorities. I do not believe that if we had an attache at Washington we could improve very much the conditions which exist at this moment. I do not know that it will always be so.

Perhaps the time will come when we shall think it advantageous to have somebody to take charge of our diplomatic business at Washington; but so long as the conditions continue to be what they are at this moment, I do not think this want will be seriously felt. It is also somewhat difficult to conceive what would be the status of a Canadian attache at Washing ton. He would have to be under the British ambassador and at the same time be under instructions from the government of Canada. So that the position, while it would have good in it, would also have I some very serious difficulties. If we had any cause of complaint in our present relations, or if our interests were1 not receiving justice, we might have to take a new step and try to improve those relations; but so long as they are what they are at present, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it is best to leave well alone, and not try to improve when there is no cause of grievance. If my hon. friend agrees with these observations of mine, I hope he will not press his motion, but will withdraw it.


Edward Norman Lewis: The right hon. the first minister may have slightly misinterpreted the meaning of the resolution. It is not to have a representative of Canada entirely separate, but one who is acquainted with the wants,_ manners and customs of Canada to advise with the British Ambassador. There is no intention on my part of expressing any want of confidence in the present conduct of affairs; but it can be readily understood that the business of Canada cannot be very well conducted by an almost absolute stranger. Mr. Bryce has endeavoured to remedy that by coming to Canada, and he is a very clever and able gentleman. He would be glad to have a representative of Canada there to confer with in regard to these matters. There are other ways in which it would be of value to Canada to have a representative in Washington. This representative of ours would be able to devote his time to some matters to which Mr. Bryce has not time to attend, and then Mr. Bryce is not accustomed to many things on this continent. Our representative would be advising this government in reference to matters on which an amicable arrangement now exists between the two countries, an agreement which I think will grow stronger and stronger and can be helped on by such advice, for I, for my part, look forward to the union of the English-speaking nations of the world and the Celts for the promotion of peace and harmony. I am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of the first minister and to withdraw my motion.
Motion withdrawn.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, December 16, 1909.