1909-02-15

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of the Interior for the year ended March 31, 1908.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
_ Mr. CROSBY. I beg to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) if it is not a fact that all the fishing districts in the county of Halifax are without the blank form required to be filled up in making application for the fishing bounty
for last year, that the money should have been paid before this?
Mr. BRODEUR.: I do not know anything about the matter, but I will inquire from the officers of the department and inform my hon. friend.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: If the minister should find that there has been delay, such as my hon. friend from Halifax has mentioned, would he be good enough to inform him as to what is the cause of the delay?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: These blanks should have been filled in between April and August last but they have not yet been supplied and information is desired as to the cause of the delay?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will get the information and give it to my hon. friend.



REMOVAL OF PLANKS FROM HIGHWAYS.

Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) if the report in the western papers is true to the effect that the Board of Railway Commissioners has issued an order forbidding railways, during winter, to remove planks from the public highways at crossings ?


Mr. GRAHAM.: I have heard nothing whatever about it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is reported in the Winnipeg newspapers.



INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr. PERLEY.: I would like to ask the right hon. the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether they intend to bring in an Insurance Bill this session, and if so, when; as I think it is very necessary that we should know as quickly as possible.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is expected that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will be here in a few days and then perhaps I will be able to answer the question of my hon. friend.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT.

Mr. FOSTER.: May I ask if the Civil Service Commission have presented their report yet, as required by the Act ?


Mr. FISHER.: That report does not come down until the end of the fiscal year, and the report of the commission as to their operations this year will not be due until next session.


George Eulas Foster: It seems that, having been appointed on the 1st September, 1908, they ought to give their report as required by the Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should take it that the report would cover the fiscal year, that it would be presented to the government like any other departmental report and _ would be laid on the table in accordance with the Act. As no report can be made to parliament this session it would be presented at the next session of parliament.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps the Prime Minister would look into the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have already looked into the matter. The other day, when my hon. friend inquired for the report of the Civil Service Commissioners^ I sent over at once and asked the commissioners to come to my office, which they did. When informed of the request of my hon. friend they did not anticipate that they were called upon to make a report. I cannot express any opinion on the matter but I asked Mr. Shortt, and Mr. Larochelle whether, according to their interpretation, of the Act they were bound to put such a report on the table this session.
POST OFFICE RETURNS-RE-APPOINTMENTS, &c.


George Eulas Foster: May I ask the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) to call the attention of the Post Office Department to the fact that they have sent in an incomplete report in answer to an order. The Post Office Department must be bigger than to have made only twelve appointments, no promotions, and only one transfer.


Mr. LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: During the year?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, according to the report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will inquire into it.



BRAZILIAN ELECTRO STEEL AND SMELTING CO.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 10) respecting the Brazilian Electro Steel and Smelting Co.-Mr. Pardee.
Mr. 'SPROULE. It seems to me to be a bad policy for this parliament to incorporate companies designed to operate in foreign countries, and to give them powers which they are to exercise subject to the laws of the country in which they operate. I have always thought this was one of the devices adopted by a certain class of people to raise money out of their friends at home to be invested in foreign countries where it is quite impossible for the parties who furnish the money to have any intelligent oversight of its expenditure. We have two or three Bills on the Order Paper to incorporate such companies at the present time. They are first incorporated under the Joint Stock Compnaies' Act, then they come here for an Act of Incorporation, and without a very Mr. FOSTER.
close analysis of the measure we do not know whether we may or may not be giving them power which it is unwise to give them. It seems to me there ought to be some one connected with the government who would look into these Bills very carefully, because I am afraid their effect is very often to mislead innocent public who are induced to put money into these enterprises and who sometimes lose their money. These companies should be incorporated in the countries in which they are going to operate.
Wilfrid Laurier: We have generally referred these Bills to special committees and have accepted their reports. The suggestion made by the hon. gentleman may be very proper, and I have no desire to combat it at the moment, but I have no doubt all this will be looked into by the committee before the Bill is allowed to pass.


Mr. SPROULE.: I was on that committee for a considerable time, and I remmber that the committee paid little attention to these Bills because it was contended that when such a Bill got a second reading the principle was adopted and that all that remained for the committee was to consider the clauses.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is undoubtedly true with regard to a public Bill, but it is certainly not so in the case of a private Bill. The first question put on a private Bill is whether the preamble shall pass, and that is the first thing the committee has to deal with.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 15) respecting the Mexican Land and Irrigation Co.-Mr. Pardee.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TURRIFF moved the second reading of Bill (No. 30) respecting the subsidy from the Ontario government to Lake Superior branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. TURRIFF.: This is a Bill to confirm an agreement made between the Ontario government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and contained in chapter 18 of the Ontario statutes of 1904. Section 21 of that Act provides that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company shall come before this parliament and get an Act to confirm the agreement. This Bill is introduced at the request of the Ontario government and to carry out that arrangement. It applies particularly to sections 3 and 22 of the Ontario Act.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: What is section 3?


John Gillanders Turriff: It is as follows:
1.	In addition to the provisions of the Railway Act with respect to tolls, to be taken or levied by the said companies it is hereby enacted that there shall be no secret special rates, rebates, drawbacks or concessions to favoured shippers nor any act or thing that will affect or prevent free competition in any line or lines of trade.
2.	Each of the said companies shall be obliged, upon the request of any township or county, municipality through which the line of railway passes, to carry road making material, gravel or stone, required for improving any of the road within any such municipality, at the cost of handling and carriage.
Section 22 provides that in the event of the Dominion government taking over the road, the subsidy given by the Ontario government shall be returned to them by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. These two clauses are being confirmed in the Bill which I am now asking to be read the second time.


Mr. CONMEE.: I have sent copies of this Bill to the city of Port Arthur, which is interested in it, because the subsidy granted by the Ontario government was granted upon condition that the road should come to the shores of Thunder bay. I do not say that this Bill would relieve the company of that obligation, but it might do so. In my opinion the road as constructed is six or seven miles from Thunder bay.


Mr. LENNOX.: Does the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) oppose the Bill?


James Conmee: No, I am only asking that it stand until I have an opportunity of hearing from the representatives of the city of Port Arthur. I had an interview this morning with one of the gentlemen connected with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and I understood from him that the Bill was to stand until the solicitor of the company came here to discuss the Bill and I desire to hear from Port Arthur. I move the adjournment of the debate.


George Perry Graham: This Bill seems to be a peculiar Bill. If I understand it correctly, it is to carry out an arrangement made between the Ontario government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. To begin with, I can hardly accept the policy that any other government and any company can get together and make an agreement which will commit us to pass any Act. It may be all right or it may not be all right. There may be some things in the Bill which it would be perfectly proper for us to confirm in order to protect the Ontario government against any acts that might be done by the company in default; but there is another part referring to rates which to my mind is not in accordance with our Railway Act. While one portion of the Bill insists that the Grand Trunk 33
Pacific Railway Company must not give any special rates or rebates to any person, another portion says that it must give special rates and rebates. To my mind these provisions are contradictory, and we are asked to confirm them both. The Board of Railway Commissioners having been adopted by us as the means whereby we control rates, for my part I want to adhere to that policy, and I would not wish to assent to any Act that would take the control of the rates to be charged by a company chartered by this parliament away from the Railway Commission. There may be some things in the Bill that it is necessary for us to confirm, but there are two or three things in it which at present I do not think we ought to confirm.
Motion for adjournment of debate agreed to



ONTARIO AND MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMES CONMEE (Thunder Bay and Rainy River) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Ontario and Michigan Power Company.
Mr. BOYCE.: I would ask the hon. gentleman to give some explanation of this Bill, as I believe it is practically the same as the Bill that was introduced last year.


James Conmee: I did not think it necessary to take up the time of the House in discussing the Bill before it went to the committee. I think hon. gentlemen understand the Bill fairly well. It is practically the same Bill as was introduced into the Senate last year, and practically the same as was carried in the Senate two years ago, with this difference, that in the previous Bill provision was made for the storage of water on the rivers mentioned, and in the first Bill reference was made to the Sturgeon river. All reference to that river and to storage of water upon either of the streams or the tributary waters has been removed from this Bill. The hope of the promoters was to simplify the Bill in order to remove criticism. It does not differ at all from a large number of Bills that have passed this House in recent years. I may say that the Ontario legislature has passed Bills similar in character to this, but with less safeguards. If it were necessary for me at this stage to discuss the Bill specifically, I think I could satisfy hon. gentlemen that no Bill that has come before the House within recent years has had better or more specific safeguards to protect the public interest. I would suggest that the Bill be allowed to go to the committee, where it can be discussed m all its details.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: This is the third session during which we have had discussion on the



principle of this Bill. Last session my hon. friend endeavoured to secure the passage of the principle of the Bill under this name and the preceding session under another name, but in each case he has met with a reverse, either in the Senate or in this House. The first Bill was defeated in this House, while the second was thrown out in the Senate committee after a somewhat lengthy debate. The objections to this Bill are serious, and I do not want to have it thought I am endeavouring captiously to take up time. By the Bill certain private rights are sought on two rivers flowing into Lake Superior, the Pigeon and Nepigon rivers. It is sought to acquire the use of the waterpower on these rivers, accompanied by the right to acquire such lands, privileges, &e., as are necessary to carry out the operation of those water-powers. The Ontario government has laid out with considerable care a power policy for the development and control of power and the regulation of rates in that province. That power policy has been twice approved by the people of Ontario. It involves the very principles of control over water-powers of which this Bill endeavours to rob the province. Therefore, if this Bill were objectionable in nothing more than its invasion and violation of the principles of provincial rights, it should not be allowed to receive its second reading. I would point out in this connection the provisions of section 14, which are as follows :
In case of any dispute or difference as to the price to be charged for power or electrical or other energy, for any of the purposes in this Act mentioned, in use or to be provided for use upon the Canadian side of the international boundary, or as to the methods of distribution thereof, or as to the time within which or as to the quantity to be furnished, or the conditions upon which they shall be furnished for use, or as to the value of any lands, timber or other material, or the exercise of any of the provisions of this Act, such dispute or difference shall, notwithstanding the provisions of section 17 of The Railway Act, be) settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada on the application of any user of or applicant fori power, electrical or other energy produoed by the Company, or upon the application of the Company.
One of the chief provisions of the Ontario Power Act is the control with regard to the user of the power and the regulation of rights which this section 14 would take away from the province. I do not want to discuss the Bill clause by clause; I am merely pointing out objections to its principle. The Senate committee was very emphatic in its condemnation of the Bill owing to its invasion of the rights of the province, counsel for the province being present and objecting to it. I hope, therefore, the House will not allow the Bill to receive its second reading.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: j j


George Perry Graham: I would not for a moment take the ground my hon. friend does that it would be wise to negative the motion for the second reading. For my own information I would ask if these streams are boundary waters?


James Conmee: The Pigeon river is an international water and the Ninigon is a navigable water, and in my opinion also international in character because it forms a source of the lakes and connecting channels which are international. A case arose which makes that point quite clear in connection with the Rainy river. A company developing a power at Duluth undertook to divert a portion of the waters from the watershed of the Rainy river to the St. Louis river. The Canadian section of the Waterways Commission objected to that proceeding. There is a report upon that subject, the result of which was the Duluth Company were prevented from diverting portions of the water from flowing into Rainy lake, the source of Rainy river. The same conditions exist at Nipigon. Certain of the waters flowing into the Nipigon can be diverted very easily-I am speaking from personal knowledge of the ground-to the Albany river. There are very few points at the head of most of the large rivers on the north shore where that cannot be done, and there is a question as to where the line should be drawn as to what is international and what is not. These streams certainly form the international waters of the great lakes, and if we read correctly in the press, the recent treaty provides that the jurisdiction of the commission shall extend not only to the basin of the lakes but to the area of drainage. It is quite apparent that there must be a regulating power somewhere. In some respects the question of international waters are just as much an issue in the one stream as in the other.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does the hon. member base his claim in reference to the Nipigon river on its being an international water?


James Conmee: Not at all, that is only incidental; it is a navigable water.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: For what distance?


James Conmee: No dam or bridge can be constructed across any navigable stream without the consent of the federal authority. There is a case in point. A Bill has been passed by this House relating to the development of water-power at Fort Frances by the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is an international water.	[DOT]


James Conmee: Certainly, so is the Nipigon river, to a certain extent at least, in my opinion.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Not seriously?


James Conmee: Yes, I am quite serious, and I am quite prepared to back up my opinion with sufficient evidence.


George Eulas Foster: On what do you base it?


James Conmee: On common sense.


George Eulas Foster: Let us have a chunk of it


James Conmee: I know my hon. friend would perhaps be the better of a little of it. I was trying to enlighten him, if I could. I won't say at this stage that I will undertake to satisfy my hon. friend that I am right, but if he will tell me where he can draw the line between what is international and what is not international water, he will give me some information that I would like to get. The Pigeon river is an international boundary,-there can be no doubt about that.


George Halsey Perley: For what distance is it an international boundary?


James Conmee: Perhaps three hundred miles.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Oh, no. Do you include the lakes?


James Conmee: Yes, the Pigeon river and the lakes in that water route extend from Lake Superior to the north west angle of the Lake of the Woods, a distance of nearly three hundred miles. If I understand correctly the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite, the question of jurisdiction would be a fair subject for legislation. I have read some newspaper articles in which it is declared that there is no more right in this parliament to grant a charter to deal with an international stream than there is to deal with any navigable stream. Perhaps some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side will enlighten us upon that point. I was referring to the Bill that passed this House in connection with the Rainy River Development Company-the Ontario and Minnesota Power Bill. That Bill did not afford sufficient protection to the public. Local interests petitioned parliament for and obtained sweeping amendments to the Bill providing for the distribution of electricity, for the outflow of the water through the waste weirs, for the establishment of the works on the Canadian side of the international boundary,-for if these waste weirs were not on the Canadian side of the boundary how could this government control the flow of the water? and how could navigation be protected below the dam if the company could hold back the waters for a week, or, as they might do, for months? For the area of Rainy lake is very great, and it would take a long time to raise its level greatly even though all the water were held back. By exercising this power, the
33i
company could destroy navigation on the river below. I do not need to argue that (question very much. But it is to the interest of a power company to hold back the flow of water until the period of low water, and then to draw the level down gradually so as to maintain their power at their power station. The result of this policy might be to make a difference of twelve or fifteen feet in the level of the lake-I am speaking of Rainy lake. I have seen differences in the level of that lake varying from six to twelve feet, the result merely of natural conditions, the precipitation and the nature of the season. These are matters that must sooner or later be provided for and dealt with by some authority; and I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they think the provincial authority has power to regulate it. I believe it has not, for it has no power over navigable waters. It is .said that because the province owns the land over which the waters flow they have paramount control.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask a question? Does the hon. gentleman contend that if, in a river three hundred miles long, there is a portion fifty miles long that is navigable, therefore the Dominion has control over the whole stream?


James Conmee: It certainly has control over that portion that is navigable. I am not going to draw so fine a line as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has in his mind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This Bill takes over the whole stream.


James Conmee: No, but one point on the stream. In my opinion ' navigable stream ' means not only the river itself, but also the tributaries back to the watershed of the river. For, if that were not the case, it would be an easy matter to dry up the stream. I can give the hon. gentleman a case in point. In the United States the control of navigable waters is in the Secretary of War,-as these waters may be needed for purposes of defence, they are put in control of that department. The Fox river, in Wisconsin, which is the outlet of Lake Winnebago, enters Lake Michigan at Green bay. It is in about a similar position to the Nipigon. The distance from the mouth to the source of the Fox river is 45 miles. There are established along this river at Appleton, combined locks and at other points, some of the largest pulp and paper manufacturing industries in the United States. These power companies, in order to secure water for their works, had control of the lake by a dam. They drew the water down to such a level as to destroy navigation. The wharfs at the villages along the lake shore could not be reached by boat because of the low water. The federal

authorities of the United States closed the outflow, and compelled these companies to maintain the lake at mean level. It is as inevitable as anything can be that this parliament must, some day, grapple with these questions. But these questions are not raised in this Bill. The hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) says that this Bill was defeated in this House. That is not the case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He said it was defeated in the Senate.


James Conmee: He said it was defeated in this House too. It passed the Senate two years ago, but did not come to a vote in this House. And the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) knows very well the reason why it did not come to a vote- he obstructed it, and so the Bill was not reached. This is a very much improved Bill. I said that I did not propose to discuss the Bill on thi3 occasion. But I am willing to discuss it, and seeing that discussion is forced upon me, I will say a few words concerning it. I would ask hon. members, what is there in this Bill that interferes with provincial rights? I ask the hon. member who has already spoken and others who are yet to speak to answer that question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word at this point. Suppose that on a certain stream, three hundred miles long, there is navigable water for a distance of fifty miles, and that on the rest of the stream there are many available water-powers. Now, these water-powers are regarded by the province as their asset,, and they propose to work them and control them. This Bill interferes with that right.


James Conmee: The hon. member, (Mr. Sproule) is entirely mistaken. The Bill takes away no rights from the province. The river is not three hundred miles long, but about forty-five miles long, and it is navigable throughout its length except at the several falls. If my recollection is correct, there is a total fall of over three hundred feet on the river, and there are seven or eight points at which about 25,000 horse power can be developed. This Bill asks for but one. Hon. gentlemen must bear in mind that it is not in the nature of a monopoly. It has been so represented, and I fear, notwithstanding the explanation of the fact, it will be still misrepresented. But there are seven or eight other points on the river at which an equal amount of power can be developed, that is, the same volume of water and the same head can be obtained at different points. This Bill asks for one. Now I may ask, does the province own the stream? I am told by very eminent legal men that there is no ownership in water, and that if there is in this case, it Mr. CONMEE.
certainly does not belong to the province. As I stated a moment ago, it is more or less international in character, because it is a feeder of these international waters that divide the two countries; there can be no question about that. The Bill merely gives this company power to go on and construct works. If the province of Ontario own any land, any rights, if they own a water privilege, why, they must be paid for it; it cannot be taken for nothing; they will have to be dealt with and their rights satisfied.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the Ontario government to-day is claiming jurisdiction over this very river, the Nipigon river, under its power law?


James Conmee: I am aware that the province of Ontario is objecting to all these Bills. They have an agent here and have had for the last four or five years, yet the Bills have gone through just the same.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Not this one.


James Conmee: They had an agent here objecting to this Bill.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But it did'nt go through.


James Conmee: There are good reasons why the Bill did not go through. The hon. gentleman stated that it met defeat in this House. That is not true. It did not meet defeat. The hon. member from the Soo, speaking at first, said the Bill was defeated in this House.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It did not get through thi9 House.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman said it met with defeat here. He is not correct, it was not reached.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I was correct in saying that it -was defeated by the Senate committee, am I not, this same Bill?


James Conmee: It was defeated by the Senate committee last year. There are several reasons why the promoters of this Bill are within their rights in coming to this parliament to ask for this legislation. In the first place, they say that the legislature of Ontario has no constitutional authority to clothe them with the powers they require. The British North America Act,
I think, bears that out. Under section 92, reference is made to the exclusive powers that the legislature can exercise, and one of them is subsection 11 to charter companies for purely local objects, local enterprises confined within the province. Then, section 91 defines what subjects are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal parliament. It includes the navigation of navigable waters, railways, telegraphs, and that class of legislation. It includes other things-but I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading them, because

I assume that hon. gentlemen are fairly familiar with the Act. It includes all questions not specifically assigned to the legislatures. Now perhaps some hon. gentleman will point out where, in the constitution, there is any power assigned to the legislature of Ontario or any other legislature to confer on companies the powers which this company require to carry out their undertaking. I cannot find it, I do not think it is there. I am well aware that it may be argued that certain powers do follow; but it can be argued with a great deal more force that a company seeking powers having other than provincial objects have a right to come to this parliament, and this parliament alone can give them power to carry out their undertaking. I am fortified in that. When the Minnesota and Ontario Bill relating to the Rainy river came before this House, His Honour Judge Fitzpatrick, was then Minister of Justice. That question came before him, and he wrote a letter to the then Minister of Public Works stating his opinion that this parliament had a right to grant the legislation. His opinion went a great deal farther; I have not got it under my hand at the moment, because I did not expect to discuss this question. But it went this far. Certain amendments were proposed, to the Bill, by a petition on behalf of the town of Fort Francis, and the minister's opinion went so far as to say that in granting legislation, or in certifying to plans, the parliament of Canada had ai right to impose the conditions asked, or such of them as were in the public interest, some ten or twelve amendments were made to the Bill, as 1 have already pointed out, guarding the public interest in that respect. Then I may say that the present Minister of Justice wrote a letter last year upon this very matter; it was read, and is on record before the Senate committee, in which he stated that as the objects of this company were not confined to provincial purposes only but were also international and interprovincial, the parliament of Canada was the only power that could give them the charter they were asking for. So under these circumstances I do not think it should be treated lightly. If the interest of the public is going to be prejudiced, if the interest of Ontario is going to. be prejudiced in any sense, I could understand it, but that is not the case.


Robert Laird Borden: On what ground was it that the Senate rejected the Bill last
year?


James Conmee: That is a pretty difficult question for me to answer. In the first place, I would answer it in this way, that some of the senators did not take the trouble to understand the Bill, some of them were absent, some of them had the opinion which, I fear, some hon. gentlemen opposite entertain, or profess to entertain. I see my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) shaking his head, and I think he may hold the opinion I am about to mention, namely, that this Bill is an invasion of provincial rights. Now I take issue with that opinion. I need not refer to the British North America Act to establish the fact that this parliament has the right to pass any legislation that, in its opinion, is necessary for the order and good government of Canada, or to pass any legislation it may choose to pass that is for the general advantage of Canada. I have the section under my hand, but I will not take up the time of the House to read it. It is| admitted that they have the power. I do not think that any hon. gentleman will deny that. The constitution specifically confers upon this parliament the power to pass this legislation, it has the constitutional right to deal with the subject and the legislature has not the right to deal with it. No where in the constitution is there a specific provision that would give the legislature that power.


John Graham Haggart: Is there anything in the Bill which gives the company the power to expropriate?


James Conmee: Yes, the company will have the power to expropriate certain lands.


Haughton Lennox: No.


James Conmee: Let me just explain that for a moment. In other provinces this company would have the right to build these works without coming here for this right, but in Ontario land sold under the Mining Act is subject to a provision which reserves a chain as a road allowance. Along the margin of rivers, where municipalities are organized, these roads pass under the control of the municipality and become highways. In this case there' is no municipality. Therefore, the control of that chain reserve is in the Ontario government, and it is to overcome that difficulty that powers of expropriation are necessary. There is also the question of the bed of the river.


John Graham Haggart: Have we the right to give the power to expropriate from the Crown in the province?


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman has been a member of this House for the last twenty-five years or more, and hardly a session has passed but what he has voted for granting just that power. He has conferred it upon company after company all his life, and now he is asking me a question. He had better look at his own record first. I answer: Yes, we have the right. I go further and say it is our duty to do so because it is a public enterprise. The hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) asks

me if I am not aware that the Ontario government has a policy


Arthur Cyril Boyce: No, I asked if they did not apply that policy to the Nipigon river and the hon. gentleman said :	Yes, they
did.


James Conmee: Well, I will take it that way; so far they have not applied their policy to the Nipigon river.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: They claim to have applied it, but there is no power developed there.


James Conmee: I can put the hon. gentleman right. Some three years ago the city of Port Arthur requested the Ontario government to give them the use of 3,000 horse-power. They could have taken it from the Nipigon river, the Kaministiquia river, the Pigeon river, the Mackenzie river or a dozen other rivers, but they did not do it. Now, it has taken the Ontario government about six years to make up their minds that they are going to do something at Niagara. I am not now discussing their policy; I am not objecting to it, nor am I approving of it, but if there is any excuse for it, any justification, it is that they were going to do something with that power. I would ask the hon. gentleman how long it would be before they could spread that policy to other sections of the country. The company own the land on both sides of the river. In the case of Pigeon river, the land has long since passed from the Crown. Nevertheless the Crown may have rights in it. There was no chain reserve because the lands were patented previous to the provisions in the Ontario law. Nevertheless, the Ontario government may be said to have an interest. I believe they have. I am not disputing that. Maybe they have an interest in the bed of the river, but it is not an interest that is paramount; it is subject to the control of the Federal authority. I do not think that will be disputed. With respect to the Nipigon, or any navigable river, this parliament has the right to charter a company to improve navigation, to build dams, to build channels, to divert the water over the foreshore, to do anything of the kind, or it might go on and do it itself, and it has done it time and again. Where is there an invasion of provincial rights? These questions were not raised, I presume, in former years. It might be that the value of such undertakings was not as well understood in those days. If the province has rights we cannot take them away. There is no power in this parliament to take from the province that which it possesses. This Bill does not propose to take anything from the government or any individual. The company must first pay for what they get, so that I do not think the Mr. CONMEE.
province is in any way injured. I noted an article in the ' World ' newspaper and another in the 'Globe', in which it was urged that the measure was depriving the province of revenue. I cannot see that. If the province has any rights there it can exact a sum of money for them, it can exact an annual rent for them, or it can protect itself by getting the value of that which it possesses whether it be an easement, or whether it be a title to the land itself. It is just recently the vessel men have called the attention of the government to the fact of the interference with navigation by power companies on navigable streams. I presume that they refer principally to the Niagara river. That fact illustrates my contention that the question is one that must be dealt with in this parliament and that it must be dealt with in some authoritative way. I have read statements of what are said to be the terms of the treaty recently entered into or about to be entered into, and I was discussing it to-day with a member of the Waterways Commission. His understanding of it is that it extends to the watersheds, not alone to the basin of the lakes but to the source of the lakes. I take it for granted that that would be a necessary condition, and I understand that the treaty makes provision for that. So that, we have this question to deal with. Now, I submit that no good purpose can be served by holding the Bill back to be discussed in this House. The best plan is to let the Bill go to the committee. There is nothing in the Bill which is not in lots of other Bills. The Bill is subject as well to amendment. I may say to hon. gentlemen on behalf of those for whom I am acting that I shall fight as hard as I can for the principle of the Bill. If defeated, we will take defeat, but we must be defeated fairly. The Bill has never been discussed on its merits in this House or ever in committee, and I do not want hon. gentlemen to assume that because I have referred to the Bill to-day that in the rambling remarks which I have made, I have grappled with the questions or discussed them in all the fulness with which they should be discussed. I do trust that hon. gentlemen will allow the Bill to go to committee and then we will get at it in the regular way.


John Graham Haggart: I do not intend to discuss the principle of the Bill now, but in justification of a statement I made with reference to it I have to offer a few remarks. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) is applying for a charter to utilize the waters of the Nipigon river, not for navigation purposes, but for power purposes, and he tells us the Nipigon is an international river between Ontario and the United States. What right has this House to give any company the right to dam a

navigable river for the purpose of utilizing its water-power? That river is navigable form Lake Superior to Lake Nipigon, and I remember that the hon. gentleman himself had a measure before us the object of which was to navigate that river and in connection with a rail haul to carry freight for the building of the Transcontinental Railway. I asked the hon. gentleman did he ask for powers of expropriation and he expressed much surprise that I should ask such a question. I ventured mildly to say that we were not in the habit of giving expropriation powers to private companies and he retorted that I ought to know better. I can tell him that we never do give such powers to any company that is not declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.


James Conmee: This Bill declares that it is for the general advantage of Canada.


John Graham Haggart: If it does, then that is still more objectionable. If by merely declaring a work for the general advantage of Canada that is all that is necessary to give a private company power to utilize the waters of a boundary river and to expropriate property belonging to the Crown in Ontario, it is time there was an end put to that kind of thing. These local companies with local objects should go to the provinces for their power. Why, if all you have to do is to say in a Bill that it is for the general advantage of Canada, you might over-ride every provincial right. Surely some reason must be given to show that such a work is for the general benefit of Canada beyond our mere ipse dixit in an Act of this parliament.


Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine HaX).: As one of the young members of this House, I find it somewhat difficult to follow the legislation which is brought before us. This Bill has only come to my attention within the last few moments, and while I shall not refer now to the interference with provincial rights which may be involved, yet I see another principle incorporated in this Bill which as a young Canadian I strongly object to. My objection is not so much to what this Bill says as to what it does not say. I hold the belief, Sir, that the water system of this country is the most valuable asset we have, and I asume that the water-power which this Bill seeks to monopolize belongs to the people of Canada. We had a gentleman of some eminence in this city a few days ago and he told us that the future of the American continent was dependent upon its water-powers, and to that question I shall briefly allude now. Section 13 of this Bill provides that this company shall at all times be prepared to furnish for use in Canada one-half the water-power it develops. Here we are, a people of about 7,000,000 adjoining a nation of nearly 100,000,000 with immense means to develop international waters for power purposes, while we are not in a position at present to keep pace with them in that respect. I object to the principle of allowing power to be sent out of this country to develop another country, until at all events we know that we have power sufficient for the purposes of Canada for all time to come. If hon. gentlemen opposite can assure me of that, then I would not be selfish about it, but I do not want to see this country put in the position that in the future we will have fifty per cent of our power exported to the United States, while lacking sufficient for uttr own purposes. Vested interests will be created on the other side and trouble will come if, once having allowed its export, we should attempt to keep our own power in our own country for our own development. I feel strongly about this matter and I regret that I had not the opportunity to go more fully into the Bill. But I thought I should present these views so that I might ask the House to proceed cautiously with legislation of this character.


George Halsey Perley: I entirely support what has been said by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath). The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) has made out a very good case why this Bill should be thrown out. Something may be said to support the contention that the Pigeon river is an international river, but any gentleman who will stand up in this House and in cold blood argue that the Nipigon river is an international stream ought to be laughed out of court. The Nipigon river is entirely within the province of Ontario, and whether it is a navigable stream or not is another question, but for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) to ask us to declare that the Nipigon river is an international river is asking us to swallow too much. The hon. member (Mr. Conmee) has told us that we have in this parliament passed many charters similar to the one he now asks for, but surely we ought to learn wisdom as the years go by, and if we have passed legislation containing any improvident provisions, that is no reason why we should continue in our wrong-doing. We are only now beginning to learn the real value of our water-powers in Canada; we are told that water is to be our coal in the future, and that being so we should safeguard this natural asset in every way. To pass a Bill with such sweeping provisions as this, allowing these private individuals to expropriate property from the province of Ontario and to control the water in two of the great streams of that province, would be a huge mistake.
This Bill was thrown out in the Senate last year, and I assume that there was good reason for that. At all events, it seems, to me that we ought not to give it even a

second reading when on, its face it claims to relate to a work for the general advantage of Canada. That language is absurd, as it relates to a purely local undertaking. The hon. member for Rainy River has challenged us on this side of the House to point out in the British North America Act where power is given to the local legislature to grant a charter of this nature. One would suppose that the hon. member had been studying the British North America Act night and day, and had it by heart; but I find no difficulty in pointing to a clause in the British North America Act giving the Ontario legislature power to deal with this matter. Subsection 10 of section 92 mentions, among the other powers of the local legislatures, that with reference to ' local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes; ' and these exceptions are limited to ' those which connect the province with another province or extend beyond the limits of the province.' In other words, the local legislature is distinctly given power over works such as are proposed on the Nipigon river. At all events, I for one would certainly be opposed to this Bill getting even a second reading, while it has section 2 in it.


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).: This is a discussion of a very old subject. I think it was at the last session that a very lengthy discussion arose with respect to a Bill entitled ' An Act to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company.' I raised the question on that occasion of not so much the power but the advisability of this parliament attempting to deal with the subject. I deprecated the idea of the parliament of Canada incorporating companies which might properly be incorporated by the legislatures of the respective provinces, and I think it was pointed out that any company seeking such powers could secure them from the provincial legislature. The necessary powers in connection with the damming of streams or the construction of other works on streams or the control of water would necessarily be obtained from the Minister of Public Works, to whom this parliament has in a measure delegated these powers by the Act relating to Public Works and navigable waters; so that a company securing from the provincial legislature power to build dams and construct other works could only do so after obtaining permission from the Minister of Public Works. The Act incorporating the Saskatchewan Power Company was passed last session, and the strange feature of that Act was that there was no declaration in it that the work was to be one for the general advantage ot Canada. Moreover, we gave the company power to expropriate land, on the ground that the Dominion government owned the lands in the western provinces, and controlled the navi-Mr. PERLEY.
gation of the Saskatchewan river. Now, it seems to me that if this parliament was justified in incorporating the Saskatchewan Power Company, it is much more justified in incorporating this company, inasmuch as it relates to an international stream.
Mr. Sproule. The Nipigon river is not an international stream, though the Pigeon river is; but they seek power to deal with both.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So far as the Bill relates to an international stream, the power should be sought from this parliament; and I go further and say that the provincial legislature would have no power to deal with it. Therefore the object of this Bill carries with it the implication that this parliament must deal with this subject, and that the promoters of the legislation could not secure the necessary power from the local legislature. We did not refuse to send to the committee the Bill to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company, and I think it would be fair to send this Bill to the committee. There the provisions of the several sections could be dealt with, and those which properly come under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature could be removed from the Bill.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: I listened very attentively to the remarks made by the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), and one of the reasons he advanced in appealing to the House to allow the second reading of the Bill, was of such a startling nature that the House had better be careful of the legislation on which it is entering. He gave as a reason that one, of these rivers, while not itself on the international boundary, flowed into one of the great lakes, and therefore became an international stream.


James Conmee: If the hon. member will pardon me, I did not make that statement. I stated that because it was a tributary of the great lakes, as the question of the right of international waters extended to the watershed, it more or less became a question in issue in this case in regard to that river. I did not go beyond that point.


William Barton Northrup: The hon. gentleman has gone a good deal farther than I stated, for he would not only include such a stream as that, but all other streams which might flow into it. It is very easy to lay this down as an abstract principle, but when one lays aside the superlative wisdom which only would justify a man in moving the second reading of a Bill like this, and. comes down to ordinary everyday life and thinks applying the principle to our own province, say to the city of Toronto, we would find that the Humber and the Don were two international streams, and that it would be necessary for this parliament

to legislate in regard to any works that might be proposed to be constructed on those two rivers. The hon. gentleman seems to be so consumed with the importance of those works which are stated to be for the general advantage of Canada that they have obscured his vision altogether and he cannot see that they are not for the general advantage of the country.


James Conmee: Is the hon. gentleman aware that this government has exercised power with regards to the works on the Don?


William Barton Northrup: Very possible under certain circumstances it might, but I do not think it has ever laid down that it would be proper for this government to give a company power to construct a dam 10 to 15 miles up the Don on account of its being an international stream and the dam being for the general advantage of Canada.
I do not think that the House has up to the present time gone as far as that. Not only is there the objection to the principle laid down, but there is a very strong objection to allowing a Bill to go to its second reading with this objectionable clause in it.
I venture to say that when the British North America Act was passed it never entered into the contemplation of the legislators of the old country who framed section 92 (10-C):
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
That this clause was intended to be other than such a clause would be in the case of a parliament similar to that which passed the British North America Act; it was taken for granted that there would at least be some conscience in a parliament dealing with these questions. It was never contemplated that the Dominion parliament would declare the most contemptible, insignificant, little piece of work to be for the general advantage of Canada. It was never expected that this House would declare something that was obviously untrue, and thereby bring such little pieces of work within its jurisdiction. I have no hesitation in saying that this House would be departing entirely from the principles of good government if it allowed the passage of such a Bill. I suppose the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) thought he had simply to insert the second clause declaring this to be for the general advantage of Canada and every member of this House, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, would leap to his feet to secure this valuable work which would contribute so much to the happiness and prosperity of his constituents. When we come to deal with it in the spirit of common sense I do not think the hon. gentleman himself would advance any particular reason why this paltry enterprise should be declared for the general advantage of Canada. If the clause stated that it was for the general disadvantage of Canada I could understand it being inserted in the Bill. One has only to look at the clause allowing the rivers to be dammed and consider what the hon. gentleman says about one river being navigable and the other international to see that it is an imposition on the common sense and good nature of this House to ask for the passage of the Bill'.


Wilfrid Laurier: Quite apart from the question of the general advantage of Canada is it the hon. gentleman's opinion that under the constitution, by which navigable rivers are placed under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, such a river could be barred or impeded in any way by an Act of a local legislature; in other words, that the local legislature can give authority to bar or impede a navigable river?


William Barton Northrup: I certainly think not;
I think the local legislature would not have power to give a company authority to bar the navigation of a navigable river, but at the same time I think if the water-power were sufficient to justify works being constructed, the local legislature of Ontario could do as they have done at Niagara and give power to a company to extract power from the water, although not the power to dam the river.


James Conmee: Mr. Speaker


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker


Mr. SPEAKER.: I allowed the hon. member for Rainy River to speak the second time in answer to a question.


James Conmee: I think I have the permission of the hon. member who had the floor. I wanted to answer one or two ques tions. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Magrath) stated that he was opposed to granting permission to export a portion of this power into the United States. That is the general law. The power at Niagara has been exported for many years. We have an Act of parliament governing it, and that clause was put in as a protection so that half the power might be always at the demand of the Canadian people. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) calls this an insignificant piece of work. It is a work involving the development of 35,000 or 40,000 horse-power. It is proposed to extend the lines into various parts of Canada as well as to the United States, and yet the hon. gentleman chooses to sneer at it


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not think I can allow the hon. gentleman to proceed on this line.


Robert Laird Borden: 
James Conmee: introduced which, without that declaration, would obviously be within the power of the provincial legislature alone, and have asked the parliament of Canada, without investigation, and without any clear right or authority, to pass these measures and in that way assume jurisdiction over the matters in question. That ought to be corrected. It has, in the past, led to the invasion of provincial rights and of the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures. I believe that no such declaration ought to be made by the parliament of Canada, except after the most careful investigation, at which the provincial authorities should have the right to be heard; and it should be made only in cases where it is perfectly clear that the undertakings are really for the general advantage of Canada. In what respect should this undertaking be declared to be ' for the general advantage of Canada ' ? How will it advantage the province of British Columbia, or the province of Prince Edward Island, that this particular water-power should be developed on the Nipigon river ? Such an undertaking is obviously not within the class contemplated by the provisions of the British North America Act to which I have called attention. So far as jurisdiction is concerned, it does not seem to me that my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) has made good his case, with respect to the Nipigon river at least. Over and over again, we have seen instances in this parliament of men coming to parliament with particular undertakings in their minds, affixed to these undertakings being something else which is really within the jurisdiction of this parliament of Canada although the main part of the undertaking is not within our jurisdiction. Whether that is the case in this instance or not I do not know. But in every case where there is suspicion that this is being done, parliament should give the most careful attention to the undertaking and should see to it that parliament is not imposed upon by constructive fraud of that kind.
As to the expediency of passing the legislation, I wholly concur in the cogent observation of my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath). Mr. Gifford Pinchot, in his very illuminating and instructive address delivered in Ottawa not long ago, pointed out that the astutest and most far-sighted men in the United States, possessing wealth and influence, are already seizing upon the water-powers of the United States with an eye to the conditions that will exist twenty-five, fifty, or a hundred years hence. Why should we not look to the same conditions that are likely to obtain in the future in this great country? Why should we enable any man, or set of men, to create in this country the beginning of a monopoly in respect of matters of this kind? As mv hon. friend (Mr. Magrath) has well said, these water-powers will be of infinitely great-

er importance twenty-five years hence thau they are to-day, and they ought to be preserved and retained, as far as possible, for the benefit of the people of the whole country, and not given away for the purpose of creating ten, fifteen, or twenty millionaires of the future. As to this question of expendi-ency, I am ready to concede that we cannot well debate it now. If parliament is to be assumed to have the jurisdiction, the matter of expediency can best be considered in committee. If it does go to committee and if the committee is called upon to consider it in that aspect, then I think very careful attention should be given to the observations of my hon. friend from Medicine Hat, as well as to those of my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr.Perley), and we should have good reasons indeed from the promoters to justify us in passing such legislation as this, which confers upon them that which, though nominally not so, may become, in substance, a monopoly.
Hon.. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals). The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has put the vital points in the proposition now before the House. One is: Have we the right to pass this legislation? The second is: Granted that we have the right to pass this legislation, ought we to pass it? Of course, it is conceded that a great many things that men as well as parliaments have the right to do may wisely be left undone. I am not saying that that is the case here, but it is a point for the House to consider. The question of provincial rights is one that is now before the public, and will be so long as we are a community divided into provincial and federal jurisdictions. I have always endeavoured very carefully to protect the rights of the provinces in their spheres, and I am prepared to continue to do so. On the other hand we must not be so careful about protecting the rights of others that we give up rights of our own. The line of demarcation is sometimes difficult to draw when you come to a question of this kind. Here we find one stream, an international one. and another one in respect of which the point raised is navigation. I will not discuss the question of expediency, because, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) says, we can better discuss it in committee. This much, however, might, in fairness, be pointed out in reply to my hon. friend, and in support of a measure, it is debatable whether it is wise to refrain in all cases from developing a power merely because part of the energy developed will have to be exported. It may be that the demand in Canada, at present, is not sufficient to warrant capital in developing the power at all. Would it be wise to allow Canada to remain for years without her share in that development, or would it be better to allow it to be developed so that Canada could get the share that she can use leaving the remainder to be exported? It is a fine point to argue. I think that, in some circumstances, we would be warranted, in order to secure the development ourselves, to allow part of the power to be exported, if the denial of this right would mean that we could not get capital sufficient to develop the power. Then there is the question my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) has brought up, and which has been referred to by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. It is well known that this question of our water-powers, the preservation of our forests and reforestation are live questions, and they are so interlinked with one another that you can hardly discuss one without dealing with the others. The denuding of our forest areas means the destruction of our water-powers; and this question is of such magnitude that, as hon. members are aware, a conference is being opened in Washington this week in which the United States, Mexico, and Canada are taking part for the discussion of the general subject of conserving our natural resources, including these which we have been discussing to-day. I earnestly hope that something will develop from that conference that will give us some light in dealing with tnese matters; because if there is one thing more than another that means a great deal to the Dominion of Canada at the present time,
I think it is this question of water as a transportation medium, and water as a power developer. These two things are of vast importance to Canada, and to conserve them as far as possible for our own benefit I think ought to be the study of all men who take an active part in public life.
Now the Bill before us raises, as I have said, the question of provincial rights to a certain extent. I am not sure just to what extent it is raised. I have listened with a good deal of attention to my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), and the way he has put his case. If the paragraphs m the Bill contain bona fide statements, then it becomes an international work and ought to be dealt with by this House; and if it be truly an international work it could not be dealt with by any other power than this House. My hon. friend has referred to the innocent yet powerful paragraph saying that this work is for the general advantage of Canada. I am afraid-and I am comparatively free to say so, and can afford to criticise-I am afraid that this parliament perhaps for many years gone by has been quite a sinner in that regard. Looking at this question from the standpoint I have occupied for the last eight or ten years- excepting the last two years-I have often thought these words were placed in Bills when they had no right to be there, and that charters were issued to railway companies and other companies by Dominion authority that should have been left to provincial authorities. My view point has not changed in that respect. I believe that

there is a sphere which truly belongs to the provinces and which we should not interfere with; on the other hand, we have our own sphere that we should jealously guard. I have just been looking at it, because I hardly expected it would come up to-day- and without committing myself to this Bill at all on the second reading, there may be portions of it that ought to go through and others that ought not. As the leader of the opposition says, those representing the provincial side of the case could be best heard before the committee. With that understanding, and so as to give all parties, including the province, a right to be heard, I have no objection to the Hill being sent to the committee, reserving the right to oppose the Bill in committee, and not committing myself at the present stage to any points in the Bill.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton).: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the leader of the opposition discussing this very interesting question of constitutional law, because after all the interesting parts of it are the constitutional phases which are raised. I think it is conceded that we have a right to pass a part of this Act of incorporation, and if there were no other authority for that than the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition, as a Nova Scotia man, I would be quite prepared to accept it. But I would not have said anything if the leader of the opposition had gone a little further and dealt with the question of what I would call the smaller streams. This international stream may not be the larger one, but I take it for granted that it is the larger one, and that the other streams mentioned are the smaller ones. I think the legal gentlemen of the House will agree that the law has been found to be that if this House has a right to grant a charter for the main purpose-and I think the main purpose to be to control, or to do something in the way of controlling, an international stream-if that right is in this House; if then it becomes incidental to carrying out that main purpose to grant the further power, we have the right even if, in principle, and on the face of it we have to transgress provincial rights. That statement is in accord with the decisions of the Privy Council on this point. Then if it is necessary to control this Nipigon river or other small streams, if it is necessary in order to carry out the purpose of this charter to control these small streams to expropriate land, or do anything else that may be necessary to carry out the main purpose of the company, then there is jurisdiction in this House under the decisions of the Privy Council, to grant a| charter and to extend the powers to the necessary extent. I think the legal gentle men of the House will agree with that proposition. It would appear to be largely Mr. GRAHAM.
a question whether the acquiring of these smaller streams is incidental to the main purpose or not. Now as to the general proposition, as to the ownership of the streams in the older provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where the land is vested in the provinces, I think it will be conceded that the property in the streams is in the local government, subject to rights of navigation. I think that is the law. But in Manitoba and the west generally, where the land is not vested in the provincial governments, that doctrine, of course, would require some modification. Whether it can be stated as a matter of law that the right in a stream is in the provincial government when they do not own any land at all? I am not expressing an opinion on that point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is in the province of Ontario entirely, except the portion that is near the international boundary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: So far as I know anything about it, I would say that so far as smaller streams are absolutely within the province of Ontario, the right to the land and the right to the bed of the river is in the provincial government, subject to rights of navigation. But as I said before, if interfering in any way with the smaller streams is necessary to the carrying out of the main purpose of this charter, then the right is in this parliament to grant and control those rights, if it is incidental to carrying out the main purpose of the character.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not understand that this was the case of a large stream which is an international stream, and smaller ones ancillary to it, but they are two absolutely distinct streams.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, that does not affect my argument. Even if it is a smaller stream, if, in order to carry out the purpose for which the charter was granted, it is necessary to have something to do with the smaller stream, the right is vested in this parliament to grant that right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These are both large streams, and they are hundreds of miles apart.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They may be, but what I say is clear. I see the hon. member for North Toronto, who is no doubt a distinguished lawyer, laughing and shaking his head. But it has so happened that even distinguished constitutional lawyers like himself have agreed and laid down the principle which I simply reiterate, that if it is necessary to transgress provincial rights in order to carry out the main purpose of a charter which we have a right to grant, that right is vested in this House. That is a principle which I merely reiterate. It is a question of fact and not a question of law whether the acquisition of rights over these smaller

streams in the province of Ontario is incidental to the main purpose or not. If it is not incidental to the main purpose, I certainly say that I do not think there is anv jurisdiction in this House to interfere with it unless clause two of the Act is accepted.


Mr. LANCASTER.: What about the ex' ercise of a right in a case like this?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What I said is clear, I said that so far as an international stream is concerned, we have the right, that is, conceded by every lawyer in this House, and to interfere with what may be regarded as provincial rights so far as that is necessary to carry out the purpose of the main cb arter.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What about the justice of so interfering?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a question of fact. I do not know the facts and I am not going to state any opinion. I am dealing with the question of law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No one disputes that we have the power.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I say we have not the power unless the interfering with the smaller streams is necessary for the carrying out of the greater project over which we have the greater right. As far as the conserving of the water power is concerned and keeping it within our jurisdiction, I agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) to this extent that it is not an easy matter to say that we shall always hold this power in reserve, not touching it and looking for some future development or necessity. The government of Nova Scotia, some time ago, made a new departure in connection with the granting of lands and water-powers. They do not grant absolute rights to any person with respect to these franchises or properties. They have adopted the policy of leaseholds, and I think it would be the better policy in this case. . I do not think it is wise to grant an absolute right or power with respect to water or water-powers any more than it is wise to give absolute control oyer coal lands. In Nova Scotia we only give leaseholds for coal properties and for many years, when persons have come to the local legislature looking for powers with respect to streams,. we have adopted the course of giving them a lease subject to the absolute control of the government and subject to cancellation. In cases where the Dominion government part with control over these resources, or permit the exercise of these powers, I think a policy similar to that adopted in the province of Nova Scotia would be advisable, and in that way keep these resources under the control of the government, so that if in the future the
necessity arises for a change in the conditions such change can be made. In so far as the constitutional question is concerned, that is the view I take and I would not have said anything at all if the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) had dealt with these incidental powers which are vested in this House provided the exercise of them is essential to the main purpose of the charter.


Mr. BRODER.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) who is promoting the Bill, what his estimate is of the water power on the Nipigon river ? I understand him to say that it is 80,000 horse-power on the Pigeon river. What has he estimated for the Nipigon ?


James Conmee: It is estimated that the Nipigon river has about 200,000 horsepower. This one point would cover perhaps 20,000 or 25,000 horse-power.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Nipigon river is 100 miles away from the Pigeon river and they have nothing whatever to do with each other. There is another matter which has not been touched upon and which ought to be mentioned. Nipigon lake and Nipigon river possess the best trout fishing in the world There should be nothing allowed to be done to interfere with this famous fishing resort. There are a great many tourists coming from New York, Boston, Philadelphia and other places to fish in Nipigon river and lake. The hon. gentleman says this is a navigable river, but he will not . say that it is continuously navigable. You can navigate it by canoes which enable you to get around the rapids, but you cannot navigate it with any other craft. You get the finest speckled trout in the world in Nipigon lake, which has a coast line almost equal to that of Lake Ontario, and I think that this House and this committee before adopting this Bill, should obtain the fullest information as to the proposal of this company and the condition of these waters. The Nipigon and Pigeon rivers nave no more to do with each other than black has with white. I think the hon. gentleman has simply hitched the two together to get them both through because the power of the Nipigon is more valuable man that of the Pigeon. He had in his Bill of last year the Sturgeon river. There is not as much power on the Sturgeon river as on the Nipigon river, but there is a good deal. I do not think that a Bill granting such wide powers should be allowed to go through this House in the interest of American capitalists. The hon. gentleman has just enough Canadians in it to give colour to it. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) presented to the House an argument in favour of the development of this power because the people

want to use it, but when there is need for the power there is no question but that capital will come in to develop it. This is a question that this House ought to consider very seriously before taking the step proposed by the hon. gentleman who has introduced this Bill. I have been up both of these rivers by canoe and I know something about them. The House knows very little about them. If this Bill is permitted to go to the committee, there should be the fullest information available with reference to maps, the location of these rivers, their navigability and the value of the water-powers upon them.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, the sense of the House seems to- be that this Bill should go to the committee, not permitting our own judgment to affirm the principle but simply to have the matter dealt with and investigated, both as to jurisdiction and policy. With regard to the question of jurisdiction of this House, I think, for my part, that the jurisdiction is certainly in this House and not in the local legislature. The local legislature has been jealous, and naturally so, that their powers should not be interfered with by any action of this House, and in so far as this view of theirs is concerned I would be disposed to respect it in its entirety. But, I would lay this proposition before the House: With regard to one of these schemes, suppose that this work should be necessary, that it would bo to the advantage of the public and that parliament, representing the people of Canada generally, should be of the opinion that this work should be constructed, who has the power to create the entity which brings this work into being? As to one of these streams,, the Pigeon river, everybody is agreed that the parliament of Canada alone has that power. I think there is no question as to that. That was stated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). But, if I understood my hon. friend, a moment ago, he stated also with regard to the Nipigon river that as it is altogether situated in the province of Ontario, and that although it is a navigable river the province of Ontario would have the power to create the entity which would be necessary to be created in order to carry out the work and not this government. But, he qualified his contention by the statement that whilst the local legislature has power to create the entity, still the power which is vested in this new entity would be exercised only by coming to the Minister of Public Works and obtaining authority to deal with a navigable river.


Robert Laird Borden: Just as this company would be obliged to do.


Wilfrid Laurier: I doubt that. I would like to call the attention of my Mr. BRODER.
hon. friend the leader of the opposition to the fact that in so far as a navigable river is concerned the local legislature has not the power to create a corporation which *would exercise any rights over a navigable stream.


Andrew Broder: This river is not navigable at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: Assuming it is navigable. The argument is that they have the power although it is navigable.


Andrew Broder: It is not navigable without public works being constructed.


Wilfrid Laurier: That may be, but the argument is that it is navigable and therefore we have the power here to deal with it. But my hon. friend the leader of the opposition stated that if it be a na vi-gable river the legislature of Ontario would have the power to create a corporation which could be given power to deal with the waters of the streams, except that it could not exercise the powers vested in it bv the legislature unless it came to the Minister of Public Works to have its powers 'ratified. As I read the law my opinion would not coincide with that of my hon. friend. The law in this respect is chapter 115 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, an Act respecting the Protection of Navigable
Waters.
2. In this part, unless the context otherwise
requnes^ork , incjucies any bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier or other structure, and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto;
(b) 'Lawfur work ' means any work not contrary to the law in force at the P^ce of the construction thereof at the time of such
r>r*nc-t

|,nn;HnTl .
This is broad enough to cover the opinion of my hon. friend, but there is this qualification in section 3:
3 Except so much of this part as relates to rebuilding or repairing any lawful work, nothing thereinafter in this part contained shall apply to any work constructed under the authority of any Act of the parliament of Canada or of the legislature of the late province of Canada, or of the legislature ol any province now forming part of Canada, passed before such province became a part thereof.
So it seems that the power to deal with navigable streams is confined to the parliament of Canada or to any province of Canada, provided it was passed before such province became part of confederation. Since a province became part of confederation the power seems to be taken away from it to deal with navigable waters.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it not the other way?


Wilfrid Laurier: I read it in the way I have interpreted it. It says:
3. Except so much of this part as relates to
rebuilding or repairing any lawful work, nothing hereinafter in this part contained shall apply to any work constructed under the authority of any Act of the parliament of Canada or of the legislature of the late province of Canada, or of the legislature of any province now forming part of Canada, passed before such province became a part thereof.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does not the restriction apply the other way?


Wilfrid Laurier: I assume it is not in the power of a provincial legislature to give authority to create any work interfering with a navigable river, but power is given to the Minister of Public Works to pass regulations with respect to works which are authorized. The Minister of Public Works cannot give authority to a thing which is illegal in itself, but he supervises the exercise of the power granted by this parliament. If this parliament gives power to construct a bridge or any work over a navigable river, the authority to which this power is given must go before the Minister of Public Works to have its plans approved. I do not know that it goes any further than that and, therefore, I would assume that the authority to deal with a navigable river is left exclusively with this parliament. I do not give this as a final opinion; I simply throw it out for consideration. I am very glad this Bill will go before the committee because I am not at all sure as to the power, and on the question of policy I have very serious doubts that we should pass this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: If the right hon. gentleman looks at section 3 he will see that the effect of it is that while the statute contains provisions against any interference with navigable waters it says:
Except so much of this part as relates to
rebuilding or repairing any lawful work, nothing hereinafter in this part contained shall apply to any work constructed under the authority of any Act of parliament of Canada or of the legislature of the late province of Canada, or of the legislature of any province now forming part of Canada, passed before such province became a part thereof.
That exactly lets in the exception I have referred to. For example, in the port of Halifax if any one should desire to extend his wharf so as to interfere with navigation he would apply to the Minister of Public Works for permission and he might get it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He need not get incorporated himself.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a question of incorporation at all. A private citizen owning some land bordering on the harbour and perhaps owning some land under the water may desire to improve his property by building a work which will interfere with navigation and he must get authority to do so. If he sells his land to a company incorporated by the provincial legislature and that company desires to do the same thing, it must come equally to the Department of Public Works for permission before that work can be lawfully constructed. If that permission is not obtained then the work is a public nuisance. That whole subject was gone into in a case argued before the Supreme Court of Canada about 20 years ago. A man had constructed a wharf out into the harbour of Halifax without obtaining permission and a vessel ran into it and there was negligence on one side or the other, and the wharf owner lost his case, if I remember correctly, for the reason that the wharf was a public nuisance at the time inasmuch as this permission had not been obtained. My point was simply this:	That if a company in the province
of Ontario is authorized to develop water-powers generally, without naming any river -and a river or stream need not be named -it would require to come to the Department of Public Works in respect to a navigable river and obtain permission to interfere with navigation, and, inasmuch as the Bill does not authorize interference with navigation this company would have to do the same thing. Therefore, the argument that it is navigable water falls to the ground, because the question of interference with navigable water has already been dealt with by the parliament of Canada in such a way as to enable a company whether incorporated by the provincial legislature or by the parliament of Canada to interfere with that navigation, but only under certain conditions and with the authority of the Department of Public Works.


James Conmee: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask a question?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, two.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman referred to section 92 which provides for the approval of plans by the Department of Public Works.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I referred to chapter 115 R.S.C.


James Conmee: I understood the hon. gentleman referred to section 92.


Robert Laird Borden: I never mentioned it.


James Conmee: That section does provide for the ratification of plans, and I am not

particular whether we take that section or the other section referred to. Will the hon. member say that these sections give the Minister of Public Works jurisdiction to regulate a structure in the sense of stipulating what flow of water shall pass through a dam and in what seasons of the year so as to maintain navigation either above or below? Does the section go that far?


Robert Laird Borden: There is a very well known principle of law which I have no doubt is familiar to my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) because he has looked into these matters very thoroughly.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am saying it quite seriously because the hon. gentleman has displayed evidence of a great deal of research. It is a well known principle of law that when power is given to _grant or withhold permission, that implies power to grant subject to conditions. Therefore, as there is power in the department to withhold permission, there is also power to grant it subject to prescribed conditions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to say a word with regard to this matter because I have noticed that in the Railway Committee-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has already spoken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have your name on the list as having spoken.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 57) respecting the Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. J. D. Taylor.
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway Company. -Mr. R. Smith.
7. Does the government propose constructing the road as surveyed under the appropriations asked for in the estimates immediately as such surveys are available for construction purposes? If so, on what basis as to providing for, cost of construction ?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. $100,000.
2.	Expended to January 25, 1909, $61,567.72.
3.	The number of men employed on surveys, since they were fully organized, about October 1, 1908, has averaged about 110. .
4.	The total number of days of employment of all men, till January 31, is 15,352 days, including Sundays.
5.	The first actual line was run by Party No. 1, at Frog river, about 35 miles, from the Pas on September 14, 1908.
6.	It is expected that the survey will be
completed between the 1st March and the 15th, 1909, from the Pas to Fort Churchill. The work is still progressing.	_
7.	No decision will be reached pending receipt of estimates and reports upon the completion of the survey.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr.Periey-asked:
Have the Commissioners of the National Transcontinental Railway furnished the government with any memorandum of more recent date than that prepared by Mr. Schrieber, dated 31st May, 1908, in respect of the cost of the National Transcontinental Railway? If not, is it the intention of the government to ask for a revised statement?
George Perry Graham: The estimate given lay the engineer of the Transcontinental Railway Commission on April 3. 1908, was $63,427 per mile for the government portion of the line between Moncton and Winnipeg and a memo, dated 12th February, 1909, confirms that estimate.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. MEIGHEN asked:: 1.	What is the total of the appropriation made to date for Hudson Bay Railway survey?
2.	What has been the total expenditure of such survey?
3.	How many persons, officers and workmen, have been employed on such survey?
4.	What has been the total number of days of employment to date of all employees?
5.	On what date did the first actual work commence, and is the work in actual progress now ?
6.	When is it expected the survey will be completed?


James Conmee: 


COAL OIL EXPLOSIONS
Mr. SCHAFFNER asked:: 
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (for Minister of Inland Revenue):: 1.	Eighteen, so far as the department is aware.
2.	On the first appearance in the press oi an account of one of these explosions, instructions were issued to the officials of the department in Winnipeg to investigate and report all the circumstances in connection therewith.
3.	The officials of the department who conducted the investigations inquired as to the names of the persons from whom the coal oil which exploded was purchased or obtained, the names of the firms by whom it was originally supplied, and the manner in which it was being used at the time of the explosions. Samples of the oil which exploded could not be secured, but samples of similar oil in the possession of persons from whom the oil which exploded was purchased were, in every case where possible, obtained and tested. Numerous samples of oil in the hands of different dealers and oil merchants were also tested.
The results of these investigations show that in every case (except one, which was due to the explosion of a lamp), the accidents were caused by the pouring of coal oil on smouldering fires in order to hasten the burning of the fuel; that in some instances the oil was fully up to the standard required by law, that in other instances it was below, and that it is extremely dangerous both to life and property to pour coal oil on a fire no matter how perfect the quality may be.
Two dealers who had sold coal oil which exploded, and which was not up to the standard, were prosecuted and condemned
to the penalty provided by section 24 of the Petroleum Inspection Act.*
4.	The department has information indicating fairly well a source from which defective coal oil was obtained, but it would be impossible to say who would be responsible for any adulteration of such oil which may have taken place.
5.	No steps can be taken which will effectively prevent the mixture, by error or inadvertence, of gasoline with coal oil, as these liquids are similar in appearance and are both kept in stock by nearly all dealers in either. As gasoline has the higher commercial value, no one is likely to adulterate coal oil with it intentionally.
6.	The Attorney General of Manitoba telegraphed suggesting that the department should engage some extra men for detection work in connection with the coal oil explosions referred to, but there seemed no advantage in taking that course, as the regular officers of the department appeared to be sufficient in number for the work, and necessarily more experienced and better equipped for the carrying out of the provisions of the Petroleum Inspection Act than new men could be.



THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

George Eulas Foster: What is the name, position and salary of each clerk or other employee on the outside service of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa who received increase of salary on and after April 1, 1908; what is the amount of the increase or increases, the date on which it was granted, the date it became effective and the date or dates on which these increases were paid, and date of appointment?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $ cts. 200 00 200 00
300 00
50 00 50 00
100 00 100 00
50 00 50 00
Date
Increase
granted.
I May l Aug. /May l Aug. /May l Aug. May
it
{ Aug. /May \ Aug.
May
Date
Increase
effective.
Date
Increase
paid.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
ti
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
1-$100 1- 100 1- 100 1- 100 1- 100 1- 200 1.
1.
1-1 50 1- 50 1- 50 1- 50
June.
Sept.
.Tune.
Sept.
June.
Sept.
June.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April
Aug.
April

Aug.
April
ii
it
Aug.
April



LAKEFIELD WHARF.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SEXSMITH-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	How much has been spent to date on Lakefield wharf?
i ?[DOT] ^as the work done by contract or by day labour, when was work commenced, and is the wharf completed?
Hon. GEO. P. GKAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The amount voted for this wharf was $4,050. Expended to date $3,421.76. The balance of this appropriation, $728.24, will be expended this spring in filling in approach.
2.	This work was done by day labour. The work was commenced in the month of October, after navigation had closed. The work could not have been started any sooner owing to the dock being used by various steamboat companies. The last work done on the dock was in December. The dock is completed excepting the filling in of the approach.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 



WHARFS ON STONY LAKE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SEXSMITH-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	How many wharfs have been built on Stony lake since 1900?
2.	When and where were they built, what 'vas,j the cost of each wharf, and were they built by contract or day labour?
Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of
Railways and Canals):
1.	Only one wharf was built at Stony lake since 1900.
2.	Juniper island, last year (1908). The appropriation for the work was $1,500. The total amount was expended. It was built by day labour.
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. Mr. FOSTER asked:
1. What sum was voted for the outside service of the Department of the Interior in Ottawa, salaries of clerks, for the fiscal year 1 1908-9 ?

2.	What was the total number of clerks employed m the said outside service of the Interior Department at Ottawa on April 1, 1908, and what was the amount required for the payment of their salaries for the year 1908-9?
3.	Will the Minister of the Interior lay on the table of the House the orders in council by authority of which the increases of salary detailed on pages 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561,
563	and 561 unrevised * Hansard/ 1909, were granted?
4.	Was the question of these increases submitted to the Justice Department or to the Treasury Board ? If so, will the minister table the decision arrived at by these?
5.	What wras the total amount involved in the increases granted as above as a charge against the consolidated fund?
6.	What was the total amount involved by nefc appointments as detailed on pages
564	and 565 unrevised 'Hansard/ 1909?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	$394,122.50. The salaries of the seven temporary clerks employed on the 1st April, 1908, in the School Lands branch amounting to $6,250, have not been included in the above sum, as the amount required to pay their services is not voted by parliament, but paid out of the School Lands funds.
2.	416; $381,292.50.
3.	The information will be brought down on a motion for a return.
4.	No.
5.	The total amount of the increases as detailed in ' Hansard ' is $41,760; but, through a clerical error, one name, that of Mr. G. B. Dodge, was omitted from the list so that the total amount involved is $42,510.
6.	$31,580.


George Eulas Foster: Might I ask the hon. minister if he would not revise his answer on part 3, and bring those down without formality of a notice of motion ?


Mr. OLIVER.: It would require a little time to prepare them.


George Eulas Foster: It is merely to forward the business, because we must have them before we can do much with the Civil Service.
' The warning of General Lake.
' Western ideas and western civilization must be imposed on the Orient, said the General, and if we can't put it up to them by mere argument we must force it, and be prepared to fight if necessary.'
And has he any information to give to the House upon the subject?


Right Hon.   S@: Yes, Sir P, Lake himself called attention to the matter and stated that the Press reports of his address had been so condensed, and so much matter omitted as to convey a misleading impression of what he had actually said; he had not referred in any way to present day Canadian political questions, nor made any statement which would in any way be offensive to Japan; he showed me full notes of his address, and from them it was evident that nothing had been said to which exception could fairly be taken. The remark attributed to General Lake in the extract quoted-that ' Western ideas and western civilization must be imposed on the Orient '-is so absurd as to carry with it its own refutation.



EMPLOYMENT OF BUSH CAMPBELL.

Mr. S. SHARPE asked:: 1.	Is there an official known as Bush Campbell employed on the Trent canal, Lake Sim-coe division? If so, what are the terms of his employment ?
2.	Does the government allow him a sum for rent of house? If so, what is the amount?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	There is no official by the name of Bush Campbell employed on the Trent Canal. There is on the Lake Simcoe-Bal-sam Lake Division of the canal a bridge-tender and caretaker of dam, named Donald Campbell.
2.	Donald Campbell is paid $30 per month and is allowed $6 a month for house rent.



REFUSAL OF LAND SCRIP TO NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE.

Wilfrid Laurier: Make the motion now.


George Eulas Foster: I move for an order of the House for what is asked for in question number three.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TALBOT-by Mr. Calvert-asked:
Has the attention of the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence been drawn to reports which have been published in the press of an address stated to have been given by Major-General Sir P. Lake to the members of Toronto University Rifle Association on February 4, 1909, in one of which reports the following appears:
Mr. HUGHES asked:: 1.	What are the reasons advanced by this or any preceding government, for refusing land scrip to members of the Northwest Mounted Police who served during the Northwest rebellion of 1885?
2.	Is it the purpose of the government to recognize even at this late date the claims of those who were members of that force during the rebellion of 1885 P


Right Hon.   S@: , (Prime Minister). I answered a similar question by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Claude Macdonell) a few days ago and I have now to repeat that reply as follows:
1.	When the subject of rewards for services during the Rebellion of 1885 was

under consideration by the government of that day, a distinction was made between the Mounted Police, whose ordinary duties of maintaining law and order were within the limits of the disturbed districts, and the militia, who were called upon to leave their homes and occupations, at great personal inconvenience, resulting in many cases in serious embarrassment to themselves and families.
This distinction was marked by excluding the police from participation in the issue of scrip.
In 1893 the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories passed a resolution praying that the Dominion government would grant scrip to the Mounted Police, and on several occasions members have asked questions in the House. The reply has always been adverse to reconsideration.



PAYMENT OF ELECTION OFFICERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WRIGHT-by Mr. Elson-asked:
1.	Under which department of the government rests the responsibility for the payments of the accounts of the returning officers, deputy returning officers and other officials in connection with Dominion elections?
2.	Have the election expenses of the above officials for the election held in October last been paid by the government?
Hon. CHAS. MURPHY (Secretary of State):: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 2.	Is he allowed rent for his dwelling? If so, how much, or has he a dwelling provided by the government?
3.	Is he allowed to keep an assistant? If so, what allowance for wages is made him by the government?
4.	Does the lockmaster get paid for lost time when out through the country purchasing fowl?
5.	Is he allowed by the government to go through the country during elections speaking for the Liberal candidate?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Lockmaster at Fenelon Falls is paid the sum of $30, a month as lockmaster and caretaker of dam; he also receives an additional $100 a year for his duties as statistical officer.
2.	Up to the 1st February last, he has been allowed $6 a month for house rent. The government has just completed a house for the lockmaster at Fenelon Falls, which will now be occupied by him, in lieu of the $6 per month he has in the past received in this connection.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.



PNEUMATIC TUBES AT MONTREAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Perley-asked:
1.	What was the quantity and value of the pneumatic tubes purchased for the use of the Post Office Department at Montreal?
2.	When were these bought, from whom, and how delivered ?
3.	Where are the said tubes at present in storage, what has been the storage cost to date, and what is the present rate of storage per month?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to make use of these tubes in Montreal or elsewhere ? If not, why not ?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	8,0074 lineal feet at $1.45 per foot; $11,610.88.
2.	Date of contract, February 9, 1905; from R. Maclaren & Company, of Glasgow; to be delivered in Montreal.
3.	(a) On the government property, corner St. James street, St. Felix street, and Imperial avenue.
(b)	$2,940.88.
(c)	Nothing.
4.	No. It is not the intention to proceed with the installation of the pneumatic tube system.



WHARF BETWEEN LONGUE POINTE AND POINTE-AUX-TREMBLES.

Mr. C. A. WILSON asked:: Has the government received any requests, either from private individuals or industrial and commercial companies, for the construction of a new wharf at places situate almost half-way between the villages of Longue

Pointe and Pointe-aux-Trembles ? If so, is it the intention of the government to build a wharf at that place?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: (a)	Yes.
(b)	An appropriation of $5,000 was included in the current year's Appropriation
Act.



DREDGING IN RIVER JESUS.

Mr. C. A. WILSON asked:: 1.	On what date was the dredging of the River .Jfeus commenced, in that part of the river from Bout-le-L'isle and Charlemagne as far as Terrebonne and Sault St. Franpois de Salles ?
2.	Who has been and who are the contractors for this dredging?
3.	What amount has been appropriated for this dredging?
4.	How much has been expended up to the present time ?
5.	What is the length, width and depth of the channel on that part of the river where the works have been carried on up to the present time ?
6.	Up to what point are these works to reach ?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to continue in the spring?


William Pugsley: As dredging has been done on River Jesus between the above named places since 1881, I would ask that this stand as a notice of motion for a return.


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



INCREASES TO CIVIL SERVICE SINCE APRIL 1, 1908.

Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What was the name and date of the first appointment, position and salary at time of increase of each clerk or other employee in the outside service of the Department of Pub-lio Works at Ottawa, to whom any increase of pay was given on and after the 1st of April, 1908, the amount of such increase or increases, the date on which increase was granted, the date it became effective, and the date on which the increase was paid?
2.	The same question is asked of the following departments Militia and Defence, Marine and Fisheries, Railways and Canals, Customs, Inland Revenue, Public Printing, Indian Affairs, Auditor General, Finance, Mines and Post Office Department?


William Pugsley: I would ask to have this stand as a notice of motion for a return.


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


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I have the answer for the Militia Department.


George Eulas Foster: As I stated before, an answer laid on the table and published in the ' Hansard ' would be immediately available to every member of the House. A big return such as that would be when brought down becomes unuseable by any except the mover and one or two others for a good deal of time and consequently does not come before the House, but I thought this was so important a matter it would be well to have it published in ' Hansard.' I already have the information for the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, which are the two largest, down as answers.


Frederick William Borden: Mine is there now.



EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURE.

Mr. EDWARDS asked:: What amount of money has been expended by the government of Canada for purely agricultural purposes during each of the fiscal years 1900 to 1908, inclusive?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In preparing the answer the expenditure under the following appropriations was taken: Experimental farms; printing the bulletins and reports; fumigation; aid to agricultural societies; dairying, seed, &c., including cold storage; health of animals; one-fourth of civil government salaries.
1899-1900			$297,191 56
1900-1			 309,088 57
1901-2			 406,668 57
1902-3			 444,324 75
1903-4		
1904-5			 554,565 79
1905-6			 747,184 02
*1906-7			 566,010 11
1907-8			 762,589 89
*1906-7 fiscal year only 9 months.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY TERMINAL SITE, WINNIPEG.

Mr. A. HAGGART asked:: 1.	Who conducted for the government or the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners the negotiations for the purchase of the Winnipeg terminal property for the railway, from J. H. Kern and F. C. Mathews?
2.	Was the price agreed upon by the agent conducting the negotiations laid before the government before closing the purchase?
3.	What inquiries, if any, were made by the government, the Railway Commissioners or the officials as to the actual value of the property?
4.	Was it known to the government that
the vendors, Kern & Mathews, had become registered owners a short time previous at less than half the price asked from the government?	.
5.	Did the officials, agents or solicitors acting for the government or the Railway Commissioners inform the government or the department that over $100,000 was the profit of the vendors?

6.	What reasons existed for not ascertaining the price of the property by expropriation proceedings ?
7.	Is the government aware now that an extravagant price was paid for the property?
8.	Is there any truth in the rumour that there is a probability of abandoning the property and acquiring more suitable land for terminal purposes nearer the city of Winnipeg?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The commissioners themselves, also through their agent Mr. T. L. Morton, Winnipeg, and their solicitor, Mr. T. H. Johnson, and the chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden.
2.	Report of the transaction was submitted by the commissioners to the government before purchase was completed.
3.	The commissioners in company with their land agent and chief engineer personally examined and inspected lands in the vicinity and decided that among those available were two properties, but the one purchased was more suitable than the other for divisional yards, although cheaper. The other was held at $3,000 per acre, but afterwards reduced to $2,000. Kern & Mathews asked $300 per acre or upwards, but after negotiations by Commissioner Young, the land agent and the solicitor, Mr. Johnson, it was reduced to an average of $277.50 per acre which was considered a low figure in comparison with the price asked for adjoining lands. The chief engineer approved of the purchase in the public interest, and the matter was closed accordingly.
4.	No.
5.	The commissioners have had no knowledge of the profits and gave no information to the government.
6.	Based on the report of their officers and the opinion and recommendation of their chief engineer, coupled with the ascertained value of lands in the vicinity, the commissioners considered that the property was obtained at a much lower figure than if expropriation proceedings had been taken, and further the commissioners pursued the policy of railway companies by not giving publicity as to their intentions about divi-sonal yards, so as to avoid a rise in values.
7.	Property was really bought at a low figure for reasons aforesaid.
8.	No..



PAYMENTS TO NORTH ATLANTIC TRADING COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy asked:
Have any moneys been paid to the North Atlantic Trading Company, or to any person on their behalf, since the date of the cancellation of said contract between the company and the government? If so, what sums and upon what dates?
Mr. A. HAGGART.: 

ROSS RIFLE.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 4. On whose recommendation or authority was the Ross rifle accepted and adopted by the government as the national arm of Canada?
2.	Is the Small Arms Committee responsible for the adoption of this Rifle by the government?
3.	If so, did the committee report in favour of the rifle, and on what date?
4.	What was the composition of this committee when the report or recommendation was made?
5.	Was the report of the Small Arms Committee unanimous?
6.	If not, did any member report recommending the rifle? If so, who?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	The rifle was adopted on the recommendation of the Minister of Militia and Defence after it had been reported on by a board of expert officers. A copy of the report of that board has been laid on tha Table of the House. Subsequently, after a considerable number of rifles had been manufactured, its use as one of the service rifles of Canada was authorized by General Order 104, June, 1906.
2.	The Small Arms Committee was not organized until March, 1908.
3.	4, 5 and 6. Answered by No. 2.



CONTROL OF TELEPHONE COMPANIES BY RAILWAY COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACLEAN-by Mr. Calvert-asked:
1.	Have any Canadian telephone companies been placed under the control of the Railway Commission?
2.	If so, what is the date of the order in council ?
3.	To what telephone companies does such order in council, if any, apply?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No order in council placing under jurisdiction of board, but by Act of Parliament, chapter 37, Revised Statutes of Canada, amended by chapter 61 of 1908, Part I of which was declared in force, under authority of an order in council, dated February 1, 1909, on and from February 8, 1909.
3.	To all Canadian telephone companies chartered by the parliament of Canada.



CABLES TO VANCOUVER ISLAND AND ALONG PACIFIC COAST.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Has application been made by any person, corporation or government for permission to lay a cable under the waters between Vancouver island and the mainland, and their extension northward along the coast of British Columbia?
2.	If so, by whom, and what action has been taken on such request?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 1 and 2. No request has been made for permission to lay a cable under the waters between Vancouver island and the mainland.
The Governemnt of the United States of America asked permission to lay a cable through Hecate strait and Dixon entrance, these being Canadian waters-and the permission was granted. This cable duplicates a part of the outside cable already established between Seattle and Alaska.



PUBLIC BUILDING AT CHILLIWACK, B.C.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Has any property been purchased, or are there in progress negotiations for the purchase of any property in the city of Chilliwack?
2.	If so, from whom has such property been purchased, what is its extent and location, and at what date was the purchase made?
3.	For what purpose was any property so purchased required?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. An order in council passed August 31, 1908, to purchase site on Young and Victoria streets, 80 feet frontage1 on each street by 115 feet deep between streets, from J. H. Henderson, for $3,000.
3.	For the erection of a public building.



INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN-by Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:
1.	Who are the members of the International Fisheries Commission appointed under the provisions of the treaty between His Majesty and the United States of America, signed on the Uth day of April, 1908, and relating to the fisheries?
2.	Have the commissioners prepared a system of international regulations as contemplated and provided by the terms of the said treaty ?
3.	What has been done under the provisions of the said treaty?
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	The Canadian Commissioner is Professor Edward E. Prince, B.A., F.L.S^ F.R.S.C., Commissioner and General Inspector of Fisheries for Canada.
The United States Commissioner is Dr. Jordan, President of the University of California.
2.	Not yet.
3.	The commissioners have been appointed, and have made some progress in the preparation of international regulations



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT-SALARY INCREASES.

George Eulas Foster: Will the Minister of Public Works lay on the table of the House the orders in council passed from the 1st of May, 1908, to January 31, 1909, authorizing increase to the employees of that department?


William Pugsley: Yes, on motion for a return.


George Eulas Foster: I ask leave to move that resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN-by Mr. George Taylor-asked:
1.	When did the government first receive a copy of the recent Waterways Treaty as it was signed by the plenipotentiaries of the high contracting parties thereto?
2.	On what date was the treaty signed?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	29th January.
2.	Uth January.



NIAGARA RIVER-WATERFLOW OVER THE FALLS.

Charles Alexander Magrath: What is the amount of water in the Niagara river annually discharged over the Horseshoe and American falls, respectively?


William Pugsley: At mean water of Lake Erie, the International Waterways Commission report for 1906, page 250, gives the discharge over the American Falls as 27,800 cubic feet per second, and over the Horse Shoe Fall 194,600. More recent determinations by the United States Lake Survey give 26,600 and 186,400 or in the proportion of 1 to 7.
At low water stage, these figures would be reduced, in the first instance, to 22,300 and 157,500 respectively and to 21,500 and 150,000 for low water stage Lake Erie.



PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL-by Mr. George Taylor-asked:
1.	Has the government decided upon the boundary lines between Manitoba and Ontario on the one side, and Ontario and Quebec on the other, under the resolutions adopted last year with reference to the boundaries of these provinces ?
[Stage Direction]
2.	If so, when will the Bill giving effect to such resolutions be submitted to the House?
3.	Will such Bill be submitted to the government of the province of Ontario before it is introduced into this House?
4.	Does the government intend to include a harbour or harbours on the Hudson bay, in the portion to be allotted to the province of Ontario?
Wilfrid Laurier: _
1.	'The boundaries of the extension of the province of Ontario were decided by resolution of this House passed last session. It is expected that the Bill will be introduced at no distant date.
2.	No exact date can be given to-day.
3.	The Bill will certainly be submitted to the province of Ontario before it is introduced in this House.
4.	The government will give the province of Ontario the shore which has been determined upon by the resolution of last year.



PUBLIC DEBT-LOANS OF DECEMBER, 1907, AND OCTOBER, 1908.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Perley-asked:
1.	In connection with the loan of December, 1907, of £1,500,000 of four per cent debentures, due October 1, 1912, (a) what was the amount of the full six months' interest payable by Canada on April 1, 1908; (b) reckoning the interest at four per cent, what would be the total amount of actual interest earned to that date on the sums paid in upon the subscription dates?
2.	What is the same information regarding the loan of October, 1908?
3.	Is this interest bonus added to the debt, or is it regarded as a distributed annual charge during the duration of the loan ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Finance);
1.	(a) £119,100 the loan of December, 1907, were converted into 3 per cent of 1938 before 1st January, 1908, and consequently on the 1st April, 1908, interest charged for this loan was on £1,380,900 amounting to £27,618.
(b) £12,098 17s. 4d.
2.	(a) £87,500.
(b) £26,178 Is. 7d.
3.	As a distributed annual charge during the duration of the loan.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Rhodes-asked:
1.	When was payment of $442 made to Alfred Dickie, Lower Stewiacke, for damages by fire on April 5, 1905?
2.	Was payment ever refused? If not, why so long delayed?
George Perry Graham: 1 and 2. $442 was paid Alfred Dickie in settlement of his claim for fire damages, on May 23, 1907. The department is not aware that the claim was ever declined; but Mr. Dickie refused for a long time to accept less


Mr. MACDONELL.: than the full amount of his claim which was $542.



MILEAGE OF RAIL WAY CONSTRUCTION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MIDDLEBRO-by Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:
Between the period from 1888 to 1908, inclusive, what was the total mileage of railways authorized to be constructed under charters granted by the Dominion parliament, inclusive of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company?
George Perry Graham: The reply to this will be so voluminous that I would ask it to stand as a notice of motion for a return.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would make the motion now, by permission of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no necessity for that, I think. The order of the House provides that, in such circumstances, the question stands as a notice of motion. But, of course, this can be carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the motion is often moved by consent, and it has been done three or four times already.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Carried.



LOBSTER LICENSES IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr. FRASER asked:: 1.	How many licenses to fish and pack lobsters in the coast waters of Prince Edward Island have been issued by the Dominion government since January 1, 1904, to this date, and to whom were same issued?
2.	Has the government received any petitions, requests, or correspondence from any person or persons, or corporations since January, 1, 1904, asking for licenses to fish and pack lobsters in said province? If so, who were the applicants?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to issue any new licenses during the present
year?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The answer to this will be so voluminous that I will ask the hon. member (Mr. Fraser) to move for a return.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stand as notice of motion for a return.
40th BATTALION HASTINGS RIFLES.
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. George Taylorasked:
Has the government considered the advisability of setting apart the officers' quarters of the old drill hall in Belleville for use of the 40th Battalion, Hastings Rifles? If so, what is the determination?


William Pugsley: This information has already been furnished to parliament this session in reply to a previous inquiry by the hon-

ourable gentleman (vide 'Hansard', unrevised, page 701).



RURAL MAIL DELIVERY IN PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked:
1.	Has rural mail delivery been established in Prince Edward County, Ontario?
2.	Has anything been done towards establishing such rural mail delivery? If so, what, where and at what expense?
3.	Has there been any refusal by any mai1 carriers to collect or deliver mail in Prince Edward County? If so, by whom, when, and for what cause?
4.	Is the department aware whether any letters have been mailed in any such rural mail boxes and allowed to remain undespatched owing to refusal of carriers to collect the same?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster Generali:
The department was informed, through the Chief Post Office Superintendent, that twenty-four rural mail delivery boxes had been erected on the Picton and West Lake mail route, but that the contractor, Mr. Alfred Mills, refused to serve these boxes, it being understood that he was not satisfied with the remuneration offered. Tenders are therefore being invited for a new contract to convey the mails between these two points, such contract to also include collections and deliveries from rural mail boxes established or hereafter to be established. The department has no information that letters have been mailed in the boxes now erected.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Perley-asked:
Has the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company filed with the government any plans or report as to the line specified in Section 11, subsection 5, of 6 Edward VII., chapiter 99, connecting a point on the National Transcontinental Railway between the eighty-third and eighty-fifth degrees of west longitude, with the town of Orillia? If so, what is the estimated length of said line, its cost and the probable date of its completion?
Hon.   G@: No such plans have been filed in the Department of Railways and Canals.



ZINC IN ALBERMARLE TOWNSHIP, ONT.

Mr. BEATTIE asked:: 1.	Is the government aware that an extensive ore body of zinc blende has been discovered on lot No. 30, 3rd concession of Albermarle township, county of Huron, Ontario?
2.	Has the government taken any measures by the granting of a bounty or otherwise to encourage the zinc mining industry in Canada?
3.	In view of the fact that the development
of this industry will require the investment of a large amount of capital, is it the intention of the government to take any such measures?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1. The Department of Indian Affairs has no knowledge as to zinc on lot No. 30, con. 3, township of Albermarle. This lot was sold on the 28th of February, 1900, by the Department of Indian Affairs, to Stephen Irwin, and patent issued therefor on the 12th of August, 1908, to Thomas Lindsay, of London, Ont., who acquired the interest of the original purchaser at a tax sale.



SUBSTITUTE FOR A VOLUNTEER.

Mr. HERRON asked:: 1.	Can a volunteer become a substitute for another volunteer, and perform the homestead duties on both grants?
2.	Can a volunteer or his substitute reside on his homestead and do his resident duties under his South African scrip if the scrip is located within nine miles of his homestead?
3.	Can a South Africa land warrant pass through the possession of more than one substitute?
4.	Can a volunteer or his substitute obtain his patent without residing on the land by getting his improvements done by another party ?
5.	Can any person other than a veteran, hold and locate and obtain patent for more than one certificate?
6.	Can a volunteer or his substitute obtain entry for a South Africa land warrant, and for the homestead and pre-emption adjoining at the same time, and fulfil the homestead duties on both by residing on one quarter only, either the scrip land or the homestead?
7.	Can a South Africa certificate pass through the possession of more than one substitute before locating it, and after it has been located by a veteran or his substitute, can they transfei' their rights before obtaining patent?
8.	Can a South Africa scrip be located on two quarter-sections that corner each other?
9.	Can two veterans or their substitutes locating on the same section obtain their patents by residing together?
10.	Will a veteran or his substitute have to commence residence within six months from the date of locating his land warrant, or within six months from December, 31, 1910?
11.	Is there any way by which a veteran ox1 his substitute can obtain patent without residing six months in each year for three years in succession on the land?
12.	Does the government intend to make amendments to the South Africa Land Bill of last session?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	Yes, provided he can perform the necessary residence in each of three years, with the required cultivation upon each halfsection.
2.	No.
3.	No.

4.	No. Residence must be performed personally by the locatee, though there is nothing to prevent him having the improvements made by some one else.
5.	Yes. A person may be the substitute of two volunteers, but it rests with him to perform the required duties upon both halfsections.
6.	No. The duties required on the homestead must be performed in accordance with the Dominion Lands Act, and residence spent on the half-section secured under South Africa land warrant cannot be counted, neither can residence performed on the homestead be counted to the advantage of the military homestead.
7.	See answer to question 3. A substitute may be appointed either before or after entry is made by the grantee, and if the settlement duties have been partially performed by the grantee they may be completed by the substitute.
A patent must be issued either to the volunteer or his substitute.
8.	No.
9.	No.
10.	Residence must be commenced by the locatee within six months of the location of the warrant.
11.	No.
12.	No.



WHARF NEAR LISMORE, PICTOU COUNTY.

Mr. RHODES asked:: 1.	Has the government constructed or repaired a wharf at or near Lismore, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, within the last three years ?
2.	If so, what was the total cost of the wharf?
3.	Are there any unpaid accounts outstanding? If so, for what, what amount, and to what persons are they due?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$4,277.67.
3.	Pay-list and accounts for October-November, amounting to $1,105.77, are now in the hands of the departmental paymaster, who wires that he has made an appointment to meet the men for payment to-morrow, 16th instant.



DEBT OF CANADA ON JANUARY 31, 1909.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked:: 1. What was the amount of the net debt of Canada on January 31, 1909?
' 2. By what amount did the net debt increase during the twelve months ending January 31, 1909?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Finance):: 1.	$308,226,027.11.
2.	$48,721,413.42.
These amounts only represent the results based on the receipts and payments which Mr. OLIVER.
passed through the books of the Finance Department up to the last of January of each year referred to.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES-EMPLOYEES IN COUNTY OF HALIFAX.

Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some days ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) asked a question as to the number of employees, temporary and permanent, in the county of Halifax. The question was as follows:
1.	What was the number of (a) permanent employees and (b) temporary employees in the service or employment of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the county of Halifax upon, (a) the first day of each month, (b) the 15th day of each month, and (c) the 31st day of December in the year 1908?
2.	What was the total amount of the payroll of the said department in the county of Halifax during each of said months?
3.	How many temporary employees or labourers were engaged or employed in said county between the first day of September and the first day of November, in the said year 1908?
My hon. friend drew my attention the other day to the fact that the answer was not very clear, and I recognize that it was not. The answer did not show specifically whether the one or the two columns referred to the temporary employees or the permanent employees. I must say also that I think there was a mistake in the last answer, which stated there were 508 employees, whereas the correct number is 208. I append the revised answer in full.
List of Permanent and temporary employees in Department of Marine and Fisheries, Halifax County from Jany. 1 to December 31, 1908.
Permanent	Tempobary.	Month.	Monthly wages.1st and 15th day of mo.	1st day of mo.	15th day of mo.	66	64	62	Jany.. .	$5,504.7066	62	63	Feby...	5,362.0966	64	64	March .	5,672.6866	65	65	April...	5,642.0466	67	69	May.. ..	5,947.5667	69	94	June ...	6,109.6867	69	74	July	6,044,7967	71	71	Aug....	6,143.0268	73	73	Sept	6,115.1969	71	118	Oct	8,404.8069	154	118	Nov	7,982,3669	118	104	Dec	8,010,42$76,939.33Total December	31, 1908	97.	
Total number of men employed between September 1st and November 1st, 1908-208.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence between Roth well, Johnston & Stubbs, lawyers, of Winnipeg, and the government, or the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners respecting their instructions in regard to the purchase of the Winnipeg terminals from Kern & Mathews, and in respect to the legal services rendered by them for the government, and passing of titles of the property, and a copy of the solicitors' bills of cost, charges and correspondence arising therefrom; and of all correspondence between the government and the Railway Commissioners and the vendors, Kern & Mathews, from the commencement of the negotiations; and also showing what steps, if any, were taken towards expropriating the property, or obtaining judical determination as to the value of the said property.-Mr. Bradbury.
For a copy of all orders in council, regulations, reports, correspondence, documents, and papers under, relating to or touching the several treaties of April 11, 1908, between His Majesty and the United States of America relating to or touching any action, proceeding' appointment, reports or other matter made had or undertaken under or pursuant to the Borden631'68 °r eltller of them.-Mr. R. L.
nnndL,a C0py of.a11 orders in council, correspondence, reports, documents and papers relating to the recent waterways treaty so-ofJ,ed' between His Majesty and the United States of America.-Mr. R. L. Borden.
At Six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when the government of Canada Should perfect organization whereby present scientific knowledge would be made practically diseases ^ the suppressicm of preventable
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the same motion that I made last year. I have several reasons why I thought it best to introduce it again this year. One was that last year it was introduced on a Wednesday afternoon and there were only four of the hon. members who were able to speak on the question, while there were some fourteen or fifteen who desired to do so. I thought it better to bring in the motion again this year in order that every one, if possible, who had nothing to say upon it last year might speak now and also that those who did speak upon it last year might have the privilege of doing so again. Another reason is that I, as well as other medical men, consider this if not the most important, one of the most important questions that could be introduced into the parliament of Canada. This question affects
not only the lives and health of our people, but the prosperity of the country. It affects the Finance Department, the Labour Department; it affects the prosperity of the country now and its future greatness. Thirdly, I introduced it again because it is the wish of the medical profession and many of the laity. In introducing this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I represent not only many laymen interested in improving the health of the people, but I represent 6,000 medical men in the Dominion of Canada. I may say that this is not my question. As you well know it is not my resolution, but it is the motion of the medical profession of Canada. I happen to be one, although at the present time, at least, disengaged from the activities that claim the energies of nearly the whole of the 6,000 medical men, and you all know the hard, busy life of the medical man. He would give greater public utterance to his views upon this question of public health had he more leisure. His time of work extends not only from morning till night, but from morning till morning sometimes, and again from morning till night without any let-up for rest. He has not only to provide for a family, for those dependent upon him, but for the welfare of innumerable sick who take the most of his thoughts and his time. For that reason we do not hear, as often as we otherwise would, the voice of the medical man on this question of public health. Nevertheless he is thinking of it; nevertheless, he is acting about it. When medical men meet in annual association, as we do for the whole Dominion once a year, and for every province once a year, and for every county sometimes as often as once a month, this question comes up very prominently. It is more before the medical profession to-day than it ever was; it is more before the public of Canada to-day than it ever was. Those of the medical men who have been reading the public addresses of presidents of medical associations, and of medical men before the Canadian clubs or other bodies throughout Canada will agree that, for the last two or three years, the burden of these addresses Ras been ' the public health.' Formerly, at the annual meeting of the medical association, some subject of disease or its treatment, some surgical operation, was usually introduced by the president in his annual address. Now, I have observed, year after year, the presidential address is on some such subject as Public Health, State Medicine or Hygiene. This subject has taken such a hold in the neighbouring republic than a committee of one hundred laymen has been working steadily for the last four or five years to induce the American government to consolidate their various federal boards of health into one single bureau of public heath. And this is the course we hope to see taken in Canada.

Such a hold has this question taken in the United States that Columbia University, one of the first universities on this continent, has taken the lead and established a chair of Public Health, the first of the kind in any medical college in the world. Heretofore medical colleges have contented themselves with teaching how to cure diseases-to the making of people well. Now, Columbia University, in the city of New York, is in the advance guard, teaching medical men how to teach the public to keep from getting sick. It is rather anomalous that we should be engaged in spoiling our own business. But there are a great many men-the great majority-in the medical profession who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others rather than consider their own selfish profit.


Some Hon. MEMBERS.: Hear, hear.


Judson Burpee Black: Two or three laymen say,
' hear, hear.' I am glad to hear them say, it. I am now in the ranks of the older men of the medical profession; I have practised alongside two generations of them down in that province by the sea; and I would like to say that I do not believe that in any profession or business in this country, or. any other country that I have ever known, can be found a more self-sacrificng, unselfish, generous body of men than the medical men whom I have known and practised along side of. And I take them as a sample of those to be found all over Canada. I also had another reason for introducing this to-day, because, though, last year, I got a speech into the heads of) the government, I want, to-night, if it is within my power, to get it into their hearts. I want them to dream dreams and see visions of this subject, until a bureau of public health for the education and instruction of the people shall be established here I do not think we have any right to wait to see what other countries are doing. We are forming here one of the latest, and, as we hope, one of the greatest nations in the world. We are the ' heir of all the ages,' and) we can pattern by the mistakes and sins of omission and of commission of other countries. And as we are, man for man, the best educated country in the world-and I say that advisedly, and can quote one of the best authorities in Canada in support of my statement-we should lead in this question of public health for the sake of humanity.
I plead this cause of a bureau of public health for several reasons. I plead it because Canada is suffering enormous losses of people yearly from diseases that could be prevented. I plead it because we are suffering not only loss of people, but loss of enormous money values. I plead it because this loss is unnecessary-because there is no reason why it should continue.


Judson Burpee Black: tainty, so that we no longer doubt that we can put an end to typhoid, to scarlet fever, to measles, to whooping cough, to mumps, and other kindred diseases. No medical man will deny that. The question then remains, should not Canada undertake as quickly as possible measures to prevent these diseases which carry so many of our people to an untimely grave? Let us admit that these diseases can be prevented, and having admitted that, we can reduce the deaths amongst adult population by one-third and we can reduce by one-half the number of deaths among our infant population. The next question is can we afford to take measures to that end ? My answer is, yes. From a monetary point of view alone it would pay us. As I have shown we lose annually by certain diseases alone what would represent $27,066,000. Spend a fraction of that in educating our people how to avoid the disease and in teaching these cities which are now scattering typhoid all over Canada how to prevent typhoid, and how much of this $27,000,000 a year would be saved? Therefore,
I say that from a monetary point of view alone we can afford to take active and energetic measures to prevent typhoid, and we will be richer in the end for it. Is it the duty of the government to embark in this good work ? I think so. This government admits it is their duty to teach the people to conserve our natural resources and to protect out forests; they consider it their duty to protect our domestic animals from disease. This government very wisely expends half a million dollars a year and they employ 107 veterinarians to protect the lives of our domestic animals. Is not a man worth more than a sheep; is not a human being worth more than an ox ? And if it is the duty of the government to protect the lives of our domestic animals is it not one-thousand-fold more their duty to protect the lives and the health of our own people ? There is a little story told by Dr. Hurty, so short and so much to the point that I will venture to repeat it to the House.
A little mother under 25 years of age was told by her physician that she had the beginnings of consumption. She was told that it was curable, that the government had sanitoria to cure it. She wrote to the government saying:	I am
told that I have consumption in its early stages and can be cured by outdoor life, continued rest and plenty of food. I do not want to die; I want to live. I think I am of value to the State; I want to raise my children, to make them good citizens. Where can I get well?	.
The reply was to this effect: This great Christian country has not yet risen to the mighty economy cl saving the lives of its people or its little mothers from consumption or any other disease. At the present Mr. BLACK.
time, so far as we are concerned, the only place you can go to is the grave. The little mother died of consumption, that preventable, that curable disease; the home was broken up and the children were taken to the orphan asylum.
That is the first part of the story-this is the second:
A big fat hog one morning found that he had a pain in his stomach. He squealed loudly and the farmer came out of his house to see what was the matter. The hired man said :	He has got the ' hog
cholera.' So the farmer telegraphed to the Secretary of the Veterinary Department of the government, and the reply came quick:	Why certainly I will send you a
man right away. And sure enough the man came. He said he was a D.V.S.-that is, a Doctor of Veterinary Surgery, and he was, too. He had a government _ syringe and a bottle of government medicine in his hand bag; he went for the hog and the hog got well.
Now here is the moral-be a hog and be worth saving.
Mr. Speaker, if hogs can be saved, men can be saved; if it is worth the while of the government to save a hog, it is a million times more worth while to save the lives of human beings. I do want the government to get it into their heads that the lives of the people can be saved and must be saved. Of course it costs money, but is it not worth the expenditure? From a monetary point of view only, is it not worth the expenditure ? I do not want to touch upon the sentimental side of this question, although there is a sentimental side to it. There are tragedies from the ravages of disease which, if pictured in better words than I can command, would bring tears to every eye in this House. When we consider the needless loss of so many people, when we consider the enormous death rate,_ the suffering and the agony of little infants who have died from poisoned milk, we stand aghast. No medical man who has attended a case of cholera infantum, infantile diarrhoea or acute indigestion, all coming from poisoned milk-and when I say poisoned milk I mean milk that is brought from the country in the ordinary way into the city to be sold, not a drop of which is pure unless it is pasteurized or sterilized, -no medical man who has looked on the faces of these suffering children and felt his own inability to save their innocent lives, has been free from bitter heartache. Any medical man can picture to you the dying agonies of men and women in the prime of life who have left their families helpless, all for want of proper knowledge. Much has been said of tuberculosis and much has not yet been told. We can say the same things of typhoid fever, scarlet fever, and all the other unnecessary and

preventable diseases that are sweeping our people off the earth needlessly. It is simply because we have been used to these things, that our fathers and our forefathers have been used to them for generations, that we passively allow this dreadful waste of life. If laymen could see as clearly as medical men the needlessness of this loss and suffering, I do not believe we would wait a year or a month to take the first steps to remedy this terrible evil.
I do not wish to speak in detail of what a federal bureau of public health should do, but I take it for granted that its first step would be education-educate the people, teach them how they can avoid preventable disease, teach the cities how they must avoid disease, for .there is where the great slaughter comes. I have been told by some in authority that this is the work of the provinces. So it is the work of the provinces; it is the work of the cities, it is the work of the villages, it is the work of every individual. But I maintain that a federal bureau of public health would not interfere with the health departments of the provinces, but would rather be an educator to them, would be a stimulus and a guide to them. Such a bureau would teach the whole people more effectively than any provincial organization could do. But so far as my knowledge goes this question is as much a question for the federal authorities as for any of the provincial authorities. In the British North America Act, although among the fathers of confederation was one doctor-and he was a good doctor in his day as well as a pretty good politician-there is very little reference made to public health. I find only two clauses. The first section dealing with it defines the power of the federal government in this regard. They are to have charge of quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of marine hospitals. The Act assigns to the provinces:
The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province other than marine hospitals.
In practice most of this work has been left to the provinces by the federal government, but I hope better days are coming and that the federal government will take hold of these things. There is much, Mr. Speaker, that a federal bureau of public health could do. As I said, its functions should be, for years to come, educative. Teach the people by literature, by public addresses, in every way possible, how to stop dying before their time. It is hardly worth while to go into details, there are so many of them I might mention. But the conditions in our factories all over the country, the unwholesome conditions in which men, women and little children work in our factories, are such as to require immediate 35
attention. The provinces, at least the province of Nova Scotia, have deemed it wise to appoint government inspectors of poor houses and prisons to see that sanitation regulations are carried out. Now, if a criminal's life is worth watching, how much more is the life of the bread earners worth watching, the men, women and children in our factories. Go into them to-day, go into them at any time until the summer heat and you will find many of them in the most unsanitary condition. Go into some of the Canadian mills, and you will find that the protection of the workers has never been considered. This is one of the very important things that a bureau of public health could look after. The school houses are unsanitary to a degree all over the country. They are a little better in the cities, but they are unsanitary to a degree in the country parts where I have known and seen them. We should provide for the examination of children in schools, the proper examination of our water supply, both in towns and country, for typhoid arises almost as frequently from the farm house well as from the river or lake supply of the city. Most people do not know this. I may say from experience in regard to the water supply in the towns of Nova Scotia, taking the stretch of country known as the Annapolis valley from the town of Windsor to the town of Annapolis, little less than 100 miles, in which there are from 12 to 15 towns and villages, that every doctor calculated on his autumn supply of typhoid fever arising from well water. In the last twenty years all those towns have been supplied with a magnificent water system from the mountains. On each side of the valley a pure supply of water comes into all those towns, and in those towns typhoid fever is unknown except that which is brought in by those who go to visit their country cousins, who have taken it from the farm house well. There is very little typhoid in the towns and villages except that which has been imported. Now, I say all these matters should be under the supervision of an official of the government, and the people should be instructed where to put their wells and how to keep them clean. I might go on and tell you what a board of health could do, but it would take me all night, and I would not be half done.
I said in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that this question was a most important one. The medical profession have given the matter a great deal of earnest attention. If I did not fear to weary you I would like to run over what has been done by the medical associations of Canada and the appeals they have made to this good government of ours, for it is a good government. I would like to show what has been done by the Canadian Medical Asociation since 1902.



I do not know what was done before that, but I hold in my hand a record of what has been done since 1902. In 1902, at the thirty-fifth annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association, the largest and most representative meeting of the medical profession up to that time, was held in the city of Montreal on the 16th, 17th and 18th of September. The following resolution was proposed by Dr. E. P. Lachapelle, Montreal, and seconded by Dr. J. R. Jones, of Winnipeg:
Resolved, that in the opinion of the Canadian Medical Association, now in session, the time is opportune for the Dominion government to earnestly consider the expediency of creating a separate department for public health, under one of the existing ministers, so that regulations, suggestions and correspondence, on such health matters as fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, may be issued with the authority of a department of public health.
In 1903 a similar resolution was passed. I notice it is stated that the deputation that waited on the Prime Minister in 1903 was most courteously received. I am sure that could be said of the Prime Minister, not only in 1903, hut in every year since he has been in public life. They reported that he listened patiently to the sentiments set forth, and finally authorized Dr. Roddick to place a resolution on the order paper with a view to having a discussion in parliament before the Privy Council took up the matter in earnest. Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier also stated that in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, who was familiar with the whole question, he would not willingly go into the matter at a greater length with a view to legislation in the minister's absence. In 1904 there was another deputation, and a committee was appointed. In 1907 I had the pleasure myself of forming one of another deputation from the Canadian Medical Association that waited on Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Now, Mr. Speaker, I only mention these things to show that this is no new matter, the medical profession has been asking it for years. I feel sure that the reform will come, and that it will come soon. The finances of the country ask for it, the prosperity of the country requires it, suffering humanity demands it, dying men and women who have no need to die demand it. If we as a Christian people have caught the genius of Christianity, surely, in God's name, this reform will come and come soon, and I hope to see it before another year.


Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM (East Huron).: I wish to say a few words in support of the very important resolution which has been so ably and fully discussed this evening by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black). I must admit, however, that it appears he has left very little for me to say, and that little more should be required to be said.


Judson Burpee Black: He has treated the question so thoroughly, so correctly, and so exhaustively, that I think he surely must have miide an impression upon the government. It seems to me that the government, after hearing the facts he has stated, and after listening to the fund of information he has laid before the House, and the pointed, not to say alarming statements, he has made, should lose no time in taking action. He has clearly shown us that delay in a matter of this kind means to the Canadian people a loss not only of millions of dollars but also of thousands of lives. He has told us that 27,000 people die in Canada every year from preventable diseases, and he might very well have added that ten times, if, not fifty times, that number are compelled afterwards to go through life struggling, handicapped with weakened constitutions and to suffer the immense losses in time and in money which preventable sickness has entailed upon them. Preventive medicine has made such rapid progress during the last five or six years that perhaps those members of the government who are not medical men should be excused for not keeping themselves abreast of the times and not properly posting themselves in a matter of this kind. But, after to-day, they will scarcely be able to plead excusable ignorance in regard to this matter. If they would investigate and post themselves with regard to the works of the great masters in this line, of Prof. Koch, of Germany, and Pasteur, of France, they would very soon realize how very far behind the people of Canada are with regard to the question of preventive medicine. These great men, paid by their governments large salaries and furnished with well-equipped laboratories and assistants, have devoted their lives to this study and they have practically revolutionized the whole practice of medicine. They have pointed out to us not only how a great many diseases can be entirely prevented, especially those diseases that have their origin in germs, but they have also shown how, by a certain scientific line of treatment, people can be made immune to certain diseases. They have taught the medical profession that their first duty, as my hon. friend from Hants has said, is to keep the people well, is to keep them from getting sick, and they have shown them that there is truth in the old French adage that the best way to keep well is not to get sick. When we consider that nearly all the diseases which have their origin in germs can be prevented and that many others can be so managed that people would be immune to them, the government certainly have a very serious duty to perform in connection with the matter. We are spending $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 a year to prepare to meet an enemy that may never come to us; that is war or something of that kind.

It is nearly a hundred years since Canada was engaged in any foreign war and we are spending this large amount of money to meet an enemy that, if it did come here, would spare at least the poor children, women and old men. But there is an army invading our country at the present time that is taking away our people, that is slaughtering 27,000 every year and impoverishing a great many others. Are we going to make no effort to oppose this army? What we propose is that there should be a bureau of health established by the government, that it should be placed under the control of some well educated young Canadian, that he should have youth and a thorough education and that he should be competent to take the position as head of the department and conduct it in such a way as to ensure its success. He should be an enthusiast in his work and try to make for himself a name that would rival that of the great men of Europe. It should be his particular duty to study the particular diseases that are peculiar to this country and to instruct us in the best ways of avoiding them. It is scarcely fair that we should get all our information and all our benefit in this respect from France and Germany. These people are heavily taxed and still they put their hands in their pockets and pay these men to conduct these very necessary and useful experiments.
In the first place, the Dominion government have already certain departments of medicine established and all we would ask is that they be consolidated and that a proper head be placed over them. The Minister of Marine, as we have been told, looks after the marine hospitals; the Minister of the Interior looks after the inspection of immigrants; the Minister of Agriculture has his department of quarantine, and the Minister of Inland Revenue looks after the quality of our food; so that the Dominion government have already admitted that they have certain duties to perform in this matter. If these different departments were consolidated and the people were properly instructed, beneficial results would follow. They should be taught to use what God has given them; that is sunlight, and they should be shown what great advantage can be derived from the proper use of sunlight. If you go into many houses you will find that they are darkened, and if you ask the people why they will tell you that they do not wish to have flies in the house. The flies have more sense than the people; they will not stay in a darkened room. All these things could be pointed out, such as the advantage of pure, uncontaminated water and pure air. We know that there is a prejudice in the country against the open air. We know that although it is one of the principal things that are to be used in the cure of consumption, people who are trou-351
bled with lung disease have a special prejudice against the open window. This should be all explained to them, and the injury resulting from the use of contaminated air should also be pointed out. The government have already taken the responsibility of sending out a very useful pamphlet with regard to the spread of tuberculosis. It was prepared by our good friend, Mr. H. H. Miller, M.P., and the government took the responsibility of having it printed and of having a large number of copies circulated through the country. This action of the government is calculated to do a great deal of good. Why have they not sent out other pamphlets on these lines? Why have they not sent a pamphlet telling the people that it is absolutely unnecessary that people should have typhoid fever? Look at the number who are dying all over the country as the result of typhoid fever. This disease as the hon. member for Hants explaind, is entirely unnecessary. If the dejecta from every typhoid fever patient were at once cremated or disinfected in a proper manner we would very soon have no typhoid fever in the Dominion of Canada. Similarly in the case of smallpox. I remember very well, in 1848 and 1849, when the famine was in Ireland and Scotland, that there was an immense immigration into this country, and I remember, although I was only a small boy, that I noticed that the older people who came from the old country were covered with pock-marks. It was supposed that every person should have smallpox at some time in his life; yet, see how few people have it now. It is not more than 200 years since a slave was advertised to be sold in Montreal and one of the principal recommendations in regard to that slave was that he had had the smallpox. We know that there is a feeling abroad in the country that every child must have scarlet fever, whooping cough and measles at some time. Yet, it is not necessary that children should have any of these diseases. These diseases are all absolutely preventable. There is another class of disease which is just as easily preventable, and the people should be instructed in regard to them. I refer to the diseases resulting from improper dieting and the improper use and mastication of food. People should be taught that food is the fuel consumed in the human system and that therefore it should be carefully regulated according to the amount and quality of the work to be done. They should be carefully instructed and told that men who are engaged in heavy, active, out-door manual labour require much more food than those who are engaged in inside sedentary employments.	.	,
You may go along any back line in the country and you may come to some wayside cheese factory or saw-mill and if you ask the old engineer there he will tell you that

if he continued to add fuel to the frre after the machinery had ceased to work he would very soon ruin the engine or burst the boiler. People seldom exercise so much good judgment in regard to their own systems. The wealthy and those who have least to do often take the most food and of the richest and strongest kind. They can afford it; it looks aristocratic and it pleases their taste and their appetite, but medical men can tell them that very often the consequences are disease and death. When more food is taken into the system than can be assimilated or is necessary for the nourishment of the body, the surplus simply goes to decay and turns to poison in the stomach and intestines. Nature makes an effort to get rid of these poisonous materials through the bowels, the liver, the kidneys, the skin and other excretory organs; but if this over indulgence is continued for many years as it often is these excretory organs become exhausted; they gradually fail to do their duty, the blood and the system become loaded up, with effete, and worn out, and poisonous material and the foundation is laid for many dangerous and fatal diseases. Therefore the people should be instructed as to the quality and quantity of the food they should take. More, they should be carefully instructed also that the food should be properly cooked and how to cook it. They should be told also that in every case food should be carefully and very thoroughly masticated and mixed with the saliva. In fact, in every case the food should be retained in the mouth until it is not only chewed into a pulp but until it is perfectly mixed with the saliva which is a highly important digestive ingredient. You often hear people say their teeth water when we know as a matter of fact that no water comes from the teeth, but we do know there is thrown out a fluid from the . salivary glands of the mouth to assist in the very important act of digestion which is carried on in the mouth, a fact which is very often forgotten by people when they are taking their food. It should be represented to the people that even the softest of food such as porridge and mashed potatoes should be carefully and thoroughly mixed with the saliva before it is swallowed, and that the food should be moistened with the saliva which nature intended to moisten it. Tea and coffee, and even milk, and water, or any of these fluids have no digestive power, and if we insist in bolting our food in large chunks and washing it down with these or any other fluids we need not wonder if we are troubled with indigestion. The saliva is an alkiline fluid and it is necessary that it should chemically combine with the acid gastric juice of the stomach to set up and continue the proper and healthy process of digestion, and therefore the food should be prepared in the mouth before passing to the system. A Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.
morsel of food should be taken into the mouth and thoroughly mixed with the saliva and then well masticated before it is swallowed. The right quantity of fluid should be taken of course, but it should be taken at the right time. In the country, especially in the winter, I have found as a medical man that there is a great mistake made in regard to the amount of fluid that should be taken. There are two mistakes made by the people who are not engaged in heavy labour in the winter and this applies even to farmers; they take more food than they require and a great deal less fluid than is necessary. In taking this fluid it should be taken in a proper way. They may drink between meals or between bites if they choose, but a person who is troubled with dyspepsia or weakened stomach trouble should never take fluid into his mouth while food is there. Then again, starchy foods and meats should be particularly well chewed. If they are not, they simply rot and go to decay in the inside, and what more dangerous material could you have internally than rotten meat or fermenting and decaying vegetables? And if we persist deliberately in thus making graveyards of our stomachs is it any wonder that we find our own way to the cemetery? Then again I would neither advise nor recommend that we should give the children in the schools and the people throughout the country a course in anatomy, nor yet that we should give them much more than a mere indication, as I have given you, of the information that may be given to them in regard to digestion. But we can teach and publish pamphlets that will convey to them some idea about the functions and the care of the human system. There is no more important study in which men can engage than an investigation of the proper and healthy workings of their own bodies. I think there are few people who will deny that. Is it not strange then that we can find many who thoroughly understand the most intricate workings of other machinery but who at the same time appear to know or care little about their own systems; about the necessity for a rigid and faithful observance of the simple laws that govern the healthy action of their own bodies. Farmers and mechanics and others appear to know well that by taking proper care of their agricultural implements and other instruments of labour, these can be made not only to work better but to last longer. Every engineer knows distinctly that he must thoroughly understand a locomotive before he is allowed to take charge of one on a railroad. Even the boy with a bicycle is well aware that it must be regularly oiled and cleaned and cared for or its usefulness will soon be gone and ultimately it will be ruined. Let us take another example-that of the fashionable and fastidious young man who drives his own touring car

109d
through the country and who becomes so enamoured of and interested in its workings that he forgets all about his costly clothing and so utterly disregards appearances that you will see him lying prone on the road, on his back, gazing upwards to see what has gone wrong with the machinery of his automobile. In all probability he regards that machine simply as a toy to be laid aside without profit at the close of a summer holiday, and yet, foolishly we think, he gives it his very best attention and his very best care, while one-half the earnest attention given to the study of the structure and workings of his own body might add many years to his life and save him from an immense amount of disease and suffering. The human machine is an automobile far more valuable and important than the most elaborate touring car that ever was conceived and perfected. Yet, notwithstanding all this every human being, every man and woman in the country, is compelled to take charge of and run a machine, their own bodies, that is far more complicated and interesting and far more difficult to manage than any of these I have mentioned. Few fit themselves properly for the task, and the result is, what the member for Hants indicated this evening, that after spending a whole lifetime in the practice of medicine I state here that in my opinion most of the sickness and far more than one-half the deaths which occur in this country before sixty years of age are due either directly or indirectly to ignorance of the laws of health and of nature or to carelessness in applying them. Now, this study could be made interesting to the public. The people could be instructed in regard to the functions of their own bodies; they could be shown that the human machine is a wonderful piece of mechanism and the wonderful working of it could be pointed out to them in an attractive new way. It could be demonstrated to them that by having even a partial knowledge of the peculiar functions of the human body they might extend their lives for many many years. I happened to notice in a paper yesterday that some insurance company is proposing to send out literature to those it insured, and it makes the statement definitely that the period of human life could be extended by fifteen years.
As I have said, the human machine is a wonderful piece of mechanism. Its beauty, symmetry, elasticity, strength and adaptability are so perfect that the result is simply amazing. If a man constructs a great number of machines for a certain purpose, they are usually so much alike that one cannot be distinguished from another. But that is not the case with nature's great Master Mechanic. There are said to be over four hundred millions of people on the earth's surface. Each one of these has an organism of his own; and yet no two of them are exactly alike. Notwithstanding this wonderful variation, the structure of the human system is so perfect that if it were run in every case in accordance with the dictates of common sense and the law of nature, I believe that it would, barring accidents, last about a hundred years. But in many cases not only are the dictates of common sense ignored, but the laws of health and of nature are so neglected and violated that the result is simply appalling.
The study of the human system might do our people good in more ways than one, because I cannot understand how any man who becomes familiar with its structure and operation can believe that it took its present form by chance or accident or even by gradual development. There are so many evidences of design in it that there must have been a designer, and that the designer must have been able to create. For my part, I cannot comprehend how any man can thoroughly apprehend the wonders of his own body, and be an unbeliever or an atheist. For, after all, the greatest mechanical achievements effected by mankind have been simply poor imitations of nature and of nature's great Designer, Creator and Controller. For example, the telegraph is supposed to be a recent invention but it has been long in use in tEe human system. The brain is, as it were, a central electric station, from which the mind, with wonderful accuracy and rapidity, sends forth its messages to every part of the body. Think of a lady at a piano, think of the rapidity of her fingers and the accuracy of the sounds produced, and reflect that her performance is governed by a little electric cell located in the brain. Some doctor has said that the human brain occupies less space in proportion to its capabilities than any other machine ever invented. It sends forth a nerve to every ultimate fibre of some five hundred muscles, to every pin-head area of the various glands which keep the machine oiled and heated and cooled. On the surface of the average human body there are sixteen square feet of skin, which is so completely covered with nervous fibre, that the point of a pin eanot find a spot unguarded. Similarly our ears are nature's perfect telephone, and Bell's is only an imitation. The telephonic switchboard of the brain is remarkable for its accuracy and completeness. Then, again, the telescope is only an enlarged representation of the eye of man or an animal. Just stop for one minute and consider if some little chance or accident had entered into the location of the eye. Consider how its delicate mechanism is guarded by the brows, the lids, the lashes and the solid bony structure around it. Think how inconvenient it would have been if our eyes had happened to be located in the soles of the feet. How liable the delicate

structures would have been to injury or destruction ; and think how humiliating and annoying it would have been to our young men if they had been compelled to sit down and take off their shoes and stockings and hold up their feet every time they wanted to look at a beautiful young woman or some other interesting - object. Then, suppose, our mouths had happened to be located in the backs of our necks. Food would have reached the gullet just as well, but it would have been very inconvenient to have been compelled to carry the porridge and milk and the toast and tea of our breakfast around to that part of our body in the morning. The old saying that there is many a slip between the cup and the lip would in that case have been still more appropriate. Then, consider how inconvenient it would have been if our ears had been located on our elbows or under our arms. I might go on with illustrations of this kind to show that the human body is not the result of chance or accident. There are evidences of design in every part of it. Every organ not only adds to the beauty and symmetry of the system, but is so located as to be in the best possible position to do its duty easily and effectively. Think, for example, of the way in which the human system is guarded in the matter of food. First, we have two sharp sentrie_s, the eyes, so located that they can see everything that enters the mouth. The food has to pass their scrutiny first. Then, as it enters the mouth, its savoury or unsavoury condition is challenged by two other sentries, the nostrils. Next the lips test its hardness or softness. Then it is met by thirty-two sturdy sentries, all clad in white and drawn up in battle array; these are the teeth, which subject the food .to careful examination lest some foreign or deleterious substance may be covered up in it and thus smuggled into the system. While they are doing their duty, there stands behind them another sentinel, the sense of taste. But it is quite possible that the food, having passed these guards and undergone these examinations, might still contain some little invisible germs that succeeded in passing through after all. These are searched out by the saliva, which is thrown out by six other sentinels three on either side of the mouth. It is well to remember that the saliva is poisonous to these germs, that if it is well mixed with the food, it will destroy even typhoid germs, but when the food is taken rapidly into the stomach, the saliva does not have a chance to do its full work. Then, if something deleterious should succeed in getting past all these guards or sentinels, the very moment it reaches the stomach, a telegraphic message is sent from the brain ordering that the dangerous intruder shall be ejected. I or any other medical man in the House Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.
could go on and give examples to show how this kind of literature could be made interesting to the public and do a great deal of good. It should be made readable, and it should be free from Greek or Latin phrases and from technical terms. It should be given in simple language and in a common sense way; and if the people were instructed in this way, I am satisfied that they would be greatly benefited. This is the kind of work that should be taken up by ai bureau of health. I could go on all night describing the beauties of the respiratory system, the circulatory system or the secretory system.
In every branch of the subject we find equal wonders and equal perfections. This would be the work of a Bureau of Health and I do hope the government will turn their attention to this matter and adopt an intelligent and aggressive policy. They can at least prevent ignorance, and it is ignorance that is causing the death of so many of our little children and of our grown up people. Much has been done in the prevention of tuberculosis, but it is a pity that this work has been left too largely to private subscriptions and private enterprise. I am sure that when the government consider and fully understand this matter, they will bring honour to themselves and great benefit to the country by instituting a federal bureau of health. As to the argument that the provinces will take it up, there is work for the provinces, work for the cities, work for the county councils, for the township councils, and for the school sections. There is no place where more can be done than right in the school, as I have said. The schools should be inspected, the children should be instructed, and diseases should be checked in the school room in their inception. I am convinced that if we expect to become the great people we should on this continent, the dominating people as I am sure we ultimately will, we mu$t be a healthy people. All we can ask the government to do is to vote just one half the amount of money spent each year in unnecessary funerals in Canada; if they will do that we will have a bureau of health that will astonish the world. If they will vote for this purpose one-fourth of what they spend in bringing immigrants to Canada, we will fill the places of these immigrants with healthy Canadians. I would ask that they would take some action in this matter without further delay. I have great pleasure in seconding the motion so ably moved by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Black). I am sure he did it in all unselfishness, and I would be glad if he and I, in our old days in the profession, could be the pioneers in securing this great good for the country before we. leave our places in the House and in the profession. I hope the young medical men, the

clergymen, the newspapers and every man in this House will preach this new gospel of sanitation and press on until we have in Canada a thoroughly healthy and prosperous people.


Mr. D. H. McALISTER (King's and Albert).: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great pleasure to the addresses of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) and the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. T. Chisholm) who have so ably proposed this resolution. But, Sir, I was surprised indeed to notice how little attention was paid to the subject by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. It is one of the most important questions that have been discussed in the House this year or that will be,, yet gentlemen left the chamber, one half of those who remained went to sleep, and one quarter did not pay attention. If I cared to do so I could make half the, members now here leave the chamber and could empty the galleries by saying there are millions of microbes in this chamber. Suppose there is a consumptive in the gallery to-night, as I have quite strong reason to believe there is, and if that lady should expectorate once on the floor, how many germs do you suppose would be put into circulation? One million.
The object of the resolution we are discussing is to enlighten our people along these lines, to prevent the people with that disease coming to a place like this, and to teach them how to take care of their sputum and to sterilize that which would cause infection. It may be said that this is not a matter for this government. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of tremendous importance. I am sorry to say there are too many people in Canada who are not aware of the dangerous germs that are in existence. Pathologists have proved beyond a doubt that all diseases are transmitted by germs. When I had typhoid fever some 19 years ago, it was not known that that disease was caused- by a germ, but since then it has been proven beyond a doubt that it is a germ disease. What are these little germs like? Like the little pollywogs in the water. It would be interesting, if time would permit, to describe the development of these germs in the water, their entrance and the great battle which takes place between this germ, the typhoid baccillus, and the lencocyte in the blood. This conflict generates a poison called a potomaine, which in many instances creates sufficient constitutional disturbances to cause death. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) told you of the number of deaths from typhoid fever, and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of his figures. He could have told you there are thousands and thousands dying of tuberculosis today, from a disease caused by germs, and that the death of these people was un-Mr. McALISTER.
necessary, that the disease could be banished from our country if certain precautions were taken. That is what the government should realize, they should become seized of the idea that this thing can be done, and as my hon. friend says the time has come when it must be done. As an illustration of the manner in which typhoid can be checked, in our little town of Sussex, I myself had as many as eleven cases of typhoid at one time before the installation of a waterworks system. I was myself almost ignorant how these people were being infected by the bacilli, and I am safe in saying that not three per cent of the inhabitants realized what was causing the disease. They were using water from wells which were contaminated from cess pools, &c. Every year we lost from three to six people from that little town. Some six years ago the waterworks were installed, the water was taken from a river that was perfectly pure and was run into a filter. Since then there has not been a case of typhoid in the town. That shows that typhoid fever can be done away with if the proper precautions are taken and it is the duty of the government, I believe, to prevent the pollution of our rivers. Take Montreal, for instance, where they have a great epidemic of typhoid. I believe the federal government should take that up and force the city of Montreal to instal a filtration system. My hon. friend beside me (Mr. M. Martin) who is an alderman of the city of Montreal, tells me they are going to spend $2,000,000 this year in trying to escape from that dreaded disease typhoid. I presume they will seek to do this by installing a filtration plant.
It does not matter about the cost; it is not a matter of money at all, it is too serious a proposition for that. We are very careful, as has been nobly said by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black), that the dumb animals should be protected and half a million dollars a year is expended to protect them. Why, then, should not human beings be protected? They ought to be. I confess that I myself am afraid of the bacillus tuberculosis. I feel that I have in my constitution appropriate soil for its growth. Some claim that tuberculosis is not hereditary. I know it is hereditary, in this sense, that, while a child may not be born with consumption, it may be born with a delicate mucous membrane of the air passage, inherited from father or mother, associated with a weak resistance, so that when the germ comes it grows like an oat in soil that has been prepared for its reception. Medical men know that patients come to them sometimes and say that they have a cough, have not felt well, associated with emaciation and night sweats. These symptoms date from a cold. The cold did not give them consumption; it

only prepared the mucous membrane of the air passage, so that when the germ was taken in it took root and grew and formed a nucleus for the dreaded disease. We spend thousands of dollars a year in bringing foreigners into this country to become citizens and live under the dear old flag. It is estimated, as the hon. member for Hants has shown, that the average male inhabitant, able to keep himself and others, is worth $1,000 to the country under whose flag he lives. We must bring in immigrants because we are not prolific enough to populate this country otherwise. If we are bringing in others, why not protect those we already have? Thousands of our people are dying every year who could be saved from dying; we want this government to show the people how to live. I am not looking for a job myself, and I do not want to go around the country lecturing, but I do not see how a better thing could be done by this government than to employ one or both of the hon. members who moved and seconded this resolution to speak to public audiences, to instruct the people in the germ theory, teach them how to be careful of their health, explain to them, if they have a consumptive in their house, how to destroy the sputum, and so on. It is wonderful what can be accomplished in this way if we take the necessary means to do it. We do not expect the government to do everything-and it would be a bad thing for us young doctors if they did. I am not surprised to hear these statements from the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) and the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Thos. Chisholm), for it seems to me they will not be practising medicine very much longer-I think they expect to remain in politics for the rest of their lives; they must be looking for a senatorship, or they would not talk as they do. If the government will do what these gentlemen ask it to do they wall accomplish one of the greatest reforms ever accomplished in Canada. The hon. member for East Huron made a remark on which I would like to enlarge. He said that we eat too much. There is no doubt about it. More people in the Dominion of Canada and the United States, and all over the world, die of overeating than of overdrinking.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: That may seem a bold statement to make, but I mean it and I am ready to stand by it. The hon. member for East Huron explained that when people take too much into their stomach it lies there and causes poisoning. But I propose to go further than that. If the stomach is in good condition it will digest far more than the system requires. The little glands or ducts take up more than is necessary and thus it is carried into the circulation. The Mr. McALISTER.
human system is a machine and requires only so much to keep it going. If more than is needed is forced into the circulation it causes dilatation of the circulatory system which is made up of capillaries, veins and arteries. These are muscles like any other. If you exercise the muscles of your arms for half an hour a day, development will take place. If too much of the products from food is forced into the capillaries, veins and arteries, the arteries are going to become enlarged. They do not become stronger as the muscles of your arms become stronger with exercise, but they become weaker, and that makes an old man out of a young one. A man is as old as his arteries, not his years.
However, that is a little aside from the subject and is more than I intended to say. In fact, I am not prepared to say very much on this subject and I will not trouble the House for more than a few moments longer. In conclusion, I would say that this subject should receive the earnest and sincere consideration of every member of this House. I am not saying that because I am a medical man. But I am a firm believer in the germ theory. I was taught that in old McGill, by Professor Adami, who is an excellent authority on pathology, and I have proven it for myself in my own practice that practically every disease is associated with some germ. Of these there are three we should particularly ward against, the tubercular bacillus, the typhoid bacillus and the diphtheria bacillus. And in that fight we should have the assistance of the federal government. Just how this is to be done, of course, is a matter to be worked out by the government itself. I hope that both sides of the House will see their way clear to support this resolution. And, in that connection, let me call attention to the fact that these germs attack Liberals and Conservatives alike.


John Wesley Edwards: It is not my intention to take up much time discussing this resolution, so ably proposed by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black)! and so exhaustively dealt with by the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. T. Chisholm) and the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. McAllister). The resolution calls upon the government of Canada to perfect an organization whereby present scientific knowledge would be made practically available for the suppression of preventable diseases. I observed that the hon. gentleman who preceded me dwelt upon scientific methods to be used in preventing disease. I think that probably enough time has been taken up in impressing the members of this House of the wonders of the human body, and of the desirability of preventing disease so far as we possibly can.

Certainly I think this question is one deserving the most careful consideration on the part of every member of this House. Let me mention particularly one argument made use of by the hon. gentleman who so ably proposed this resolution, I mean the figures he gave showing the number of deaths which occur annually in Canada from preventable diseases. Mr. Speaker, those figures reveal a serious condition of affairs, and I would ask this House to consider them carefully.
I think that was the strongest point in the argument made by the hon. member for Hants. If, not 27,000, not 20,000, not 5,000, but if only 1,000, persons in the Dominion of Canada die annually whose deaths could be prevented by any Act of this legislature, certainly you will agree that it is the duty of this legislature to try to prevent that loss of life. We are well acquainted with the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I think we all subscribe to that statement. While medical science has done a great deal in the past to lengthen the span of life, and we have been furnished by certain departments of this government with the facts proving that in the last 25 years the average length of human life has been increased, the facts that have been brought to our attention tonight must have convinced us that still more can be done in the same direction. If it is a good thing to cure disease, it is a far better thing to prevent it. I feel convinced that before the end of this century men will occupy the seats we are filling today who will look back to the early years of this present century and wonder that the parliament of Canada was so apathetic over a matter of such great national importance.


Mr. J. BARR (Dufferin).: I agree with much that has been said by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House as to the importance of the question which has been brought to our attention by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black). We have been told how much medical science has done in late years to prolong human life, but it is sad to reflect that medical men themselves have not been the greatest beneficiaries of the increased discoveries in medical science. The farmers of our country, and the members of the learned professions other than the medical profession, have benefited from the advances made by medical science more than the members of the medical profession themselves. Now when we come to consider the resolution calling upon this government to take action, we are led to inquire whether the fathers of confederation were wise in relegating to the different provinces the subject of public health, giving them charge of that most important question. We are led to ask ourselves whether the Dominion government are better constituted to deal
with that question than are the provincial governments. While I do not wish to differ from hon. gentlemen who have .preceded me,
I am still doubtful whether we could do more towards accomplishing the object we all have in view by asking the Dominion government to deal with this matter than by leaving it to the provinces. For my part I am of the opinion that the provincial governments can work out this problem better than the Dominion government. We know that in several provinces the local governments have made great strides in the past few years in the direction of improving public health. Take for instance the province of Ontario, with which I am best acquainted. We all know what great strides that province has been making iin that direction the last few years. In every municipality they have a health officer; the municipal council appoints a health officer, and generally chooses him from amongst the best medical men they have. It is the duty of this officer to visit every person that is infected with disease, to examine into the environment, into the water supply, which we all know is one of the greatest sources of disease. It is his duty to look into the milk supply, and to ascertain if possible the cause of every outbreak of contagious disease. Now do you think that a Dominion health bureau could accomplish more than is being done by the provincial health bureau? Is it not possible that there might be an overlapping of duties, that there might be friction between the two bodies? What more can be done than is being done at the present time? We are making rapid strides along that line already. We know that every house has to be placarded in which there is infectious disease. If the average length of human life has been prolonged twenty or twenty-five years, I believe it is due to the provincial machinery, to the work that is accomplished by the health officers in the different provinces. Therefore, before we ask the federal government to appoint a federal health bureau, we should consider this question very carefully. Of course I would not suggest for a moment that any medical man wanted a federal bureau appointed for the purpose of getting an office. So far as medical men are concerned, I believe they are far above any monetary consideration whatever. But this is a question which we should consider before any more steps are taken along that line. It is possible for us to make that machinery more perfect and it is wise for us to do so. That machinery is being made more perfect each year. As far as Toronto is concerned, we have probably, at the head of tha bureau, a number of the best medical men in Canada, and I believe they are accomplishing great work, a work that could not be accomplished by other bureaus in Can-
COMMONS*
ada. Any outbreak is immediately reported to them and if necessary they send experts. We have not only that, but we have, in connection with our agricultural societies a woman's institute. They come around and deliver practical lectures in connection with cooking. They bring with them material and in the presence of our wives and daughters demonstrate the advantage of cooking in relation to the health of the community. They show how food can be more easily digested and they tell the people the kind of food that can best be taken in. That movement is both useful and practical. I can come to no other conclusion than that the fathers of confederation were wise in their day in leaving to the provincial authorities to work out this problem. I believe that much has been accomplished and that much can yet be accomplished for the good of mankind. We may say that every life we can save is a matter of great importance, but there is another side to this question. We might ask ourselves the question, what the Dominion government has done since confederation as compared with the work of the provincial boards of health, and I submit that the achievements will not stand comparison, that the provincial government have done much more along this line and that the Dominion government, in so far as they are working out the problem, have not accomplished what they should have.


Judson Burpee Black: Does the hon. gentleman take into consideration that there are other provinces outside of Ontario making up this Dominion?


John Barr: I might tell the hon. gentleman something that he probably does not know and that is that there is not a province in the Dominion of Canada that I have not visited, and that there is not a provincial board of health whose work I have not looked into. I must say that while some are not up to the province of Ontario with respect to the promotion of public health, they are doing an important work. But, if my hon. friend's province is not up to the standard he should turn his attention to that and bring it up to such a standard that it will be capable of dealing with this important question. I think they are dealing in a fairly effective manner with this question in all of the provinces, but I think Ontario is the banner province in this respect. Our hospitals are year by year becoming better equipped^ and the officers of these institutions are doing their work well. The trained nurses throughout the country have accomplished probably as much as the medical profession have. These two, the trained nurses and the medical profession, working hand in hand, have accomplished a great deal of good. Now, we might ask ourselves the question if the marine hospitals under the Mr. BARR.
control of the Dominion government are better than are the hospitals in the cities and towns of the different provinces. I have visited one or two marine hospitals and I have been unable to find any superiority in them although the work they are doing is very good.
Now, let us turn our attention to the question of the medican inspection of immigrants coming in to this country. I have travelled in other lands, I have visited the older countries, I have watched the course pursued by the medical men with respect to our immigration, and I must say that theii methods are perfectly outrageous. I was surprised not long ago at what I saw at one of our ports. A boat came in with a large number of immigrants. The health officers stood there and passed those immigrants at the rate of from seven to eleven a minute. I took the time. There were immigrants passed that were a curse to this country. I saw these officers passing men who were not healthy. We have had immigrants admitted to this country affected by a certain disease of the eye, they have brought that disease into Canada anil it has not been stamped out. Yet, the medical health officers looked on while these people passed. Their instructions were that they must not impede the landing of the immi grants. They had only a given time and the result was that men, women and child ren passed these officers who ought not to have been allowed to come into this country and would not have been allowed to enter the United States if they had attempted to go there. Is it possible that medical men can examine two or three hundred immigrants at the rate they were passing off the boat which was under my observation. There were those that were not healthy in many respects, men, women and children afflicted with diseases that had been handed down to them from them fathers and grandfathers and yet they were allowed to become citizens of this country. Go to our hospitals and compare the number of immigrants that are in these institutions with the number of patients drawn from our own population and you find there are ten immigrants to one native born, proving beyond a doubt that a large amount of the disease that we have in this country is traceable to immigrants who are coming in from Europe and even from England, Ireland and Scotland. If this parliament would inaugurate a good system of inspection it would be a good thing for the country. First, before the immigrants ,enter the boat they should be submitted to a careful examination by competent medical men and then, when they land in this country, they should be carefully gone over once more and every man, woman and child, should be turned back who is not* healthy. If we adopted this system wei would accomplish more for the he rlth of the country than we could hope to accom-

plish by the creation of such a bureau as has been proposed, which would probably clash with the health departments of the different provinces and accomplish very little good If the government and the medical men of this country would turn attention to that question, they would accomplish more than they could by the formation of a bureau of health as far as th$ Dominion is concerned. Under these circumstances, I think the first thing to be done will be to take this question into consideration and until it is demonstrated that we can accomplish more than the pro-i vincial boards of health have done we had better leave the question to be dealt with by them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, since I took a seat in this House thirty-one years ago this important question has from time to time engaged its attention. We have discussed it over and over again and yet it seems to me that in all that time we have made but very little headway. It has been claimed by some that we have made a good deal of headway lately. While we have done some things that are commendable we have left undone, in my judgment, many things which we might very well have done. The hon. member who moved this motion (Mr. Black) spoke of the number of people who die annually that might be saved, the number being stated at over 20,000. Every member of the House, whether he be a medical man or not, will agree that it is desirable to reduce the death rate, and we agree also that it is in our power to reduce the death rate from preventable diseases. The professional science of the age has given us the means to prevent consumption, typhoid fever, diphtheria, scarlet fever, smallpox, and other such diseases if we only use the right means. On the possibility of stamping out these diseases, the medical profession is unanimous and I think it will be admitted they are competent judges on that point. One hon. member instanced that if a lady in the gallery who might be infected with tuberculosis should expectorate down on the floor of this House millions of bacilli would be liberated, causing danger to every member in this chamber. That illustration brought home the danger to us in a very forcible way, but I wondered at the time if he thought of the 'germane' that was on that side of the House all the time and to what danger gentlemen over there were exposed, not to say anything about those on this side. One of the gentlemen on the other side told us that the great thing was to educate, educate, that if we put our present day knowledge into practice we would attain the end we desire. But, as I understand we are met right here in this parliament with an insurmountable difficulty and that is that our constitution does not give the federal government the power to establish a bureau of health, I remember that about thirty years ago a very important deputation waited upon the government of that day and represented the importance of establishing a bureau of health. Those who take the trouble to read the debates of the period will see that the ground was intellir gently covered by many eminent medical men who were then members of this House. The government desired to do something in the direction of mitigating the evils pointed out by the deputation, but, Sir Charles Tup-per, and Sir John Macdonald and I think the' Minister of Justice drew attention to the fact that while we could deal with quarantine and marine hospitals, anything further in that direction would be infringing on the rights of the provinces. That deputation pressed on the government the wisdom of amending the British North America Act so as to give the federal government the power, and it seems to me that until we do amend the British North America Act we cannot do any very effective work. In my judgment it would be an easy thing to amend the British North America Act if we brought together representatives of the different provinces, and ol tne boards of health throughout the Dominion, and of the medical association, and agreed to present a petition to the Imperial parliament to amend the constitution. I think, Sir Charles Tupper did make representations to this end to the home secretarv of that date, but he left political life m Canada at that time and we were deprived ol his valuable services and everything seemed to drop just then. But what was done was not all lost. There was a sum of money voted by the federal parliament for the purpose of supporting a health journal which was pu -lished for a great many years and which had an important, educative effect. We went further and provided for the collection of mortuary statistics and endeavoured to so tabulate them that the percentage of deaths from the various diseases could be ascertained. But what has always been the mystery of my life is that while we think it is justifiable to spend millions of dollars a year bringing immigrants to our shores we deem it necesary to vote only $500,000 for the purpose of endeavouring to reduce the death rate amongst our own people who are our most valuable citizens. There is where I think we have been short-sighted and parsimonious. I notice Sir, that while former motions of this nature called for the establishment of a board of health, this motion simply states that the time has arrived when the government of Canada shall perfect organization whereby present scientific knowledge would be made practically available for the prevention of preventable
diseases.	, ,,
If that is all we ask the government, they have no excuse. They cannot say that it is

not in our power to do that. There is no obstruction from the standpoint of the British North America Act; there is no interference with the rights of the provinces. We can do that by voting money enough to educate the people, to distribute this knowledge, to publish all the pamphlets and fly sheets we like. But I think we should go further than that. I think we should have a department or bureau of health, and we could very well have it without in any way coming in conflict with the important work that is being done by the various provinces. What is more, I think we should have some such conference as was suggested a few years ago, that would enable us to pass a law that would bring every medical association and teaching body in Canada under one medical clause, which would give a medical man power to cross the boundary line from Quebec to Ontario or from Ontario to Que-bee or from Ontario to Manitoba, wherever it was necessary to save life and promote public health. I regret that when that attempt was made, many members of this House prevented it being accomplished. Does it not show a narrow-mindedness and selfishness on our part that we are not desirous of doing all the good we can in this respect? If medical men have not the liberality to do this, we simply show the world that our profession has not attained that importance that it ought to have attained long ago. But leaving that aside, what can the federal government do? It can do all that this resolution asks. It can grant the money to edueate._ It can use its own machinery for issuing and distributing the pamphlets, papers, fly sheets, and everything else necessary to educate, without infringing on the rights of any province or any portion of the country. It is said that great forces move slowly, i Well, parliament must be a great force, for it certainly moves very slowly in regard to this subject.
I	have not taken the interest in it of late years that I did in my early life in this House, because it seems to be almost a waste of time to discuss it here, so little attention is given to it. I have noticed that when it is discussed, most of the members leave the House. At the present time there are only about 10 on the other side ?{ *use fnd. a few more on this side.
II	that is an indication of all the interest that parliamentarians in this country take in this important Question, I do not wonder that parliament moves slowly. If we were unanimous in our desire and .aim and stood by each other in our effort to obtain it, there is no government in the world that could refuse us, especially if we asked only what is asked in this resolution. Even if we went further, and asked the government to try to get an amendment made to the British North America Act conferring on the federal parliament the right and authority to deal with this subject, we could get that without very much trouble. We do not seem to be as


Thomas Simpson Sproule: sincere and energetic and unanimous as we profess to be, or we would accomplish very much more than we do. I can only say that I agree with everything that has been said on this subject to-night, and it has been a mystery to me why we have not made greater progress than we have. The government have done something, but they could do a great deal more, and I hope the day will soon come when they will take up this important subject and do something not only for the benefit of the present generation but for the benefit of posterity as well.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to congratulate the mover of this motion not only on the spirit which prompted him to bring the question to the attention of the House at this early stage of the session, but also on the large-heartedness which has induced him to study the question and show such a complete mastery of it as he has done to-night. We might reasonably expect this from a doctor in a large practice, who has given so much of his life to the care of humanity. It is essentially a question which the medical fraternity can discuss in its details and in its professional aspect much better than those of us who are only laymen. But still it is a question which affects and interests every one in the Dominion, whether lay or professional. It comes very closely home to the family life of the country, and there is no doubt in Canada to-day a vast mass of ignorance in regard to the commonest precautions against disease, the dispelling of which is very important to the economic progress and welfare of our country. As my hon. friend who has just sat down says, this is an old question in the House of Commons. It is a complicated question, because it interferes to a certain extent with the constitutional rights of the provinces. We have discussed these time and time again. I will not go into any details with regard to them to-night, because most of us are familiar with them. I will only point out that several of the questions brought up tonight and put forward as arguments in favour of a motion of this kind are so evidently connected with that portion of the public health which is directly relegated to the provincial legislatures, that we cannot touch upon them all. One gentleman spoke of sanitation and drainage. My hon. friend who moved the resolution spoke of the way in which typhoid fever is disseminated by wells. This is a question which is entirely local in its character, entirely within the purview of the municipal and provincial authorities as a question of public health. It does not come within our purview in any way whatever, and nothing we could do in a legislative or legal way could touch it. One hon. gentleman, I think the hon. mem-

ber for Dufferin (Mr. Barr), spoke of the health officers all through the country, in the province of Ontario especially. That is true, and it is also true of other provinces, I suppose of all the provinces. I can say myself, from knowledge of the province of Quebec, that in all the municipalities and parishes of our province there are health officers whose duty it is to look after the public health and to carry out the sanitary regulations provided for under the provincial laws. My hon. friend who has just spoken expressed his desire to have the whole medical profession and practice assimilated, so that a medical man in one province, having obtained his degree in medicine, should be entitled to practise in all parts of the country. My hon. friend will remember that not many years ago this House discussed that question, and an Act was put upon the statute-book entitled, I think, 'The Medical Council Act.' So jealous were the members of the medical profession themselves of their rights in each province and so fearful was this parliament of overstepping the bounds of provincial rights and prerogatives, that we were obliged to say that the Act would only apply and come into force in anv province when the province itself had adopted it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It could only come into force when all the provinces had adopted it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Still worse. And up to the present time, although it is six or seven years since the Act was passed, it has not come into force, evidencing that this is a question which is hedged about by very difficult problems. It is one which we cannot deal with lightly and if we deal with it in, any way that I can conceive of, we would run the risk of very soon treading upon the privileges and prerogatives of the medical profession or those jealous of provincial rights; and the likelihood is we would be stopped in a great deal of our work.
I confess myself to have so much sympathy with the motives of those who urge this and with the importance of the work itself, that I would be very glad indeed if we could organize some office or officers here who would be able to spread information through the country in regard to human medicine in the same way as we in my department distribute it to-day in regard to the health of animals and other agricultural matters. But I fear the difficulties and do not believe that it would be possible for us lightly or easily to overcome those difficulties. I would be glad to do it. I know that some of my colleagues at all events are in sympathy with me in this, but it is so important a question, so difficult a question, that I do not consider we would be justified at the present moment in adopting this resolution in a thin House on such a day as this, and I would1 therefore ask my friend to allow me
to adjourn the debate in order that we may have it more thoroughly threshed out and have the opinion and views of more members of the House and that the government can have an opportunity of seeing whether there is any possible way of accomplishing what is here aimed at. I beg therefore to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. CLARENCE JAMESON (Digby).: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns I beg to call the attention of the government to the fact that two of the buoys or aids to navigation near the entrance to Yarmouth harbour, the northwest buoy and the southwest buoy, have been out of position for some time, the former for several days, and the latter for about three weeks. In this connection I may read a short extract from the Yarmouth ' Times ' of the 12th instant [DOT]
Officers of ships navigating the port of Yarmouth camplain bitterly to 'The Times' that two of the most important navigation aids off the harbour have been allowed to remain out of position for a long time. It is about three weeks since the south west buoy was found adrift and was towed into Abbott's Harbour, yet it appears that no effort has been made to replace it and this in spite of the fact that the department was promptly notified. Similarly the north west buoy was found adrift some days ago and towed into Yarmouth and although the 'Lansdowne' has been sent to restore it to its position and has been in port for some days nothing appears to have been accomplished. We are informed on good authority that the whole system of navigation aids along the coast is in a deranged condition. In the meantime lives and property are at a great risk and mariners are navigating their ships under a strain which they should not be called upon to bear. We repeat that a government steamer during the winter months should be constantly patrolling the coast between Yarmouth and Halifax.
Yarmouth is a very important port. Apart altogether from the large number of merchant vessels ordinarily visiting such a port there is a large fleet of fishing vessels which are constantly in and about that port. There are also the steamers of the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company which ply between that port and Boston, making several trips each way every week and carrying many passengers and valuable cargoes. The lack of proper aids to navigation may cause a serious loss not only of marine property but also of much more valuable life. The large expenditures which the Department of Marine is making in connection with the aids to navigation should, it seems to me,

assure the most ample protection which could be afforded. However that may be, it is incumbent upon the government to make the most ample provision for the proper maintenance of aids to navigation, not only in the Bay of Fundy, but also along the southwest shore of Nova Scotia, and anything short of such a provision, which will safeguard the lives and property of those interested, will leave the government responsible in the event M any disaster which may result from deficiency in these aids.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This matter now comes to my attention for the first time. I shall draw my colleague's attention to it, and I have no doubt the information required will be given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What work will be taken up to-morrow?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: First of all one or two minor Bills, then the resolution on the Civil Service, and then Supply, continuing the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 16, 1909.