1910-04-27

Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the motion of which I gave notice on Monday morning for the adoption of the report with regard to the investigation of the lobsteT industry. It will be known by the hon. gentlemen who have kept track of this matter that there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction on the coast of the maritime provinces for some years past in regard to this question. Certain regulations were objected to, such as the refusal of the department to grant further licenses to packers. This policy was commenced some three of four years ago, and it was felt by men who wished to start in the business for the first time that they should have an opportunity, like other people who had been formerly
engaged in the business. There was also a good deal dissatisfaction in regard to the size limit of lobsters. In some of the districts on the coast of the maritime provinces the law fixes the size limit of lobsters at eight inches. West of Halifax the limit is fixed at nine inches and in paTts of the Bay of Fundy at ten and a half inches. But the regulations regarding the enforcement of this rule were found to be difficult and almost impossible to work out. Accordingly, this matter was referred to the standing committee on Marine and Fisheries last year. The committee commenced its meetings on the 8th of March last year, a large number of meetings were held, witnesses were examined and their examinations taken down and reported to the House. The officers of the department furnished the committee with all the information that was in the possession of the department and they also submitted themselves to examination on oath. The witnesses examined by the committee were : Professor E. E. Prince, Commissioner of Fisheries; H. E. Baker, Sydney, N.S.; F. H. Cunningham, Superintendent Fish Culture; R. N. Venning, Superintendent of Fisheries; Wm. Whitman, M.P.P., Guysborough, N.S.; George Walsh, Canso, N.S.; Alexander Keating, Canso, N.S.; Lewis Connors, Blacks Harbour, N.B.; John S. Cousins, Park Corner, P.E.I.; W. F. Tid-marsh, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; John McLean, [DOT]Souris, P.E.I.; Meddie Gallant, Tig-nish, P.E.I.; Thomas Canty, Bathurst, N. B.; Onesiphore Turgeon, M.P., Gloucester, N.B.; J. J. Hughes, Souris, P.E.I.; M. H. Nickerson, M.P.P., Clarks Harbour, N.S.
These witnesses were all examined and cross-examined by the committee and their evidence was compiled, making a volume of 300 pages of printed matter, and reported to the House. The committee had not proceeded very far, however, until it appeared that they had undertaken a task of veTy considerable difficulty, and that they would require some further evidence in order to come to a correct conclusion on this question. There was a great dsal of conflict of testimony or opinion with regard to these matters and it was felt that the committee could not, by the cumbersome methods of a parliamentary inquiry, find out what would be required in order to come to an intelligent decision on this disputed question. They recommended therefore that a commissioner be appointed to travel the coasts of the four provinces on which this industry is carried on, that he hold public meetings at various points on the coast, these meetings being advertised, that all parties presenting themselves and willing to give evidence be examined and that the evidence be reported to the committee. This recommendation was carried out by the minister and Commander Wakeham, 1 the officer in charge of the gulf division of

the fisheries in the province of Quebec, was appointed by the department to perform that duty. In my opinion no better selection could have been made. Commander Wakeham's long experience in the fisheries, as an officer, and in conducting investigations and taking evidence, qualified him for the position and no one can read his report without feeling that he performed his task in a very able manner. He visited a large number of places on the coasts of the four provinces. He examined no less than 261 witnesses and no less than 175 of these witnesses were fishermen. A good many of them were representative fishermen, men who came there to disclose the views not only of themselves but of other people who were not in a position to attend personally. He began work at the Magdalene Islands on the 12th day of July, he then came across to the mainland in the province of Quebec and continued along the coast until the 22nd of September when he closed the investigation at Grand Manan, N.B. During this time, as I have said, he examined 261 witnesses, the evidence was taken down, compiled and printed and it is now before the members of the House. It comprises two volumes of 1,227 pages. From this mass of evidence the committee were endeavouring to arrive at some conclusion when it was felt that a great deal of the evidence was a matter of opinion, that many men would say that in their opinion the size of lobsters caught in their district was so and so. It was felt by the committee that something more exact and definite was required in order to ascertain with certainty what the sizes of lobsters were in the different districts where the business was carried on. The committee therefore recommended that the officers along the coast, during last season (1908), be instructed to measure the lobsters taken at the different points and report the measurements to the department. These instructions were sent out and a large number of officers were employed in different districts along the coast of the maritime provinces to make these measurements. They measured in all 600,000 lobsters down to the exactness of half an inch and they tabulated each measurement and reported these measurements to the department. From these measurements the committee have collected their information. That information of course, is exact and authentic, the officers of the department have compiled these figures and reduced them to percentages, showing the percentage of undersized lobsters caught in the different districts. From the figures thus compiled it is seen that, in some districts, of the lobsters caught more than one half were undersized. I think in one district two thirds of the lobsters taken were under , the legal size. The evidence disclosed that the Mr. SINCLAIR
rules and regulations regarding the size limit were totally disregarded and had been constantly violated ever since they were made 36 years ago, that no attempt had been made by the officers for many years-


Mr. SPEAKER.: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I think the procedure he is now adopting is a new one. I see that the committee in their report ask that the regulations concerning fisheries be changed. If this motion be adopted, the House would be committing the government to a new procedure. The procedure is a new one altogether. There are two reports from the committee, one is for the printing of the report, to which I suppose there would be no objection, and the other is asking for an alteration of the rules governing the fisheries. I am intormed it is a new procedure.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not understand why it is irregular for me to support the motion and show the reasons why the committee arrived at their decisions.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am informed the procedure is a new one. If there is no objection-


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: If you have
any doubt as to the regularity of the procedure, it would be well to have the motion stand over in order that the matter may be examined during the day and the hon. member could proceed to-morrow.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have inquired of the minister in charge and he informs me that he is not in a position to deal with the matter to-day.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: The report, as far as I am aware, has had no consideration by the department. I understand it recommends very radical changes in the regulations. Whether the experts in the department and the minister would be prepared to put in force all these regulations or not, and whether by the adoption of this report the department would be bound to put them in force is a matter on which I am not very well advised, but I would think it would be prudent that the department should have cognizance of the report before it is adopted, particularly if the adoption means the acceptance of every recommendation. I would suggest that the report stand for a day or two.


John Howard Sinclair: I would suggest that 1 be allowed to lay before the House my reasons why the report has been made, and at the conclusion of my remarks the minister might move the adjournment of the debate or deal with it in some way, so that the report would not be adopted until the department has had ample time to consider it.


William Templeman: Yes.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that the hon. member is moving that the report be printed.


John Howard Sinclair: That is the motion.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: That is the only motion, that the report be printed.	*


John Howard Sinclair: That is one of the motions.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There are two motions, one for the printing of the report, and the other for the adoption of the recommendations.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman cannot speak to both at once.


Mr. DANIEL.: What motion is now before the House?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The motion, I understand, is for the printing ot the report of the committee.


John Howard Sinclair: The regulations regarding the size limit for lobstershas been disregarded ever since it was introduced by the department some 36 years ago.


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: Are we to understand that if the hon. gentleman makes a speech some hon. gentleman on'this side can keep up the discussion?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There is a motion before the Chair which can be discussed.


George Taylor: The motion is for the printing.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The motion for the printing can be discussed.


George Taylor: He must confine himself to the printing.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member will have to confine himself to the motion he makes, his remarks must have relevancy to that motion.


John Howard Sinclair: If the Speaker decides that I am not at liberty to show the reasons why the report was introduced and should be printed, I will have to reserve my remarks. I think there are good reasons for making these recommendations and I want to show why I lay such a report before the House.


George Taylor: When wa see it printed


John Howard Sinclair: It has been printed. It was presented to the House last Monday morning and at the time notice was given to the House that I would move its adoption to-day at the opening of the House, so no mistake should have 'been made by any member and every member should be ready to discuss it.
'Mr. SPEAKER. The motion is regular, only I thought it my duty to call attention to it. I understand that the hon. member will move now for the adoption of the report of the committee.


John Howard Sinclair: That is what 1 would like to do.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If there is no objection


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood my hon. friend to intimate that this report contains recommendations in relation to the regulations which may or may not be accepted by the government. These suggestions are merely recommendations of the committee. The minister says he is not prepared to give assent to these regulations to-day, and therefore rhy hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) would perhaps do better not to proceed with the motion now; he could take it up to-morrow. The motion of the printing could be proceeded with.


John Howard Sinclair: It is understood that I may take the matter up on motions tomorrow. I move the printing of the report of the investigations into the lobster industry which I presented the other day. The committee have asked for the printing of 6,000 copies of their own report and also of the evidence of Commander Wakeham, given in connection with his report.


Mr. SPROULE.: That is the report presented on Monday last and includes the report of Commander Wakeham as well as the evidence connected therewith.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. Sinclair) moves that rule 72 be suspended and the report be printed forthwith.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As this Teport entails an expenditure of a considerable amount, involving a charge on the consolidated revenue, on what ground can we adopt it without dealing with the proposed expenditure by resolution? Is it sufficient that a vote for printing be passed in the estimates, and that the expenditure be taken out of that?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The custom, as I understand, has been, and it has been repeatedly done every session, that this rule must be suspended before any document may be printed at all. It is for the House to decide whether the rule shall be suspended or not.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker, it is already printed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not the question of suspending the rule that I refer to. It is the question of any motion passing this House for the expenditure of money out of the consolidated revenue without the expenditure being authorized by a resolution of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: This report is printed in the Votes and Proceedings, 'and the motion that the rule be suspended and that the papers be printed, is simply in order that this report may be printed in the appendix of the Journals of this House as well as in the Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. LENNOX.: Does not the Joint Committee of both Houses on Printing decide [DOT] what papers shall be printed?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. Rule 72 provides that the Joint Committee on Printing shall determine what reports shall be printed in the Appendix to the Journals, and the motion asks for the suspension of that rule and an order of the House for immediate printing.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: This is frequently done, with the result that a great deal of printing is done that is not necessary. I think the matter should be referred to the Joint Committee on Printing for them to decide.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether the Prime Minister understood the point I raised. It was whether this motion can be passed without a resolution voting money out of the Consolidated Revenue for the purpose.
Sir' WILFRID LAURIER. In the estimates for the House of Commons which are voted each year there is a sum provided for the printing of documents of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. S. SHARPE:: 1.	Has the St. Lawrence Power Company complied with section 13 of the Act of Incorporation, 1901?
_ 2. Has the government investigated the facts in regard to this question?
3. If so, in what way and -what conclusion has the government reached?
i.	If not, does the government propose instituting any investigation with the view of ascertaining whether the powers of the Company under the Act of 1901 have become null and void?
5.	Does the government entertain the view of the Solicitor General, that the amendments inserted in the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company's Bill dealing with the St. Lawrence Power Company, created by the Act of 1901, cannot possibly control or affect the Company under the Act of 1901?
6.	Do any of the amendments inserted in the Sf. Lawrence Power Transmission Bill, in the opinion of the government, have the effect of reviving any of the powers of the St. Lawrence Power Company under the Act of 1901, which may have become null and void by reason of the said company not complying with the provisions of said Act?


Mr. SPROULE.: 7.	Was it the intention of the government or the hon. member who had charge of the Bill, by any of the amendments, to revive said rights?
8.	If the said company had forfeited any of the rights, is it the intention of the government to claim the benefit of such forfeiture?
Hon. \VM. PUGSLEY. When this question was asked at a recent sitting of the House in the absence of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sharpe), I referred to the fifth portion of the question, and stated that-the government was not aware that the Solicitor General had expressed the view stated in the question, and my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) said that he would ask the hon. gentleman to give me the information as to when and where the Solicitor General had made the statement. As this is an allegation of fact, it ought not to be nut into a question. I am informed that it is an erroneous statement, that no such view has been expressed by the Solicitor General, and unless my hon. friend gives me the information, I think he will see the propriety of withdrawing the question and submitting a new one if he so desires.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: When the question was being discussed by myself, I understood the Solicitor General to interject that opinion. I also understood from the words of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) that he entertained the same opinion, and I think the hon. member for Hoch-elaga (Mr. Rivet) also interjected the same opinion; and, if I am not mistaken, the Minister of Public Works expressed the same opinioin.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Not at all.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: However, I accept the denial of the Solicitor General, and I will eliminate No. 5.


William Pugsley: If I am in order, I may say that the hon. gentleman is entirely in error. I expressed no such opinion, and I find that the Solicitor General is not reported in ' Hansard ' as having expressed any such opinion. Indeed, I do not find that the Solicitor General expressed any opinion or took any part whatever in the debate.


Mr.   S.@: SHARPE Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I cannot allow a debate on this question.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Leave out the words 'Solicitor General.'


William Pugsley: I insist on the point of order. I think it is very much better to have questions put that do not contain allegations of fact that are no.t correct.
Question dropped.


LT.-COL. B. A. SCOTT.
Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	In what years was Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel B. A. Scott at the head of the 18th Regiment ?
2.	In what year did he cease to be in that position?
3.	Did he resign? If so, for what reasons?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: .
1.	From February 1, 1900, to January 7, 1903.
2.	January 7, 1903.
3.	Resigned the command and was transferred to the reserve of officers. The re, cords do not show the reason for the resig-' nation.	.



REVENUES FOR 1909-10.

George Taylor: What are the exact figures of dutiable and free imports, respectively, and the amount collected m customs, excise and other revenue, jespectively, for the year ending March 3L


Hon. WM. PATERSON:: The figures are not yet finally completed, but I have the unrevised figures, which are nearly correct. The unrevised total imports and exports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1910, were as follows:
Imports, dutiable	 $241,912,200
Imports, free	 149,891,136
Total	 $391,803,336
Exports, domestic	 $279,211,537
Exports, foreign	 22,146,992
Total	 $301,358,529
The unrevised amount collected as customs duties during the year was, $61,031,336.90.	.
CHARGES AGAINST QUEBEC OFFICIAL. Mr. MEIGHEN:
Does the Minister of the Interior purpose investigating the charges made against Mr. Lavoie, agent at Quebec, by J. J. O'Flaherty? If so, when and how?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER.: I will read the report of the Superintendent" of Immigration :
Hon. Frank Oliver,
Minister of the Interior.
I have received the letter addressed to you by Mr. J. J. O'Flaherty, No. 38 St. Anne St., Quebec, formerly an employee in the immigration service there.
Mr. O'Flaherty was dismissed for cause and I do not think that any attention at all should be paid to his letter making charges against Dr. Lavoie.
There are only two of these charges that concern the department in the slightest degree:	(1) the charge of discourtesy towards
the public having business with the. Quebec 257i
Immigration Office; (2) the charge that Dr. Lavoie exhibits antipathy towards Protestant ministers performing missionary work among the immigrants.
The reference to. his granting holidays to the staff and falsifying the attendance certificates has already been gone into in connection with the Stein case, and there is simply nothing in these allegations.
The statement that in the summer seasons of 1908 and 1909, foreign immigrants, especially Galicians, were drastically treated and that one Oscar Bliss was allowed to have dealings with them, is explained by the negotiations which took place, resulting in the release from detention of a number of immigrants going to railroad work on a guarantee of such work being obtained for them, the immigrants themselves being desirous of taking this work in preference to going back to Europe. Dr. Lavoie simply carried out the instructions of the department in this connection.
The first of the two charges enumerated aboye, viz., that ot discourtesy towards the public, was gone into in connection with the Stein case and thoroughly disproved.
In support of charge 2, viz., that Dr. Lavoie exhibits antipathy towards Protestant ministers, Mr. O'Flaherty states specifically that:
Upon one occasion, June 6, 1909, on the arrival^ of the Allan Line steamship ' Virginian, Dr. Lavoie publicly and wantonly insulted the Rev. Mr. Caffin, the Church of England minister and missionary.'
This is worthy of investigation, and I am writing to the clergyman referred to to get his statement of the affair, which I will communicate to you in due course.
(Signed) W. D. SCOTT, Superintendent of Immigration.



SATURDAY SITTING.

Wilfrid Laurier: I beg to move that when this House adjourns on Friday the 29th instant, it stand adjourned to the following day, Saturday, the 30th, -at 11 o'clock a.m.


George Taylor: Before the motion is adopted might I ask the hon. the Prime Minister if his intention is to prorogue next week on Wednesday?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, that is our intention.


Mr. HUGHES.: Do you intend to carry it out ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no reason why it cannot be carried out. Can my hon. friend see any?


Samuel Hughes: None.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM.: I beg to move that on Friday next I will move that the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolution, the sub-

ject matter of which has been submitted to His Excellency the Governor General who has approved of the same :
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide;
1.	That the Governor in Council may aid and assist the construction of the line of railway of a company to he incorporated under the name of ' Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company,' from a point at or near Edmonton or Strathcona, in the province of Alberta, thence in a generally western direction to the coal areas, situated at or near the Brazeau river and the headwaters of the McLeod river, for a distance not exceeding one hundred and fifty miles, by guaranteeing the principal and interest of the bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities, hereinafter called securities, secured as hereinbefore mentioned, of the company, to the extent of thirteen thousand dollars per mile for the first fifty miles of the line so aided, and, for the remainder of the said line, to the amount of twenty^five thousand dollars per mile, not exceeding in all one hundred and fifty miles, the interest upon the said securities to be at the rate of three and one-half per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, the principal to be payable in fifty years; and that the aid granted or authorized by Chapter 25 of the Statutes of 1908, intituled; An Act respecting aid for the ex-tention of the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway,' be cancelled.
2.	That the said securities so guaranteed shall be secured by a deed or deeds of trust, by way of mortgage or charge to a trustee or trustees, approved of by the Governor in Council, and such deed or deeds of trust shall respectively grant a first mortgage or charge upon the said line of railway so aided, and the right of way, station grounds, or other real estate and interest therein, buildings and other structures and improvements, rolling stock and equipment, plant, machinery, tools, supplies, materials and other personal properties, present and future, acquired for the purposes of the said line so aided, and in connection with operating, repairing and maintaining it, and the tolls, incomes and revenues of the company arising and to arise from the said line, and the rights, privileges, franchises and powers of the company now or hereafter held with respect to and in connection with the said line and the operation, maintenance and repair thereof.
3.	That the kind of securities to be guaranteed as aforesaid, and the forms thereof, and the form and terms of the deed or deeds of trust securing them, and the times and manner of the issue of securities and the disposition of the moneys to be raised thereon, by sale, pledge, or otherwise, pending the expenditure of such moneys for the purposes of the line of railway so aided, and the forms and the manner of guarantee, shall be such as the Governor in Council approves and such terms, provisions and conditions may be included in such deed or deeds of trust, as the Governor in Council deems expedient or necessary.
4.	That the said guarantee shall be signed by the Minister of Finance or such officer as is designated by the Governor in Council to 6ign it; and upon being so signed the Dominion of Canada shall become liable as guarantor for the payment of the principal and


George Perry Graham: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: On behalf of Mr. Fielding I beg to move that to-morrow the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolutions which have been brought to the attention of His Excellency the Governor General and approved by him :
1.	Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the repeal of chapter 24 of the Acts of 1908, the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, and that in substitution therefor it be provided, as an aid to the construction of any dry dock approved as to location and capacity by the Governor in Council, that a subsidy, as hereinafter set out, may be paid out of consolidated revenue fund to any incorporated company, approved by the Governor in Council, which shall enter into an agreement with His Majesty to construct the same with all necessary equipment, machinery and plant, the cost on which subsidy is to be calculated to be determined by the Governor in Council before the agreement for construction is entered into, the Governor in Council being satisfied that such dry dock is needed in the public interest.
2.	That for the purpose of constructing a dry dock under the provisions of any Act founded on these resolutions the company may utilize, or acquire for the purpose of utilizing, the works and property of any existing dry dock company whose dock has been constructed under the provisions of chapter 17 of the statutes of 1882, chapter 9 of the statutes of 1899, chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes, or chapter 24 of the statutes of 1908, and the value of any such works and property so far as the same may be useful in constructing a dry dock of greater dimensions or capacity shall be deemed to be for the purposes of subsidy calculation a part of the cost of the dry dock to be constructed, such value being fixed and determined by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Public Works, based upon a report of the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works, before the agreement for construction is entered into:
Provided, that the aggregate amount of all subsidies paid under the provisions of any of said Acts by the Governor in Council on account of the dock so utilized shall be deducted from the subsidy payable under the provisions of any Act founded hereon, such deductions being made in equal annual portions during the period in respect of which subsidy is payable under the provisions of such Act; and that the remaining payments, if any, of subsidy called for by the agreement entered into under either of said chapters shall not be made;
3.	That dry docks constructed under the provisions of any Act founded on these resolutions, shall, for the purposes of such Act, be divided into three classes;
1.	Dry docks of the first class, for naval | and general purposes, costing for the pur- j poses of subsidy calculation not more than! four million dollars, being-
(a)	Dry docks, other than floating dry docks, of dimensions when completed not less than the principal dimensions next herein- i after mentioned, that is to say, clear length on bottom from caisson gro'ove or hollow-quoin to head 900 feet; clear width of entrance, 100 feet; depth of water over the sill at high water ordinary spring tides, 35 feet;
(b)	Floating dry docks of a lifting capacity of at least twenty-five thousand tons, and in j which vessels can with ease and safety be re- : ceived and repaired:
Provided, however, that any dry dock shall not for the purposes of such Act be deemed to be a dry dock of the first class unless capable of receiving and repairing therein the largest vessels or ships of the British navy existing at the time at which the contract is entered into;
2.	Dry docks of the second class, costing for the purposes of subsidy calculation, not more than two and one-half million dollars, being-
(a)	Dry docks, other than floating dry docks of dimensions when completed not less than the principal dimensions next hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, clear length on bottom from caisson groove or hollow-quoin to head, 650 feet; clear width of entrance, 85 feet; depth of water over the sill,
30 feet at high water ordinary spring tides if constructed on tidal wraters, and 25 feet at ordinary low water if constructed on nontidal waters;
(b)	Floating dry docks of a lifting capacity of at least fifteen thousand tons, and in which vessels can with ease and safety be received and repaired;
3.	Dry docks of the third class costing for the purposes of subsidy calculation not more than one and one-half million dollars, being-
(a)	Dry docks, other than floating dry docks, of dimensions when completed not less than the principal dimensions next hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, clear length on bottom from caisson groove or hollow-quoin to head, 400 feet; clear width of entrance, 85 feet; depth of water over the sill, i 22 feet at high water ordinary spring tides if constructed on tidal waters, and 18 feet at ordinary low water if constructed on nontidal waters;
(b)	Floating dry docks of a lifting capacity of at least three thousand five hundred tons, and in which vessels can with ease and safety be received and repaired;
4.	That the subsidy payable m respect ot dry docks, which have been constructed under the provisions of any Act founded on these resolutions, shall be,
(a) If of the first class, a sum not exceeding 3| per centum of the cost of the work as fixed and determined by the Governor in Council each year during a period not exceeding thirty-five years from the time the Governor in Council has determined under the provisions of the Act that the work has been completed;
(b)	If of the second class, a sum not exceeding three and one-half per centum of
COMMONtf
1 the cost of the work, as fixed and determined I by the Governor in Council each year during a period not exceeding twenty-five years from the time the Governor in Council has determined under the provisions of the Act j that the work has been completed;
(c) If of the third class, a sum not exceeding three per centum of the cost of the work, as fixed and determined by the Governor in Council each year during a period not exceeding twenty years from the time the Governor in Council has determined under the provisions of the Act that the work has been completed;
5.	That the work of construction be done under the supervision of the Department of Public Works.
6.	That the Governor in Council be empowered, after a subsidy becomes payable, if such dry dock is not in a state of efficiency and repair, to take possession thereof, and to expend out of Consolidated Revenue Fund a sufficient sum to repair the same, and thereafter operate such dock until the cost of such repairs, after payment of operating expenses and maintenance, is received by the Crown;
7.	That the tariff of tolls and rates for the use of the dock prescribed by the company shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and that the company shall make an annual statement to the Governor in Council of the operations of the company with a statement of receipts and expenditures in detail;
8.	That provision be made in the agreement under which a floating dry dock is to be constructed for the annual setting aside by the company of a sum which the Governor in Council may deem sufficient to provide a fund wherewith to renew the whole of the floating part of the dock at the expiry of the time at which that part of the dock shall have ceased to be serviceable;
9.	That, on the application of the government of Canada, or any minister thereof ships m the British naval service, in the naval service of Canada, or other vessels the property of or employed by His Majesty, shall at times be entitled to the use of such docks in priority to all other vessels.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. BLONDIN.: Before the orders of the day are called I desire ito rise to a question of privilege. I see in the Ottawa * Citizen ' of April 25, 1910, the following statement:
It is headed:
'Like Irish Party-French Canadian recommendation for Ottawa House/ Montreal, April 24. D. E. Blondin, M.P.. for Champlain, speaking at a meeting held at Coteau Landing to-day, advocated the formation of a French Canadian party from the province of Quebec at Ottawa on the same lines as the Irish party at Westminster. Mr. Blondin, who declared himself as a supporter of Mr. Monk on the naval policy, said that a i Tj1,, Canadian party should eventually hold the balance of power at Ottawa as the followers of John Redmond now hold the balance of power in the British Commons.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I give the most emphatic denial to all that is said there. ' La Patrie ' and ' Le Devoir ' the only two newspapers represented at the meeting have given the full sense of mv remarks, and their reports which are 'exact do hot contain anything of the kind. I did not say a single word which could justify in any way, such a statement as that made by the ' Citizen.'



PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: I desire to rise for the purpose of making an explanation in connection with the Bill that was passed yesterday aftsrnoon by the Minister of Labour, foT the purpose of amending the Industrial Disputes Act. I have to say on behalf of certain constituents of mine that in the latter part of last session and again in the early part of this session, I introduced a Bill for the purpose of amending the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act in certain respects. The Bill was not reached last session, being introduced too late, and this session after the Bill was introduced by myself, I had a conversation with the Minister of Labour, and in the course of that conversation, the minister stated his intention of bringing in a Bill to amend the same Act in substantially similar respects. I had an understanding with the hon. minister, which is contained in ' Hansard ' of December 9, by which it was agreed that these two Bills should come on together and should be discussed at the same time. Since that date my hon. friend and myself have had several conversations, during which he notified me that his Bill would not be proceeded with in my absence as the Bills were largely the same, and I desirs to be present for the purpose of discussing my Bill, which was the prior Bill, in accordance with the understanding I have mentioned. My Bill has been side-tracked and cannot be reached this sassion, but the Minister of Labour put through his Bill yesterday. I received no intimation from the minister of his intention to give his Bill the second or third reading yesterday and I was not present on the occasion which I regret. It is a distinct breach of the understanding contained in the arrangement I have referred to on December 9, at page 1341 of ' Hansard.' I regret that the hon. minister should have taken this course in dealing with his Bill without giving any notice to me.


Mr. KING.: I am very sorry that the hon. member should think there has been any breach of understanding. As I remember the understanding he refers to, it had reference to the Bill he introduced last fall, the understanding reached in January did he say?


Angus Claude Macdonell: December.


George Gerald King: The understanding had reference to the question of (how far his Bill should proceed at that time and after conferring with the hon. member and mentioning that I was introducing a government measure, it was agreed that if I would allow his Bill to go as far as the committee he was prepared to leave it there until my Bill reached the same stage. That was the extent of the understanding I think.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yout Bill was read the third time yesterday.


George Gerald King: Yes, but the understanding was that the hon. member's Bill should not proceed further until my Bill reached the same stage as his had. There was no further understanding than that. As to my Bill going on yesterday, I can only say I was as much in the dark as to proceeding with the measure as he was until the afternoon. I took my chances here, and, seeing it was so near the end of the session, I watched for the first opportunity to get through the committee .stage of my Bill. I found that opportunity when we got through with-I think it was-the Bill relating to the water carriage of goods. I had only a few minutes notice myself. I had no understanding with the hon. member (Mr. Macdonell) to notify him when that stage should be reached-


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes.


George Gerald King: I am sorry if the hon. member thinks so. I do not remember giving him any promise to notify him. I assumed that, if he was following the legislation he would-


Angus Claude Macdonell: I ask the privilege of reading what took place


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: A discussion on the matter cannot be allowed at this stage.


Angus Claude Macdonell: All I desire is to read 'Hansard' showing what took place.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: But the minister (Mr. King) may desire to answer, and so this may be the beginning of a discussion, and discussion is not in order at this stage. It is only by the courtesy of the House that it can be permitted.


Angus Claude Macdonell: With the permission of the House, I desire to read what took place. I read from the same page, 1341, of 'Hansard' to which I have already referred:
Mr. MACDONELL moved the second reading of Bill (No. 23) to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907. He said: The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) has some amendments to consider in connection with the Industrial Disputes Act which may conveniently be considered at the same time with the amendments which are contained in
this Bill, and as I am anxions to advance the Bill to the committee stage I move the second reading with the understanding that it shall be allowed to stand nntil the Minister of Labour is prepared to consider this Bill and his own amendments.


George Gerald King: The hon. gentleman has correctly stated the position, and I am entirely agreeable to what he proposes.


George Gerald King: That is exactly what I have just said, and exactly what took place.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: I desire to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) when I may expect the return in connection with Windygates post office?


Mr. LEMIEUX  .@: I was under the impression that I had brought that return down. I will see to it at once.


Mr. CROCKET.: I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) when the return respecting the St. John river channel survey may ibe expected?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I will make inquiry. This morning I brought down a large return, the preparation of which has taken a good deal of time, and, no doubt, the staff has been busy.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: When may I expect the return, which, the minister was good enough to say I could have in a few days- with reference to printing and advertising?


William Pugsley: Did the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) ask me? I think that is with the Secretary of State.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It has reference to the Department of Public Works, and I understood that the deputy minister of Public Works was having it prepared.


William Pugsley: That is a matter in charge of the Secretary of State. I will make inquiry about it.



THE AIR-BRAKE MAGAZINE.

Samuel Hughes: Some time ago, the Postmaster General will remember I drew attention to the air-brake magazine, and the question of postage. Has any conclusion been arrived at in that matter?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Yes; I will communicate with the hon. member (Mr. Hughes).



MAIL MATTER CARRIED BY FREE DELIVERY.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: On Monday last, I asked a question of the Postmaster General with regard to the delivery of parcels

in places where free delivery is carried on. The question was in part, as follows:
Has the Post Office Department established any regulations respecting free delivery of matter, other than letters? If so, have such regulations been made public and where?
And the answer-or, rather, the response-was as follows:
The only class of people affected are the business men, senators and members of parliament, living in cities, who are perfectly aware of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I take exception to that answer under two heads. In the first place, it is a violation of the rule of the House which provides that no opinion shall be offered in answer to a question or anything stated beyond what is called for by the question. In the second place, it is not a correct statement of the facts. For, I may tell the Postmaster General, the question was based on complaints that I had received from New Westminster that small packages and even magazines addressed to residents of the city, were not delivered. Mail received for which there is 'supposed to be free delivery is held at the post office, and a card is delivered by the carrier notifying the addressee that a parcel is there, and asking that it be called for. Now, I am a businessman and a member of parliament, and I had no knowledge of the regulation. When I put a question here in >a courteous manner relating to the Post Office Department, I think I am entitled to a courteous answer and not a statement asserting that I have the information I ask for. I desire to have an answer to my question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Taylor) thinks there was any intention to show discourtesy in the answer, I assure him there was no such intention, nor do I believe that the answer given by me to the hon. member's questions bears any mark of discourtesy. What is the question? Everybody is aware that parcels of large size are carried through the mails. Such parcels are sent, especially after the session is over, to members and senators- blue-books and matter of that kind. Is it expected that the letter-carriers shall deliver the same on their regular routes? It would cripple the service to attempt to do so. Therefore, in places where there is free mail delivery, we have long had a regulation in force in the department under which a card is delivered to the addressee making him aware of the fact that there is a parcel of large size addressed to him lying at the local post office. The addressee sends for it. As I have said, if we were to force the letter-carrieTs in the cities to deliver these large parcels, we should cripple the service and delay the delivery of mail Mr. J D. TAYLOR.
matter. Under these circumstances, I cannot see my way clear to change the regulation. As I stated in that answer, members of the House, senators and some business men are affected by this regulation. But it is a case of force majeure.


James Davis Taylor: The minister has not yet answered my question, which is, whether there is any regulation, and where it is to be found?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have just answered that. I said that it was a regulation of the department, established many years ago, that, in the case of large parcels addressed to people in cities, a card should be sent to the addressee and he should send for the parcel to the post office. But small parcels are delivered. If this is not carried out, my hon. friend is justified in making his complaint. But I say that the regulation exists, and rightly exists, in the case of large parcels. Small parcels are delivered every day by the letter-carriers. But the House will agree that it would be unfair to impose on the letter-carriers in their every-day delivery such a load as would be involved in the delivery of large parcels.



HARBOUR OF ST. JOHN.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 204) to authorize the erection of certain wharfs and buildings in the harbour of St. John-Mr. Pugsley-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
John Waterhouse Daniel: 1 understand that this Bill is introduced at the instigation of the common council of the city of St. John, that they have passed the order to transfer a certain amount of the property referred to from the city to this Mr. Durant. I might ask the Minister of Public Works if this Bill was drawn by the common council or by the recorder of the city or by whom?


William Pugsley: This Bill has been drafted by the recorder of the city of St. John and by Mr. Taylor, solicitor for Mr. Durant, of the Atlantic Sugar Refining Company, which he is organizing. It was submitted to me, I made some suggestions as to slight changes in it and it was approved by them, so it represents the views both of the city of St. John and of Mr. Durant. It is simply carrying out what has been agreed to and what has been already confirmed by the legislature of the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Briefly, what is the object of the Bill?


William Pugsley: The city of St. John owns a piece of property on the eastern side of the harbour, a portion of which is

covered with navigable water. The government of Canada owns the piece of land immediately to the south where the Ballast wharf now is. Mr. Durant hais made a proposition to the city of St. John for the erection of a very large sugar refinery on the condition that the city would procure for him a suitable site for the erection of his refinery, the building of wharfs, and the making of other improvements in connection with the undertaxing. He has thought it desirable that the property should be erected upon property immediately to the south which is owned by this government and an arrangement has been made under which that property owned by the city shall be exchanged for the property owned by the government and occupied by the Intercolonial railway. The matter has been under consideration for a good many months and an agreement has been arrived at under which the city and the government through Mr. Durant are to make an exchange of the respective properties, and the refinery will actually be erected on the property owned by the government, but the city will convey to the government a property which is regarded under all these circumstances as of equal value and giving equal advantages to the Intercolonial railway. The matter has been agreed upon by the city of St. John, Mr. Durant and the Intercolonial railway authorities, and has been approved of by the legislature of the province of New Brunswick. The object of this legislation is to supplement or implement the legislation of the legislature of New Brunswick. It is thought necessary by reason of the fact that a portion of the land is covered by navigable water. That is the reason and the only reason for coming to parliament for the purpose of obtaining this legislation.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister is satisfied, and I presume the city cf St. John ip satisfied that the financial ability of Mr. Durant is capable of carrying out what he proposes, that is, to build a large sugar refinery there. Is the minister quite satisfied in regard to that?


William Pugsley: I may say I have preferred to take the request of the city of St. John as my guide in the matter.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I just wanted to know if the minister had any better knowledge than some of the members of the common council, because some of them did not appear to know very much about the matter.


William Pugsley: The legislation of the province of New Brunswick contains ample safeguards protecting the interests of the fcity. If the undertaking is not carried out in good faith in accordance with the terms of the agreement the transfers become
void and the respective properties become revested in the city of St. John and the Crown. I may say that I believe Mr. Durant is acting in good faith, and that he has the financial ability to carry out the undertaking, but I give no pledge of that to this House. As I have said, the city of St. John, represented by the common council, has gone into the matter very thoroughly, has satisfied itself of the bona fides and ability of Mr. Durant, and of the desirability of entering into this arrangement, I think the interests of the city are thoroughly safeguarded, as are also the interests of this government.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If this exchange of property should be made, I presume it would be made before any building took place. Suppose the arrangement becomes void by non-fulfilment of duties by Mr. Durant, and the exchange of property has already been made, then how could it be undone? The property could not revert because in that case the government, as represented by the Department of Railways and Canals, would have possession of this property which is being transferred to the city and Mr. Durant would have possession of the property transferred by the Department of Railways and Canals. That is the one feature I have not been able to understand.


William Pugsley: Under the statute of the legislature of New Brunswick if there is any failure to carry out the terms of the agreement, the property, by operation of the law, becomes re-vested in the gov-eminent of Canada and the city of St. John respectively. That is the provision of the statute of New Brunswick.


Samuel Hughes: Has the legislature of New Brunswick the authority to dispose of the property of the Dominion in that way?


William Pugsley: I propose adding ail amendment to implement that legislation, as section 3. I have submitted it to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways, and they approve of it. It reads:
3. All conditions and limitations which may he contained in such conveyance from the city of St. John to the said Frederick G. Durant or in any conveyance from His Majesty to the said Frederick C. Durant of adjoining lands are hereby declared and shall be deemed legal and valid, and shall be binding upon the said Frederick C. Durant, his heirs and assigns, and any failure to comply with the conditions contained in such conveyances from the city of St. John and from His Majesty shall have the effect of revest-in" the title to the lands respectively conveyed by such conveyances in the said city and in His Majesty respectively; provided, however, that in the event of the happening of the contingency hereinbefore mentioned under which the city would be entitled to

have revested in it tlie said property so conveyed by it to the said Frederick C. Durant, and His Majesty should be entitled to have revested m Jffis Majesty the said property so conveyed by him to the said Frederick C. Durant, His Majesty may elect to retain either one property or the other.
I put in that provision for His Majesty having the election, because the Crown might make certain improvements in the meantime upon the property which is now owned by the city, but which is to be transferred to the Crown. I think it better to safeguard the interests of the Crown by giving it that right of election. Thus, taking together the legislation of the province of New Brunts wick and of this parliament, I think the interests of both the city and the Crown will be thoroughly safeguarded.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What would happen if Mr. Durant encumbered that property very heavily in the meantime?


William Pugsley: It would make no difference, it would come back to the city and Crown respectively, and persons* who would advance money on mortgage if there were a mortgage, would do so subject to the provision of the statute and would take the risk.


Samuel Hughes: How long has the Intercolonial railway been in possession of it, what was the cost of it, and what is the present value?


William Pugsley: I am not able to give that to my hon. friend. I may say that the negotiations for this undertaking, and for the exchange of the property were carried on for a good many months by Mr. Butler, of course, under the direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals. Mr. Butler was the deputy minister, and the opinion of the Railway Department was that it would be of advantage not only to the city of St. John to secure the erection of a large sugar refinery which will have a capacity of 2,000 or 3,000 barrels per day, and which will employ several hundred hands, but that, being situate right at the deep water terminus of the Intercolonial railway, the Intercolonial railway would get the benefit of the freight. The sugar will naturally be forwarded by the Intercolonial railway, as it will be the only railway connecting with the refinery, and the opinion of Mr. Butler was that the erection of a refinery with a capacity of 2,000 barrels a day at the terminus of the Intercolonial railway would be the means of giving the Intercolonial railway a very large trade, and presumably a profitable freight. The property which it is to ^ obtain, and which is now owned by the city, in the opinion of Mr. Butler, offers equal advantages to the Intercolonial railway m connection with its terminals.
HUGHES. Is it equal in value? Was not this property now held by the Mr. PUGSLEY.
Intercolonial railway and which is being transferred in exchange for this other property purchased only a few years ago by the Intercolonial railway?


William Pugsley: It was purchased at leqst 37 years ago. My hon. friend is thinking of the property at the head of the harbour.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will any change be made in the Intercolonial railway trestle that passes right over this property? What is proposed to be done with it?


William Pugsley: I have nut gone into the details, but I understand that certain changes are to be made which are necessary for the most beneficial utilization of the property for the purpose of the refinery, and also for the purposes of the terminus of the Intercolonial railway, but just what these changes are I do not know. Everything was determined upon by the Department of Railways when Mr. Butler was deputy minister.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think that the point raised by my hon. friend irom East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is perhaps a little more important than it appears to the minister. I have not had the advantage of seeing the new section 3 which is going in. I heard it read, and if I heard it correctly, I am afraid it does not quite go far enough to cover the point raised by my hon. friend. Section 1 of this Bill gives the title to Frederick C. Durant absolutely. There is no condition in the section that it is to be forfeited under any circumstances. By the ordinary rules, if there wrere a mortgage, as suggested by my hon. friend, I am afraid that the mortgagee would have the rights that the Crown had given away. I mean the Crown as represented by the Dominion parliament; I do not mean the Crown as represented by the province. 1 am not concerned with the province; I am only concerned in seeing that the property owned by the Crown in the Dominion is properly protected. I understand the hon. gentleman to mean that if a mortgage were to be put upon such property the mortgagee would lose his rights and could have no claim, and that under the arrangement the rights of the Dominion are protected.


William Pugsley: Clearly so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it were so, it would be all right, but I am afraid that the Bill does not quite protect us in that respect.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me just a word? I think we may facilitate the discussion. Section 1 does not confirm the conveyance or doe3 not declare as to what the terms of the con-

veyance are, but simply says that the city of St. John is authorized to make the conveyance.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is what I am afraid of.
*


William Pugsley: Both tlhe conveyances from the city of St. John to Mr. Durant, and from the Crown to Mr. Durant, would contain this clause that if the conditions of the agreement are not fulfilled the property shall revert to St. John and the Crown respectively, and the object of the provincial legislation and to this legislation is merely to place upon the statute-book what is apparent in the deed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The usual way of doing that is to append a schedule to the Act setting out the agreement which you are prpposing to have carried out. That is not being done here. There might be half a dozen conveyances. As far as section 1 goes the effect of it is to confirm the conveyance that these other people may agree to, but which is not authorized to be made with this parliament. We have not got that conveyance in this Bill as. a schedule to the Bill, although we generally have such a schedule in legislation of this kind, so that we may know exactly what are the terms and obligations and conditions Which are to be conformed to and which agreement declares that they must forfeit their rights if they fail to conform to them. In the absence of that schedule, section 1, authorizes any conveyance that these people may ultimately make. They may propose to make a conveyance to-day but by mutual consent they may abandon that conveyance and make a new one. I do not think this parliament ought to go it blind in that way. Section 3 would be all right if we knew exactly what the terms of the conveyance are, but what I do not like is delegating to the city of St. John and the province of New Brunswick the right to make any conveyance they like and to have that conveyance confirmed by this parliament without seeing it. I object to it as a matter of principle. We must look ,at the matter as dealing with the Crown land of the Dominion. We are legalizing a contract that we have not seen. The minister knows what it is supposed to be, but I would point out to him that by the ordinary rules with respect to the rights of people in contracting, they may cancel that conveyance and make another one which is not in the contemplation of the hon. gentleman, and we will be authorizing them to do anything they like in regard to it. That is what I object to in this legislation.


William Pugsley: Section 1 of this Bill authorizes the city of St. John to. make a conveyance. I did not think it was desirable to set out the conveyance or agreement in full. The agreement is fully set, out in the statute of the New Brunswick legislature.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You do not even mention the date of the conveyance. '


William Pugsley: No. It only authorizes the city of St. John to make the conveyance. Surely the city of St. John might well be trusted as to the conditions which it will put into this conveyance.


George Taylor: It is their own property.


William Pugsley: It is their own property, and the conveyance definitely provides that unless Mr. Durant complies with the terms of the agreement, erects this sugar refinery within a certain time and does other things which Mr. Durant stipulates shall foe done, the conveyance shall become void and the property shall be revested in the city. All we do in this respect is to empower the city of St. John to make the conveyance. They will safeguard their own interests by putting the necessary provisions in it. All the conditions are put on record, and if there should be any failure to carry out the obligations which Mr. Durant has entered into, the properties shall revert to the Crown and the city respectively, and the Crown shall have the right of election as to which property it shall have-whether it will take back its own property or retain the property which it got from the city.


Samuel Hughes: Does the Minister of Public Works think it is a work of superrogation to have a sugar refinery in St. John while the minister himself is there?


William Pugsley: Possibly, though, you cannot have too much of a good thing.


Mr. CROSBY.: Does the minister know if Mr. Durant is personally in a financial position to undertake this scheme, or is it his intention to form a company. Have we any guarantee that he is able to carry out the conditions of this agreement? I understand that the Minister of Public Works says that the sugar rgfinery is to turn out 3,000 barrels per day.


William Pugsley: 2,000 is the minimum, but it is expected to have a capacity of 3,000 barrels.


Adam Brown Crosby: Have we any contract that this parliament knows anything about as to the certainty of that?


William Pugsley: Yes, the city of St. John has an agreement which is set out in the sftaiute passed by the provincial parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are all these conditions spoken of in the provincial statute?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why does not the Bill say it is to be subject to the terms of that particular agreement. These gentlemen may make a great many different agreements, and as the agreement referred to is not specified in this Bill it is the last agreement they make that will govern, and consequently this appears to be careless legislation. We must have some guardianship over this property or we would not be asked to legislate with regard to it.'


William Pugsley: Simply because it is covered by navigable water.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not disputing that the agreement may be fair enough, but I point out that the legislation sanctions the last agreement whatever it may be, and that in that respect the Act is defective.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This property is owned by the city, and there is no doubt in the world that the city has a right to alienate a portion of its property, as it is doing here, for what it considers a quid pro quo. There may be some doubt as to whether it is really necessary to come to this parliament at all, but the recorder of the city thinks ilt is necessary, and so they have corns here. I would suggest to the minister that the words in clause 2: 'all necessary improvements/ should be stricken out, and replaced by the words: ' all improvements necessary for the undertaking.' If this is not done, it seems to me it will leave it open to Mr. Durant to build improvements for a sugar refinery or anything else, whereas the improvements he should be allowed to build should be improvements necessary for his undertaking of a sugar refinery.


William Pugsley: I do not see the advantage of the change. The agreement sets forth that he must erect a sugar refinery. All we are doing here is to give him power to obstruct navigation upon the eastern side of the harbour line, and it seems to me that the words now in the Bill mean improvements necessary to a sugar refinery.	[DOT]


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why not state it?


William Pugsley: It is stated. The Bill was agreed on by the city of St. John and Mj\ Durant, and I do not think it advisable to change it by substituting other words which in reality make no change in the meaning.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it the minister's opinion as a lawyer that the words now in the section would confine such buildings as axe put up by Mr. Durant to buildings necessary for the purposes of a sugar refinery and nothing else?
Mr. LANCASTEE


William Pugsley: Surely so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the minister gives that as his legal opinion I am satisfied.
Mr. PUfjSLEY. The words are: 'for such purpose,' which is the purpose of a sugar refinery.


Adam Brown Crosby: I have no desire to interfere with the city of St. John doing anything they can with their own property to encourage industries; in fact I would help them in that laudable desire, but we are interested in this legislation or else it would not be before us, and I want to know from the minister whether Mr. Durant is financially able to carry on this undertaking, or whether it is his intention to get it and turn it over to somebody else? We have had a case of that kind happen in Nova Scotia, and we have found it difficult to get the contract carried out under such conditions. I would like to know some particulars as to Mr. Durant's ability to carry out the terms of this contract. Sugar is a good sweet article to produce in St. John, and I have no doubt the personality of the Minister of Public Works, whose sweetness is well known, will augment the output of the refinery in some way; but I have not the honour of knowing Mr. Durant, and I would like some information regarding him.


William Pugsley: I have not felt it my duty to inquire very closely into the financial standing or ability of Mr. Durant to erect a sugar refinery or as to whether he intends to form a company or not. The city of St. John, after very careful consideration extending over a great many months, and having an opportunity of inquiring into Mr. Durant's standing, having come to an agreement with him to obtain legislation from the province and to ask us to implement that legislation so far as may be necessary by reason of a portion of this property being covered by navigable water, I felt it my duty to act upon the request of the city of St. John and present this Bill to the House for its consideration. I may add that I am informed that Mr. Durant has now in process of formation a company to be called the Atlantic Sugar Befinery Company. I am also informed- I do not know whether the information is reliable or not-that that company has ample capital for the purpose of proceeding with this very important undertaking.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister ever had the privilege or honour of a meeting with Mr. Durant?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Previous to the arrangement with the city of St. John?
. APRIL 27, 1910


William Pugsley: While it was in progress.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
bounties on crude petroleum.
Bill (No.-208) to provide for .the payment of Bounties on Crude Petroleum- Mr. Graham-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,


George Perry Graham: In order to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve), I move that in the eleventh line, after the word 'to,' the words 'or divided amongst' be inserted. The hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Clarke) took the matter in hand, and after1 consultation with the hon. member for Kootenay, decided that this would cover the point they had in view, as far as it was possible to cover it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would it not be possible to introduce a provision in this Bill that would make specific the proportions that would go to the different parties? I submit that one-quarter or one-half should go to each party. It seems to me that when these regulations are not standardized, they leave too much in the option of the Governor in Council.


George Perry Graham: That was discussed at length the other day, and, as I pointed out, some gentlemen who are quite capable of finding a solution of the question of making a standard rule came to the conclusion that it was impossible. The conditions may vary so much that it would be impracticable altogether. After working at it for the summer. I had a Bill along these lines, but they came back to this as- -the only* way in which it could be practically worked out.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the officer who will make this determination?


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Trade and Commerce will have charge, and he is to make regulations.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would theTe be specific regulations in every case, or would there be general regulations?


George Perry Graham: The regulations would largely be general, and he would have to deal practically with eveTy case on its merits.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is it the intention of the department to send a man to investigate the conditions, on the ground, and will there be evidence produced? How will they proceed to administer the Act?


George Perry Graham: The Bill provides that the regulations must be approved by the
Governor in Council, which means the whole government. After full discussion, they will decide on general regulations. There is no doubt in the world that the minister will take ample means to find<out all the conditions arising, whether it is a proper claim or an improper claim, and to what extent the bounty ought to apply to each individual. It will all be -done under regulations approved by the Governor in Council, and nothing can be done by one minister without the approval of the whole council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Samuel Hughes: Is that not -a peculiar word ' interested 1 in the 13th line? The Canada Land Company might be interested in this, and would not the Canada Land Company be entitled to a part of the bounty?


George Perry Graham: I imagine that the Canada Land Company might get part of the bounty under their arrangement with the lessee. They lease the mining rights to a third party, and under their lease it might be that they would share in a certain portion of the bounty. These words aTe used to give the minister authority to divide it amongst those who are interested in any way. I think the old Act will be found to include that word as well as the new one.
On section 4,


Samuel Hughes: Some time ago. as the Minister of Railways and Canals is aware, the committee over which he has the honour to preside, the Railway Committee, brought in a resolution that_ all such sections as this should be printed in full, that where we repeal a section, that section should be printed in full, and also the section proposed to be put in its place. Why does not the minister follow the rule established in the committee?


Mr GRAHAM.: This is merely repealing the old statute, and this whole Bill takes the place of the old one.
Mr. 8. SHARPE. Will this Bill allow the farmer on whose property there is no cil well found to get compensation from the bounty, that is, on a property where damage has been done in digging a well, but where no oil has been found? Will this Bill make any provision for that?


George Perry Graham: If the party who did the damage is entitled to a bounty for oil m any property, a certain bounty would be given though no oil was discovered.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: But in the case of one who is entitled to a bounty by reason of success in other fields, is there any provision?


George Perry Graham: That is a matter this * parliament cannot deal with. The only pos-

sible way of getting at the lessee is by depriving him of part of the bounty for a proportion of the oil. If it were possible to pass an Act in that regard, it would have to be done by the province and not by the Dominion.


Mr. GOODEVE.: The suggestion raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe) is this. Possibly this government could get a portion of that bounty to pay the farmer whose property is damaged where no oil is produced.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
Sir \\ ILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
[u"I have an explanation which I might as well read:\nThis sum is to cover the amount due for the rent of a house leased for Mr. W. T. R. Preston while engaged as commissioner of immigration in London, England, for a period of fifteen months from the 25th September, 1906, to-25th December, 1907. On the 25th December, 1902, a lease was entered into with Mr. Henry Lovatt for certain premises known as No. 7 Fitz-James Avenue, Fulham, London, England. This lease was made for a period of seven years at the rate of \xa3130 0s. Od. per annum, with the privilege of terminating the same at the expiration of five years, that is, on the 25th December, 1907. Mr. Preston paid the rent for a period of one year, when, as the result of an understanding between himself and the department, the latter undertook to pay the rent and continued to do so until the 25th September, 1906, when Mr. Preston was assigned to do other duties. The lease was terminated after a period of five years on the 25th December, 1907, and the owner is claiming payment for \xa3164 15s. Od. as follows:-one year and three months' rent at \xa3130 per annum, \xa3162 10s. Od. and \xa32 as. Od. for depreciation during vacancy.\nThe arrangement was that Mr. Preston was to receive a certain salary and a certain allowance for rent. He rented this building for the period mentioned, but did not continue his tenantcy for the whole of that period. When he left the service of the department, the department did not hold itself responsible for this lease; but in the discussion that has gone on since it would appear that legally and properly the department is responsible for the balance of rent for the term, and we ask the House to vote the money.\nSome resolutions reported."]
Mr A. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the amendment 1 propose to make a conveyance to-day, but many members of this House. We have all heard of Manitoba's claim for an extension of her boundaries. I do not propose to indulge in much declamation on the subject, I shall confine my remarks to a plain re'cital of thei facts upon which I rely for affirmance by this House of the principle of the proposed amendment. Manitoba was formed into a province in the year 1870. It was at the time a very small province-about a hundred miles square, in round numbers, with a population of about 17,000 and an area of about 15,500 square miles. It was quite- evident at the time that it was not intended to be permanent, because, during the life of the first legislature, application was made to this parliament to have the boundaries of that small province extended and the financial terms rearranged. The delegation from the first legislature came .back and reported that it was not feasible at that time because the western and northwestern boundaries of Ontario had not been delimited. Nothing was done until the year 1881, about eleven years later when a Bill known as the Campbell'Bill was passed by this House. That Bill extended the western boundary of Manitoba about 100 miles farther to the west, and the northern boundary about 160 miles further to the north, while the east boundary of Manitoba was made coterminous with the western boundary of Ontario. The western boundary of Ontario, as I have said was not defined. It was thought in Manitoba that the western boundary of Ontario was the meridian running northward from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers which would run a short distance east of Port Arthur. So, it was understood and believed that, under the extension of boundaries given by that Act Manitoba would have a port or two on Lake Superior. At the time of the


George Perry Graham: every obstacle that we considered could possibly be raised against the settlement of the whole question.
The allocation of the territory thus being disposed of, we proceeded to discuss the financial terms that ought to be given this province. We presented the memorandum of the legislative assembly of this province, which, in a word, was to the effect that we simply asked for a position of equality in respect to financial terms with our sister provinces to the west, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
"To this Sir Wilfrid most strenuously objected, claiming that we were not entitled to similar treatment. We then pointed out to him that, inasmuch as he had determined the territory and offered the same by resolution it was incumbent on him to suggest the financial terms, and we pressed him to name what he considered would be adequate compensation and proper financial terms, when he suggested the amount of ten thousand dollars a year, which amount, of course, we regarded as ridiculously absurd. We strongly urged upon him to give us some reasonable definite statement that we could submit to the government and the legislature of this province for their rejection or approval, but he made no other suggestion than the one indicated above.
"The discussion continued, and we then made the alternative offer of accepting equal treatment with Ontario and Quebec along the line of ownership of lands, tfmber, ore. etc., in the territory to be added, and a like ownership of the undisposed-of Crown lands in Manitoba, that we might have equality of treatment with Ontario and Quebec in this respect, so that, if it was more desirable from the federal point of view to give us equality of position with Ontario and Quebec, we would agree to recommend the same for acceptance to the executive of the province and through them to the legislative assembly.
"The conference then adjourned, to meet again on the twenty-third of March, Sir Wilfrid and Hon. Sydney Fisher representing the federal government. No further progress was made, Sir Wilfrid still refusing to consider the propositions of equality of treatment, either with Saskatchewan and Alberta or Ontario and Quebec, so set out, nor could we obtain from him any further statement as to the financial allowance he would make to the province on addition of the territory.
"Sir Wilfrid then informed us that he considered there was no object to be gained by further continuing our conference.
(Signed) E. ROGERS,
(Signed) COLIN H. CAMPBELL.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Alexander Haggart: port as to which of these two would be best for Manitoba The amendment to the amendment was lost, and the main amendment was carried, and that was the deliverance of the House. Now, that is what Manitoba asks to-day. But the Liberal party did not stop there. The House adjourned, and the Liberal party had time to think. They shifted their ground. The 13 opposition members with all the Liberal stalwarts outside met in convention- they think there is an election coming on- and they want to leave no doubt as to where they stand on the question of the Manitoba boundaries. They put planks in their platform with reference to economy and efficiency, and good roads and education but there was a special plank constructed by that convention on the question of the extension of the Manitoba boundaries. In the convention it was moved by the leader of the opposition, and it was seconded by Mr. J. W. Defoe.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the leader of the opposition?	.


Alexander Haggart: Mr. Norris. He is a gentleman who is in the employ of this government; he is a very fine gentleman, and he is the leader of the opposition, and the fact that he receives large sums by way of compensation for selling the school lands in that country does not disqualify him, and I do not see why it should. The plank in the platfrom adopted at that Liberal convention relating to the Manitoba boundaries is this:
'That the Liberals of Manitoba in convention assembled believe that a satisfactory adjustment of the boundary question consists in the acceptance of the extension of the boundaries as offered by the Dominion government provided it is accompanied by the transfer to this province, of the lands, minerals, timber, fisheries, and other natural resources of the added territory.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Who is Mr. Dafoe?


Alexander Haggart: He is the managing editor, I believe, of the ' Free Press ' newspaper; at least he is so reputed to be. Now, we can see from this that the people of Manitoba-the government party and the opposition party-all the people of Manitoba are anxious for th'e extension of the boundaries; they have a laudable ambition to have their boundaries extended, and to have the same terms that are given either to their sister provinces to the west, or to their sister provinces to the east. That was the deliverance of the Liberal convention held some weeks ago in the province of Manitoba. Now, Sir, I know that the right hon. the Prime Minister cannot be responsible, and ought not to be held responsible for all the utterances made in the press, even in the press supporting the government. But this ' Free Press ' newspaper of Winnipeg has an article here in which the right hon. gentle-


Alexander Haggart: man's name is associated with the very question which we are now discussing, and the ' Free Press ' newspaper ought to be loyal to this government because it is a beneficiary of this government; it does a large amount of work for, and it gets a large amount of money from this government. I believe that during the life of this government it has got something like $68,000 for printing and lithographing and advertising; in one year they received from the public funds the sum of $36,791.09, so that that paper ought to be careful not to embarrass its employers in this House. I refer to this article in order that the right hon. gentleman may disavow it. I think it is published in the issue of February 21 last. It is referring to this $10,000 which is supposed to be offered to Manitoba, and after accusing the delegates from Manitoba of manufacturing lies out of whole cloth it speaks of the matter in this way-Of course it eulogizes the Prime Minister, and for my part I do not think that we can do too much honour to our leaders in this parliament, or in the provincial parliaments. It speaks in high appreciation of the right hon. gentleman, but it does not speak so highly of the politicians of Manitoba, and then there .is a gross threat that while the Conservatives are in power in Manitoba, Manitobans may expect nothing; there is a veiled threat that when we send delegates to this government we need not expect to have very fortunate results. Here is the part of the article to which I refer:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier has doubtless had many experiences with public men during his long official life; but it is probable that be regards the Manitoba politicians as in a class by themselves. Unwearied as is his patience, illimitable though bis courtesy may be, he would doubtless prefer to discuss these grave matters of state-in the successful settling of which the future of this province is largely involved-with representatives of' this province who have not got the morals of Ananias, the manners of chimney sweeps and the diplomatic methods of deckhands. It is imperative that at the next conference to he held between Manitoba and the Dominion government this province should be represented by gentlemen. If the present government cannot supply such representatives this is an additional strong reason for a change of administration in this province at the earliest possible moment.
And then we would be represented by gentlemen like the gentleman who wrote that dirty stuff. Now, Sir, Manitoba deserves not to he discriminated against; she deserves not to be penalized. Her people were the pioneers in that country, her pioneers endured the hardships and the vicissitudes that are incident to early settlers. They solved the problems of that western country, on the solution of which the prosperity of Manitoba and the other provinces to the west depend. They

solved the question of transportation by securing transportation rates that would make agriculture a paying industry. They taxed themselves, they taxed their credit and their future to its utmost limit, and they could not benefit themselves without benefiting their neighbours to the west. Manitoba stands to-day at the bar of this House, not pleading or praying, not threatening or whining, but relying on the justice of her cause, asking to be treated with equality, as the other provinces are treated. By complying with this fair and reasonable demand this House will do more to solidify this Dominion than it can do by any other measure that can be introduced during the present session. I think the facts I have set forth should be sufficient for this House in affirming the proposition set forth in the motion which I now submit in amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply.
That all the words after ' that ' to the end of the motion be left out and the following he substituted therefor:
Whereas, this House did, on the 13th day of July, 1908, pass the following resolution delimiting the area to be offered the province of Manitoba;
Whereas petitions have been presented to the government and to this House from the legislative assembly of Manitoba, praying for an extension of the boundaries of the said province northward and eastward, and for an additional subsidy to the said province in lieu of the ownership of public lands in the territory to be so added.
' Be it resolved,
' That it is expedient that the prayer of the said petition should be acceded to, and that upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislative assembly and by parliament, the boundaries of Manitoba be extended as follows:
' The northern boundary to be the sixtieth parallel of latitude; the western boundary to be the present eastern boundary line of the province of Saskatchewan to the said sixtieth parallel; the eastern boundary to be the pres sent eastern boundary as far north as the northeast corner of the province, thence on a straight line to the most eastern point of Island lake, and thence on a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the -shore line of Hudson bay.
' And be it fnrther resolved:
' That whereas notwithstanding the extension of territory above described, the ungranted la_nds of the Crown in the territory so to he added to the said province will still continue to he administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of the Dominion; and the said province will not have the public land as a source of revenue.
' It is just and equitable to recognize the increased cost of civil government which such extension of territory will occasion to the province. and _ in view of the premises, to make to the said province an increased allowance by money payment, the amount of which should be the subject of negotiation between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba.
258i
'And he it further resolved;
' That, upon the legislature of the province of Ontario consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament, so as to include all the territory to the north of the said province lying between the extended boundaries of Manitoba above described and the waters of James hay and Hudson bay.
' And be it further resolved:
' That, upon the legislature of the province of Quebec consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province, upon such terms and conditions as may he agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament, so as to include all the territory to the north of the said province now known as Ungava, and extending to the waters of James bay and Hudson hay, and the entrance thereto from the sea.
' And whereas at a conference subsequent to said date the delegates of the province of Manitoba did offer to accept the said area upon receiving equality of treatnent either with the province of Saskatchewan and Alberta to the west of the said province of Manitoba or upon a basis of equal treatment with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, lying immediately to the east of the province of Manitoba. And whereas the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba did subsequently agree and confirm the said offer of the said delegates of the said province of Manitoba.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that this House affirms the province of Manitoba is entitled to equality of treatment with either the said provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan to the west or with the said provinces of Ontario and Quebec to the east, and regret that the government of the Dominion did not agree to give to Manitoba such equality of treatment/


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, if the object of my hon. friend who has just addressed the House (Mr. Alex. Hag-gart), was as he asserted to plead the cause of Manitoba for what he called equal justice with the other provinces, I am sure that on reflection he will agree with me that the method he has adopted of presenting his case to the House was not calculated very effectively to achieve the object he had in mind. My hon. friend knows that by the rules of this House a motion presented under the circumstances under which this motion is presented, that is, as an amendment to go into Supply, cannot be amended, and therefore, cannot be met in all its bearings, and in all its different aspects. If there be in this motion, as I think there are, statements of fact which are true, and statements of fact which are wrong, if there be conclusions which can be accepted, and conclusions which cannot be accepted, they have all to be accepted in the whole or denied in the whole. My hon. friend, since his sole object, as he says, was to plead the cause of Manitoba, would have been better inspired if in the early stages of this session he had brought

his motion forward as a notice of motion, which conld have been met in all its bearings, accepted in part or amended in part, accepted in the whole or rejected in the whole; whereas, as his motion is presented now, it leaves us no option, but to reject it, because there are parts in it which it would be impossible to accept. I sympathize with the statement of my hon. friend, that the province of Manitoba has been anxious for years past to have its territory extended. We can all agree that the territory of Manitoba from the beginning was altogether too exiguous; we can all agree that it should have been extended, which it would have been easy to have done at the time, to the north, and to the west. Years ago the province of Manitoba came to the doors of this House, and the last time it was successful. That was in the year 1905, when it submitted a petition to this House, supported by a delegation from the province of Manitoba which waited on the government, including iseven members from the other side of the House, asking for an extension of its boundaries. Unfortunately for Manitoba at that time, it set up a pretention which encroached on the west, on the pretentions of the province of Saskatchewan, and which encroached on the east on the pretentions and claims of the province of Ontario. The province of Manitoba, in that petition, asked that its boundaries should be extended westward beyond the limit which was then under the jurisdiction of the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, and that legislature protested, and protested vigorously, against its territory being encroached on, and any portion of it being given to the province of Manitoba. Later on it also protested against any part of the territory north of the boundary of the province of Manitoba being given to that province. Under these circumstances we thought it advisable-and I think everybody will agree that it was a wise step- that we should have a conference of the three provinces interested-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario-to discuss the question. That conference took place, if I remember rightly, in the fall of 1906, unfortunately, we could come to no agreement. I may state what took place, because it is a matter of history. The province of Saskatchewan asked that its boundary should be extended north of the present boundary of Manitoba to the shore of Hudson bay. The federal government, after giving the matter due consideration, could not come to such conclusion. We thought that according to the geographical condition of the country the territory north of the present boundary of Manitoba should be given to Manitoba itself. Upon this ground we set aside the claim of Saskatchewan, and we gave to Manitoba what Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
it asked for in that part of the territory. At the same time we could not agree to extend the territory of Manitoba westward further than its present boundaries. Then we came to the question of the claim of Manitoba eastward. The claim of Manitoba eastward was that the boundary of the present province should be extended north to the present boundary of Ontario, north of the Albany river up to a line drawn from the confluence of the Missis-sipi and Ohio rivers, which would bring the province of Manitoba into the vicinity of Fort William at the head of Lake Superior. The province of Ontario asked that the present boundaries of Ontario should be extended to the waters of the Churchill river, and that the Churchill river should be the boundary between Manitoba and Ontario. After giving this matter the best consideration we could, and with no other object than to do substantial justice to all the parties interested


Samuel Hughes: The hon. the Prime Minister does not mean that the Churchill river was to be the boundary between Manitoba and Ontario?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not in error. My hon. friend may smile, but he has only to look at the proceedings to see that the claim put forward by Sir James Whitney was that the province of Ontario should be extended westward to the waters of the Churchill river, and that the Churchill river should be the boundary between Ontario and Manitoba. We could not agree to this. We thought the pretensions of the province of Ontario on that point were exaggerated. On the other hand, we thought that the pretensions of the province of Manitoba were exaggerated also in asking that their boundary should be extended to the vicinity of Lake Superior, and we brought a resolution before the House which is recited in the resolution my hon. friend has quoted, extending the boundary of the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario, the present boundaries at least, forward to the 88th and 89th degree of longitude on the shores of Hudson bay.
'The Northern boundary to be the 60th parallel of latitude; the western boundary to be the present eastern boundary line of the province of Saskatchewan to the 60th parallel; the eastern boundary to be the present eastern boundary so far north as the north east corner of the province, thence on a straight line to the point where the 89th meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson bay.'
This proposed line seemed to meet with the fair judgment of the members of this House and was adopted by the unanimous resolution of it. Then the question arose as to how far the territory of Manitoba was to be extended, as it was to be given

the administration of a larger area than it had at that time. It was fair and reasonable as we thought that the province of Manitoba should be given for that purpose, for the civil administration of that territory added to its present territory, fair compensation. We were not prepared to say what should be the amount of that compensation, but the resolution went on to say upon this point that the compensation should be determined as follows:
That whereas notwithstanding the extension of territory above described the ungranted lands of the Crown in the territory so to be added to the said province will still continue to be administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of the Dominion; and the said province will not have the publio land as a source of revenue.
It is just and equitable to recognize the increased cost of civil government which such extension of territory will occasion to the province, and in view of the premises, to make to the said province an increased allowance by money payment, the amount of which should be the subject of negotiation between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba.
This resolution therefore affirms one thing, that for the civil administration of the new territory which was to be given to the province of Manitoba as an extension of Manitoba, and as the public lands in ihs territories did not belong to the province but to the Dominion, we should give it a money compensation and that this being determined as a principle that amount should be determined by negotiation between the two governments, that is to say the government of the Dominion and the government of Manitoba. This was in the month of July, 1908. In the following month of February I wrote in these terms to Mr. Roblin, the Premier of Manitoba:
Ottawa, 26th February, 1909. Dear Mr. Roblin:-
I have the honour to inclose the draft of a Bill for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. This Bill is on the line of the resolutions adopted by the House of Commons at the last session. The amount of the allowance to be paid to the province in lieu of lands, has been left in blank. According to aforesaid resolution of the House of Commons, this amount should be fixed by negotiation between the Dominion government and the government of the province.
We will be happy to confer with you at any time that may be convenient to yourself and to your government.
Tours respectfully, WILFRID LAURIER.
The Hon. Mr. Roblin,
Prime Minister's Office,
Winnipeg, Man.
The Bill which was inclosed as a draft Bill was on these lines:
An Act to provide for the increase of the limits of the province of Manitoba.
Whereas a petition has been presented to the House of Commons on behalf of the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba praying, amongst other things, for an extension of the boundaries of that province northward and eastward and for an additional subsidy to the province in lieu of the ownership of publio lands in the territory to be added to the province by such extension, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of such petition to the extent and in the manner provided in the enactments hereinafter contained; therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
1.	Upon the legislature of the province of Manitoba consenting thereto, the limits of the said province shall be increased so that the northern boundaries of the province shall be the 60th parallel of north latitude; the western boundary shall be the present eastern boundary of the province of Saskatchewan; the eastern boundary shall be the present eastern boundary of the province to the northeast corner thereof, thence in a straight line to the most easterly point of the Island lake, and thence in a straight line to the point where the 89th meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson bay, thence following the said shore line to its intersection with the 60th parallel.
2.	And whereas in accordance with the provisions of the Act establishing the province of Manitoba the ungranted lands of the Crown in the territory so to be added to the said province will continue to be administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, and the province will not have such lands as a source. of revenue, it is further enacted that there shall be paid by Canada to the province an increased allowance by money payment to an amount to be agreed upon between the government of Canada and the government of the province.
3.	The increase of limits hereunder shall take effect upon the date to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
Having by the letter which I have just read inclosing this draft Bill to Mr. Roblin, invited a conference between his government and the Dominion government, the conference took place here some time in the spring of 1909. I should say before I go further, that this conference was attended on behalf of the government of Manitoba not by Mr. Roblin, who unfortunately wae away in poor health, as I understand, but by Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell, Mr. Rogers, the Minister of Public Works and Mr. Campbell, the Attorney General. My hon. friend has read a report which was made after the conference by Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell to their government. I have only this to observe to my hon. friend on this point at the present time. A conference took place between the government, represented by myself, and on the first day, by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and on the second day by my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, with the two gentlemen I have just named, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell.

We separated 'without effecting anything, but they gave a report of the proceedings of what they conceived to be the proceedings, to their government.
I have only this to observe to my hon. friend on this report: It is customary-and everybody will agree that there is no necessity for defending the practice-when a conference has taken place between two parties, that a common report should be made so that, if there is a difference of opinion, that difference of opinion can be settled then and there, and, if it is not possible to agree upon an identical statement, each party can state its own version. I never heard of the report being made by Messrs. Rogers and Campbell until 1 saw it in print. Perhaps I shall not surprise my hon. friend if I state that Messrs. Rogers and Campbell had told us at the end of the conference that, as we had not agreed, each should prepare a report for our respective governments, I would have agreed to that. We might, or we might not have agreed upon the report; we might or we might not have differed upon the facts; but, at all events, I think it would have been only fair, since Messrs. Rogers and Campbell intended to make a report that they should ask us whether we thought it was advisable to make a report or not. In the report made by Messrs. Rogers and Campbell to their government, it was stated that I had offered, as compensation to the government of Manitoba, for administering justice and the civil requirements of that community, the sum of $10,000. When my attention was drawn to this I refused to discuss the statement; I refused to take it seriously. Whatever may1 be the opinion of my views held by hon. members on the other side, or by hon. members on this side, I think that all will give me credit for some common sense-I should expect that at all events. Messrs. Rogers and Campbell state in the report, as read by my hon. friend in the House, that they thought this offer was ridiculous. I would agree with them-such an offer would have been ridiculous. I have nothing more to say. The fact is, we never came to any conclusion, no offer was made on one side or the other. After the report had been made, my attention was called to this question by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) who asked me last session if it was our intention to introduce a Bill to extend the limits of Manitoba. To that question I gave the answer read by my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. A. Hag-gart) that we were not in a position to bring in a Bill until we had agreed upon the financial terms, and no agreement had been reached. Thereupon, Mr. Roblin wrote to me on the subject. My hon.


Wilfrid Laurier: friend (Mr. A. Haggart) stated in his opening remarks that he intended to give a complete history of the negotiations on this question, but he has omitted to give this letter of Mr. Roblin's and my answer to it. I think hon. members will agree with me that the history of these negotiations is not complete without that correspondence. Mr. Roblin's letter to me was as follows :
Province of Manitoba,
Premier's Office, Winnipeg, Nov. 19, 1909. Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, K.C.M.G., First Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-My attention was called to the press despatches in the morning papers, reporting your remarks in reply to an inquiry from Dr. Roche, member for Marquette, regarding extension of the boundaries of Manitoba.
I am disposed to think that you are misquoted, as the despatch says as follows:-
On February 26 last, the Prime Minister sent to the government of Manitoba for their consideration a Bill to increase the boundaries of Manitoba as outlined in the said resolution, and until the government and legislature of Manitoba have signified their acceptance of these boundaries, and until the Dominion government and the provincial government had come to an understanding as to the financial conditions consequent thereon, the government has no authority to introduce any legislation to give effect to the above resolution.
If you are correctly reported, you must have forgotten that representatives from the province consisting of Messrs. Rogers and Campbell waited on you at your request as stated and agreed to the boundary extensions as proposed by your government.
As to the financial consideration, you intimated, according to their report, that $10,000 would be adequate for the additional responsibilities assumed by said extension of boundaries.
Permit me to call to your attention that what we ask for in so far as financial consideration is concerned, is embodied in our memorial of 1908 in which we ask, the area now having been agreed to, for equality in finance with our sister provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Again permit me to say that you also have the memorial from the legislature of 1909, which left here on the 10th of March last, in which we repeated that we request the same financial terms as those allowed to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
We cannot accept (and I do not think you could have been serious when you suggested it) $10,000 as compared to what our claim is based upon-equality with Saskatchewan and Alberta.
You further say that you cannot take any action until an agreement is reached between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba. In this you surely are misquoted; because you cannot be unaware of chapter 12 of the Revised Statutes of Manitoba, Vol. I., which reads as follows:-

Further Enlargement.
Section 4. The legislature of Manitoba agrees and consents that the bounds of the province may be increased and enlarged to such an extent as shall be enacted by the parliament of Canada, and on such terms and conditions as to the effect of such increase of territory with regard to an increase of subsidy granted to the said province and with regard to other purposes and subjects as may be provided by the said parliament of Canada:	.
Provided always that such increase of territory shall not take effect until such terms and conditions have been approved by the legislature of Manitoba.
From this, therefore, you will please note that special provision has been made by the province of Manitoba, enabling the parliament of Canada to enlarge the boundaries upon any terms and conditions that in their wisdom may appear just and proper; with the proviso that it shall not go into effect until it has been approved by the legislature of Manitoba. Therefore, you will see that you are at liberty to pass any Bill with any terms and conditions that you choose, and then it will be for the legislature of this province to decide whether it will be accepted or otherwise.
If you are correctly reported, I would suggest that you correct the statement; because I presume the members from the other provinces who have not studied the question are not familiar with the statute (chapter 12, Consolidated Statutes of Manitoba) which provides for parliament to make any extension of boundaries upon any terms and conditions they choose, subject to the approval of the legislature of the province.
I think it well that the law and the facts should be placed fairly before parliament, and then there can be no ground for complaint from any of the parties to the negotiations. "
With assurances of my personal regard, Yours very respectfully,



[Stage Direction]
My reply to this letter was as follows:
Ottawa, 30th November, 1909. Dear Mr. Roblin,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant.	_
I am surprised that you should think that the answer which I gave to the inquiry of Doctor Roche was not correctly transmitted in the press despatches. The report was quite accurate and indeed the existing conditions of things did not admit of any other answer.	.
You assert that we have sufficient authority to legislate in chapter 12 of the revised statutes of Manitoba, wherein it is enacted that the legislature of Manitoba agree and consents that the bounds of the province may be increased and enlarged to such an extent as shall be enacted by the parliament of Canada, and on such terms and conditions as to the effect of such increase of territory with regard to an increase of subsidy granted to the said province and with regard to other purposes and subjects, as may be provided by the said parliament of Canada.
The authority would have been quite sufficient for immediate action to be taken, if your statute had stopped there, but the enactment is mullified by the provision which immediately follows that such increase of territory shall not take effect until terms and conditions have been approved by the legislature of Manitoba.
In other words, you tell us that we may ask parliament to legislate, but you reserve to yourself the right to object to such legislation.
I have only to observe that the above mentioned statute does not give us any power to deal with the question that we had not before, and that does not by a single step advance the solution.
I have further to observe that it cannot be seriously contemplated to ask parliament to enact legislation which would not be final, and which might be thrown aside as unsatisfactory by the province of Manitoba.
Everybody who will dispassionately review the situation must agree that, as I stated in answer to the inquiry of Doctor Roche, we are not in a position to act until the Dominion government and the provincial government have come to an understanding.
In one respect your letter is quite satisfactory. You therein assert that our conference with Messrs. Rogers and Campbell,
' they agreed to the boundary extensions as proposed' by us. My colleagues and I had not understood that they had so asserted. We are glad to learn that such indeed was their intention. This point may therefore be now considered as settled.
There remains to agree upon the financial conditions, and we are ready as we have always been to discuss these terms within the lines of the resolution of the House of Commons. As to the report of Messrs. Rogers and Campbell that on this question I intimated that $10,000 would be adequate for the responsibilities assumed in consequence of the extension of your boundaries, I hope I will not be taxed with discourtesy if I do not think the report can have been made seriously.
Believe me, dear Mr. Roblin,
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER. The Hon. R. P. Roblin,
Premier's Office,
Winnipeg, Man.
To this I received the following reply; ' Winnipeg, 9th December, 1909. My Dear Sir Wilfrid:-
I returned this morning from a trip to Toronto and found your favour of the 30th ultimo on my desk. I have read the same very carefully and hasten to reply.
I shall not attempt to conceal my astonishment at the position you take in it as well as your understanding of the conference held between yourself and Mr. Fielding, representing the Federal government, and Messrs. Rogers and Campbell, representing the government of this province, regarding the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba.
The ministers from this province made an official report of the conference to the executive council under date of April 14, 1909, in which they advised that they had accepted the delimitation of boundaries as proposed by your resolution in the Commons, although
[Stage Direction]
satisfied that both in law and equity we were , entitled to what the legislature of the province had set out in its memorial.
They further say in said report that you only offered $10,000 as financial consideration for the lands, timber, minerals, etc., covered by such extension. Tour intimation that you did not so understand it appears extraordinary to me in view not only of the official report aforementioned but the newspaper announcements made at the time. The Toronto ' Globe' of March 20 contained a statement which appears to me to be an authoritative and inspired one from your point of view. I may say that every other newspaper in Canada that made any reference to the matter, published a similar report.
The ' Globe ' article reads as follows:- 'Ottawa, 19th March-Hon. Robert Rogers and Hon. Colin Campbell, who have been in the_ capital for the past week to press the claims of Manitoba in connection with the proposed extension of the provincial boundaries, had an interview wdth Sir Wilfrid Laurier to-day, who had sufficiently recovered from his illness of last week to again be at his office. The proposed terms of the Dominion government's Bill to extend boundaries were discussed. In respect to the question of the division of territory in the district of Ivee-watin between the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, the Manitoba ministers stated that they would accept under protest the boundary line as defined by the resolution of last session.
It was pointed out by Sir Wilfrid that this allocation of the territory in question had been considered as satisfactory by the Manitoba members last session, and to give Manitoba any greater proportion of the territory to be divided would certainly be resisted by Ontario. With respect, therefore, to the territorial division, the Manitoba government is now willing to abide by the terms of the resolution.
The chief issue now is as to the financial terms, and the Roblin Ministry i9 evidently holding out for the full measure of the demand made for the additional cash subsidy, similar to that given to Saskatchewan and Alberta, in lieu of the withholding of the Dominion lands in these provinces.
I regret that your recollection of the matter is different from the facts as reported both officially and in the public press at that time. Also permit me to say that your recollection of the financial matters discussed is equally at variance with the published fact and the report made by Messrs. Rogers and Campbell to the executive council in April last.
Their statement was that you offered $10,000, which they positively declined to entertain, but pressed for an offer which they could submit as an alternative to the legislature for their demand of equality with Alberta and Saskatchewan. You declined, so they report, to amend your original offer of $10,000 and when they suggested placing Manitoba in the same position as Ontario in relation to public lands, you also declined to consider that.
A moment ago I used the words 'authoritative and inspired ' for the reason that Messrs. Rogers and Campbell informed me that Senator Jaffra.v was seated in your secretary's room when they arrived for the a Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
conference of the 23rd of March and remained there until the conference was concluded when he immediately entered your office after Messrs. Rogers and Campbell withdrew. The next morning, the 24th, the ' Globe,' owned by the Senator, contained the following, and which agrees absolutely with the official report of Messrs. Rogers and Campbell:
Special despatch to the 'Globe.'
'Ottawa, 23rd March-The Manitoba Ministers, Hon. Messrs. Rogers and Campbell, had another interview with Sir Wilfrid Laurier to-day, relative to the province's demands for better financial terms in connection with the proposed extension of the provincial boundaries. Sir Wilfrid said the government could not agree to Manitoba's request for an extra cash subsidy similar to that given Alberta and Saskatchewan, and that the bargain made when Manitoba entered confederation, with reference to the ownership of the Crown Lands, should not now be revised. Manitoba, Sir Wilfrid maintained, could not, after the lapse of so many year9, be considered as being on the same "footing as the new provinces just starting in to administer vast territories, with all the incidental expense of organization, to maintain law and order, build roads, etc. But in lieu of granting Manitoba the ownership of the Crown Lands in the territory to be annexed to the province, he said the government was willing to allow an annual cash subsidy sufficient to cover the cost of administration of the new territory, At present the enforcement of law and order in the portion of Keewatin to be allocated to Manitoba only costs about $1,500 per year. It is understood the Dominion government is willing to make an annual grant of $10,000 or any reasonable amount necessary to cover all expense to the province in this connection. The Manitoba Ministers are, however, still disatisfied with the government's terms, and are holding out for the full measure of their demands for an annual cash subsidy as set forth, in the memorial presented to the Federal government last year. They ar© evidently desirous of keeping their grievance for campaign purposes when the Roblin government next appeals to the electors.
In view of the refusal of Manitoba to accept the terms offered by the government, it is
practically certain that there will be no Bill brought down this session to extend the provincial boundaries.
Hon. Messrs. Rogers and Campbell left tonight for Winnipeg.
I can understand how in the multitude of cares incident to your office, details such as these could have escaped you; but presume that your mind, freshened with these records, will enable you to recall all the circumstances and facts as they occurred.
However, be that as it may be, the fact remains that -we have received nothing that we can submit to the legislature in the way of financial terms. The power and authority to initiate is vested in you and the commons.
The legislature asked in their memorial for certain area and certain terms; you said 'No' to our area, but moved a resolution outlining certain other boundaries. We have accepted your alternative in boundaries, subject to legislative approval, and ask you to bring Resolution regarding terms, to the Com-

mons on the same authority as you did the one regarding area.
We respectively press for this for the reason that the legislature of this province meets in a few weeks, and I desire in the public interest to submit to it a complete proposition. There is no reason, so far as I know, why you should not do this and thus place the responsibility of accepting or rejecting the proposition on the legislature which is the final arbiter in the matter. You assumed the responsibility for determining the area; I assume you will have no hesitation in taking similar action respecting the financial terms.
I think you will agree with me, the province of Manitoba is suffering from the delay and, therefore, it is in the public interest desirable that a complete, final and satisfactory conclusion be reached not later than the approaching session of the provincial legislature.
In conclusion, allow me to summarize as follows: Manitoba has stated what she desires, both as to area and terms. You have offered us an alternative of area, which was accepted by our delegates; but nothing (I consider $10,000 nothing) as to terms. We respectively ask you to accede to our proposals or make an alternative offer. I shall await your action with considerable anxiety.
With assurances of my personal regards and wishing you the compliments of the season,
Yours very respectfully,
(Sgd.) R. P. ROBLIN.
The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa.
In reply, I wrote to Mr. Roblin as follows :	I
Ottawa, 27th December, 1909.
Dear Mr. Roblin,

In reply to yours of the 9th instant, I have only to observe that I persist in believing that the report that we offered at a conference with Messrs. Rogers and Campbell $10,000 for the financial terms to be granted to Manitoba, cannot be taken seriously.
You will pardon me if I will not take part in a discussion of the inference which you desire to be drawn from the fact that Senator Jaffray was in my office when Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell came to the conference and was still there after the conference was over. The suggestion that there was a breach of confidence somewhere is one which might be averted between honourable men and, moreover, if the inference is to be drawn, it might be placed on other shoulders, for if you look at the newspapers at the 6ame date as the ' Globe ' you will find that the item was in most of the eastern papers.
You suggest that we bring in a resolution in the House of Commons fixing such financial terms as to us may seem advisable, leaving them to be afterwards accepted or rejected by the legislature of Manitoba. The same suggestion was made by you in your previous communication. I still believe that in my answer I conclusively showed that such a course would be unwise and impracticable.
I have only to add that we are ready to reopen negotiations, with the full assurance on
our part that we are anxious to meet Manitoba in a fair and generous spirit.
With my best wishes for the coming year,
Believe me, dear Mr. Roblin,
Yours very sincerely,
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER. The Hon. R. P. Roblin,
Premier's Office,
Winnipeg, Man.
The House is now in possession of all the facts. I shall resume them in a few words. In 1908 this House passed a resolution fixing the western boundary, the northern boundary, and the eastern boundary of Manitoba. By so doing we had to deal with the respective pretensions of Ontario on one side and Saskatchewan on the other side. The pretensions of the province of Saskatchewan we ignored altogether, we could not accept them. The pretensions of Ontario we ignored in part, but we had to take action and we believe that the boundaries which we proposed were fair to Manitoba, fair to Saskatchewan and fair to Ontario, and I am glad to say that at the present time the province of Manitoba at all events thinks them fair and is disposed to accept them.
Then there was the consideration of the financial terms to be granted to Manitoba. I was impressed a moment ago by the statement made by my hon. friend that the province of Manitoba came here asking simply for justice. I am disposed to treat Manitoba in no other spirit. Manitoba has a fair claim to make, and we are disposed to meet that claim. The question is what is fair in this matter. We disputed first of all with Manitoba as to the extent of the claim which she presented, and which she wanted to have accepted. Now, I believe that my hon. friend himself who has presented this motion to the House must agree, must admit that the claim put forward by the province of Manitoba with regard to territory, when she wanted to infringe upon the territory of Saskatchewan, was not fair. I think he will agree also that when the claim of the province of Manitoba went so far as to seek to have its eastern boundary in the vicinity of the head of Lake Superior, that too was not fair. But we determined to do the best that could be done for the province of Manitoba, and I think on the whole we can invite the judgment of friend or foe that the territory which we offered to Manitoba was as much as we could do for her.
There was another question to be considered. The province of Manitoba was given a territory. The lands which are now in that new territory which is to be added to Manitoba cannot belong to Manitoba under the constitution which was given to Manitoba. Here is section * 30 of the Act of Manitoba;
All ungranted or waste lands in the province shall he from and after the date of the
[Stage Direction]
said transfer vested in the Crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of the Dominion, subject to and except in so far as the same may be affected by the conditions and stipulations contained in the agreement for the surrender of Rupert's Land by the Hudson Bay Company to Her Majesty.
When Manitoba was taken into the family of the confederation, the family of provinces, the parliament of that day decreed that the lands should belong not to Manitoba, but to the Dominion. My hon. friend (Mr. A. Haggart) stated in the course of his observations that Manitoba had been discriminated against and he wanted Manitoba not to be discriminated against or penalized. I have to say to my hon. friend, if Manitoba has been discriminated against, if Manitoba nasj been penalized, who has discriminated against Manitoba? Is it this government?
William Henry Sharpe: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes? What government was in power when this Act was passed? It was not the Laurier government, it was not the Mackenzie government, it was the Macdonald government.


Mr. MOLLOY.: A Tory government.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Tory government of 1869. That was the government which imposed these terms on Manitoba. My hon. friend may say we have given terms, to Saskatchewan and Alberta. When, Sir, we gave terms to Saskatchewan and Alberta which appeared to be just and fair to every member in this House-


Mr. LAKE.: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: If Sir, the terms were not fair and just that is the first intimation I have had of it. I maintain that the terms which we offered in 1905 in respect the money compensation were fair in the judgment of every member in this House. There were men who contended that Saskatchewan and Alberta .should be given lands. That is another matter. So far as the terms were given they seemed to everybody to be fair and just. But my hon. friend says: But these terms are in excess of what is given to Manitoba. I shall come to that presently. The question we have now to deal with is this: What are we to do to give satisfaction to Manitoba? What are we to do to give to that province the extension of its limits for which it asks? In 1908 we passed a resolution offering them certain limits. I understand now that Manitoba has accepted those limits. We passed a further resolution that Manitoba should be given a money compensation to carry on the civil government. That has been agreed to by every member in this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: The amount of the compensation was left to be determined by negotiation between the two governments. We could not agree. There was a conference, and I do not put any blame upon this person or that in connection with it. We could not agree. Then, what are we going to do? The government of Manitoba say to us: Bring in a Bill, such as you have in your mind, and we will accept it or reject it.


Alexander Haggart: A resolution, is it not?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, a Bill. Mr. Roblin asked us to bring in a Bill. Here is the last letter which he wrote upon the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: Resolution in the last letter.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad that I have stated the position correctly. Or they ask that they be given the same terms as were given to Alberta and Saskatchewan; in other words, what is asked by our friends on the other side of the House is not only that they be given an addition to their territory, but that the financial terms upon which Manitoba was organized in 1869 should be absolutely and completely revised and that new terms should be given to them altogether. They do not ask simply that they should have the lands in the new territory, but that the whole terms of confederation, under which they have been in this Dominion for forty years, should be revised and that new conditions altogether should be made. Is that reasonable? Here is the province of Manitoba asking, and I think asking with good cause, to have their territory extended. Well, then you and I, in the simplicity of our souls, would suppose that they would ask for the land in that territory. No, they are not content to ask us to give them the land in the territory, but they say that we should revise our whole policy of the last forty years of keeping the control of the lands in the hands of this Dominion, set that policy aside and give to Manitoba the lands, not only in the new territory, but in the whole province. That is the position taken by Manitoba, is it not? I ask if there is, for such a position, any ground that can be taken upon this request for new territory. If the province of Manitoba is entitled to have the land of the whole province vested in the government of Manitoba it is not in consequence of this demand for new territory. It must be done, whether the territory is extended or not, but I submit that it is simply absurd to pretend that as a consequence of the extension of the territory of Manitoba the land should he given to the province, not in the new territory alone, but in the whole territory of the province. I can understand that the province of Manitoba has a good case when it says: If you give us new territory give us the means of administering it. We are prepared to do that, and that is what we did under the resolution of 1908, but Manitoba says: No, we will not do that; the parliament of Canada was wrong in 1869. When the government of Sir John Macdonald incorporated the province of Manitoba and brought it into the Dominion, parliament u'as wrong in keeping to the Dominion the lands of Manitoba. That is altogether another proposition, and that is a proposition that for my part, I say it to our friends, and I say it to our foes on the other side, to the members from Ontario, from Saskatchewan, from Quebec, and from all the provinces, that we are not prepared to reverse the policy which was adopted in 1869 by the government of Sir John Macdonald, and which has been followed ever since by all successive governments. Now, Sir, I am prepared to meet my hon. friend upon this, that Manitoba is entitled to compensation either in land or money in the new territory which is to he annexed, and the amount of compensation must be such as will give Manitoba the facilities and the means of administering that new territory. I am prepared to meet them upon this, and that is the reason we are asking for a new negotiation of these terms, because if Messrs. Roblin, Rogers and Campbell ask us-I will not discuss what took place in the conference-but if they ask that we should revise the whole terms of Manitoba, not only with respect to the territory to be annexed, but with respect to the whole province nobody should be sur-

prised if we could not agree, but I hope that in a new conference, Mr. Roblin and his ministers will understand that we are to deal with new territory and nothing else.
My hon. friend, in his resolution, also asks that we shall not only give to Manitoba the lands in the whole province, but; that we shall give to Manitoba the terms, that we have given to Alberta and Saskat-, chewan. That is to say, that we should revise the financial terms which have been given to Manitoba. Well, Sir, I have only to observe that these financial terms have been revised again and again and again; they have been revised four or five times already. The last time they were revised was in 1907, by a resolution adopted by this House on the 25th of March of that year, and since embodied in an imperial statute which has fixed for all time the terms andj conditions and financial arrangements which are to exist between the government of the Dominion and the provincial governments. The resolution which was passed in this House on the 25th of March, 1907, was in the form of a petition to His Majesty the King, asking that the financial terms which had been fixed at confederation for the provinces, should be revised for Manitoba as well as for all the other provinces; and Tevised they were. The petition went on to say:
Me pray that your Majesty may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the imperial parliament at its present eesswn, repealing the provisions of section lls ot the British North America Act, 1867, aforesaid, and substituting therefor the scale ol payments above set forth, which shall be a hnal and unalterable settlement of the amounts to be paid yearly to the several provinces of the Dominion for their local purposes and the support of their governments and legislatures.
This House so determined in 1907, and it is embodied in an imperial statute, and forms the law and the constitution at the present time. As far as that goes, to me it is final. But again, I repeat, as far as new territory is concerned which may be added to the province of Manitoba, it is fair and reasonable that compensation should be made to the province, either in land or money, to enable it to administer civil government for that territory, and that territory alone; and if my hon. friend with his friends come to Ottawa and have a new conference with ns on this question, we are ready to meet them; and if it is our good fortune to come to a satisfactory agreement, we shall be only too happy to introduce legislation to give effect to the result of the negotiations which may take place between us. But, in the meantime, I do not see how my hon. friend can expect such a resolution as he has moved to be adopted hv parliament when the whole


Wilfrid Laurier: matter is still open and we are still waiting for the answer of the Manitoba government.


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister found some fault with the mode in which this matter has been introduced to the House by the hon. member for Winnipeg. Resolutions in amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply have frequently been accepted by the government. I have within my reach a dozen cases, within the last dozen years, in which the government has accepted such amendments, not only from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, but from hon. gentlemen on this side of the' House as well. Therefore, the only question is whether or not the proposal presented to this House by the hon. member for Winnipeg is a just and reasonable proposal, one which the government ought to accept, having regard to the just rights of1 the province of Manitoba. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has gone over a great deal of ancient history in the somewhat lengthy and discursive remarks which he has addressed to the House. I am not going over the question of the delimitation of the boundaries. It wa3 not necessary that the Prime Minister should go over that question at all. That question has been settled and determined. The government of Canada made a certain proposal by resolution presented to this parliament, and afterwards, if I remember correctly, embodied in an Act passed by this parliament. The province of Manitoba had madS its proposal to which the Prime Minister has alluded. The province of Manitoba, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of this question, which had been delayed by the inaction of this government for so many years, yielded a portion of its claims and accepted the limited extension of its boundaries proposed to this parliament by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. In that Tegard, I would like to make one observation and ask one question of hon. gentlemen in this House. The Prime Minister has taken strong ground upon the position that it is not a proper course_ for the government to present the financial terms to parliament by resolution, and then forward them to the government of Manitoba for its acceptance or rejection. I would like to ask any man in this House possessing ordinarv reasoning faculties to tell me what the difference is between presenting the boundaries to parliament by resolution and then leaving them to be accepted or rejected bv the legislature of Manitoba, on the one hand, and_ on the other hand, presenting the financial terms to parliament by resolution, and then leaving them to be accepted or rejected by the legislature of Manitoba? If there is any reasonable difference of

principle between the two courses, I will be glad to take my seat and let the Prime Minister explain what it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: The difference is very obvious. There was a dispute between Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan as to what should be the limits. We had a conference on the subject, and we had to decide on our best judgment, since they could not agree.


Robert Laird Borden: There it is in a'nutshell. Because there was a disagreement between this government and the government of Manitoba in respect of the boundaries, because the government of Manitoba insisted upon certain territory which this government thought should go to Ontario and to Saskatchewan, the government brought its proposals by resolution into parliament and passed it. There is an exactly similar difference of opinion between this government and the government of Manitoba with regard to the financial terms. Why, then, should not the government of Canada follow exactly the same course-bring in its proposals, have them embodied in a resolution of parliament, and then leave them to be accepted or -rejected? There is no difference between the two positions.
But I would like to submit two or three further considerations to my right hon. friend. As I understand him, he takes the ground that conference No. 1, having absolutely failed, that conference No. 2, having absolutely failed, the government of Manitoba, having made a distinct and plain, and as it seems to me a reasonable proposition to this government, a further conference should be had without this government making any reply whatever to the proposals of the government of Manitoba. Indeed, my right hon. friend was so carried away by his imagination at the close of his remarks as to say that he was waiting for a reply from the government of Manitoba, when only fifteen minutes before he had read a communication from the Prime Minister of Manitoba to which up to the present time this government has not, so far as I understand, made-any reply whatever. It is not the governs ment of Canada that is awaiting a reply from the government of Manitoba; it is 'he government of Manitoba that has been waiting for moTe than a year for a reply from the government of Canada to a most reasonable proposition made by the government of Manitoba to the right hon. gentleman at the conference alluded to. My right hon. friend has said that a certain report in the press of a Teport made by the delegates of the province of Manitoba to the government of Manitoba is so absolutely absurd that it cannot be taken seriously. In that criticism, my right hon.
friend involves more than the delegates of Manitoba. He involves in that criticism the able and intelligent correspondents of many Liberal newspapers in Canada, who took that report so seriously that they telegraphed it to all the great Liberal journals throughout this country, and did not regard the proposals as so supremely absurd as the right hon. gentleman would have us believe.


Wilfrid Laurier: It did not come from me.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting that it came from the right hon. gentleman. I accept his word unequivocally, but I would like to ask one queistion._ There was a question about the boundaries of Manitoba, and Manitoba gave way. It accepted the boundaries as proposed by this government. There was then I presume a discussion as to financial terms. We know that the government of Manitoba: made a proposal. Did the government of Canada make any proposal? Has it at any time up to the present made any proposal or offered any financial terms. I think that is a fair and reasonable question. My right hon. friend of course has a right to decline to answer it if he prefers.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is your question?


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend declares that he made no isuch proposal as that, namely, $10,000. Did he offer any sum whatever or make any proposal? .


Wilfrid Laurier: We made no offer whatever.	*


Robert Laird Borden: Has my right hon. friend arrived at any conclusion up to the present time as to what he is willing to offer?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.
Mr! R. L. BORDEN. Would it not be well, then, instead of imputing any blame to the government of Manitoba or passing any criticism upon the course it has taken to make up his mind as to the financial terms which he is willing to offer to the province of Manitoba? There is no need of any further conference. When he has made up his mind and consulted his colleagues and obtained their approval as to the financial terms which he is willing to offer to the province of Manitoba, all that he has to do is to go to his office and write a letter to the Prime Minister of Manitoba and say to him: These are the terms which the government of Canada are willing to offer to the province of Manitoba and we propose to submit them to the parliament of Canada for its approval. That is what the government of Manitoba is waiting for 1 in these negotiations at the present mo-

ment. The government of Manitoba has made up its mind as to the boundaries and has accepted the proposal of this government. It has made up its mind as to the financial terms. It has said:	We -will
take either one thing or the other. We will take either the treatment you have accorded to Saskatchewan and Alberta, or the treatment which has been accorded to Ontario and Quebec. We will take either the one or the other. The right hon. gentleman did not at the conference isay what he would do. He did not at the first conference say what he would do. He did not at the second conference say what he would do, and up to the present time he has not come to a conclusion as to what he will do, and up to the present time he has given no answer whatever to the proposal of Manitoba made to his government through him more than a year ago. That is the 'situation. This question has been hanging in the balance for years Why does not my right hon. friend arrive at a conclusion? The first essential step he must take for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion is to make up his mind as to what he is willing to recommend to this parliament as fair and reasonable and just treatment to the province of Manitoba. My right hon. friend has spoken of the giving up of the lands of Alberta or Saskatchewan or Manitoba to provincial administration as if it were some unheard of and terrible thing which would bring about calamity not only to the provinces in question, but to the Dominion as a whole. What is the position *of affairs? There are nine provinces in Canada to-day. * In six of those provinces the lands of the Crown are disposed of by the Crown according to the advice of the provincial ministers and under the authority of the provincial parliaments. In three of those provinces the lands of the Crown are disposed of upon the advice of the ministers of His Excellency the Governor Gem eral and upon the laws and by the author-lty of the laws enacted in this parliament, they are lands of the Crown in the one case as much as in the other, the onlv distinction being that in the disposal of those lands the Crown in the three cases 1	mentioned acts by the advice of
the government of Canada, the members of the cabinet of Canada, and in the six other cases the Crown acts by the advice of the provincial ministers. Is there any reason why the government of Manitoba snotnd not exercise the same wisdom and the same prudence and the same discretion in disposing of its public lands as the government of Ontario or the government' of Quebec? My right hon. friend says we' are asked to give up those lands. They are lands of the Crown in either the one case or the other,_ and the only question for consideration is as to the advice by which Mr. E. L. BORDEN.
those lands may be disposed of in the one case or the other. For my part as I have said in this parliament over and over again and on the public platforms of this country. I see no reason why the public lands of Alberta should not be dealt with by the provincial legislature of Alberta, I do not see why that course should not be taken in respect of Saskatchewan, and I see no reason why it sould not be pursued in respect of Manitoba.
I further say that the attitude of the provincial government of Manitoba in this matter seems eminently reasonable, because they say:	Do either the one thing
or the other, accord us the same treatment that you have accorded to Alberta or Saskatchewan on the one hand, put us in that class, or accord us the same treatment that you have accorded to the two other provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and put us in that class; but bring this to a conclusion, and bring it to a conclusion according in either one or the other way.
My right hon. friend has spoken of the antiquity of the arrangement under which the government of Canada administers the public lands of Manitoba, and Alberta, and Saskatchewan. It is perfectly true that in 1869 under the administeration of Sir John A. Macdonald, this arrangement was in the first instance made, but I have not the slightest doubt that if Sir John A. Macdonald had been alive and in com trol of the destinies of Canada during the past 12 or 14 years, the public lands of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan would have been handed over to the admin-stration of the provincial legislatures. Conditions to-day are not as they were in 1869. My right hon. friend knows we have made some advance and when he speaks of this matter having been settled in 1869, more than 40 years ago, I want him to remember that according to the very precedent which he stated only a little while ago, the financial terms which were settled at confederation between the government of Canada and the various provinces were entirely changed at the instance of his own government and after a conference with the provincial governments. Well, if that arrangement made at the time of confederation could be altered no longer ago than 1905 or 1906, what is there in the action of a Canadian government in 1869, that justifies my right hon. friend in regarding that as a law of the Medes and Persians one that is absolutely unalterable and final? He alludes to the fact that in the Act of the imperial parliament passed three or four years ago, by which that alteration in the subsidies was confirmed it was declared to be final and unalterable. But, he knows equally well that these words are vain and meaningless words. It would be an absolute absurdity for any parliament to say that an enactment passed by that parlia-

mant is final and unalterable. The same power that makes the enactment can repeal it. The imperial parliament to-morrow, if in session, could repeal the enactment which the right hon. gentleman has declared to be final and unalterable. 1 have assumed that the words alluded to are in the statute as finally passed, but my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) reminds me that these words were struck out of the body of the statute, but are, in
presented this matter to the House. I may venture also, I think, to say that his treatment of it was characterized by the utmost fairness and courtesy to the right, hon. Prime Minister and to every hon. gentleman who sits upon the government side.
House divided on amendment (Mr. A. Haggart).

the schedule.


Wilfrid Laurier: They never were introduced into the Bill. Our petition has been added as a schedule to th.->
Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what 1 say-they are not in the body of the statute, but they are in the schedule. As I understand it. the Bill as originally prepared included these words, but I think that Mr. Churchill, in presenting the Bill to the House of Commons, stated that they had been struck out for the very reason I have suggested.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) is in 'error. They were not in the Bill as presented to the House, but, at our request, they were put into the schedule.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has misunderstood me, if he understood me as saying that they were in the Bill as presented to the Imperial House of Commons. I say they were not in the Bill <as presented to the House of Commons, but they were in the Bill as presented to the imperial government. I understood that they were in the draft Bill as presented to the imperial government by this government for enactment by the imperial parliament. And my recollection of the debate, as I read it at the time, is that Mr. Churchill, under Secretary of State for the colonies, explained that they had been included in the draft Bill presented by this government to the imperial government, but, for the reason, I have alluded to, it was thought they should not be included in the Bill, though, as my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says, they were retained in the schedule-that is, in the peition presented by this parliament for the enactment of this legislation.
I have nothing more to say. I think that the amendment of my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. A. Haggart) points out a just and reasonable course to be pursued by this government and this parliament in dealing with the province of Manitoba in this respect. I think that the amendment ought to be supported. And, in concluding, I desire to congratulate my hon. friend from Winnipeg, on the remarkably clear and forceful way in which he has
Messieurs.
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Beattie,
Best,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Cowan,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Fraser,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Lanark), Hjaggart (Winnipeg) Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
ICidd,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Macdonnell,
McCall,
McCarthy,
Magrath,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Owen,
Per ley,
Rhodes,
Roche,
Sehaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thornton,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington, Wright.-63.

Messieurs.
Allard,
Allen,
Aylesworth, Beauparlant,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Borden (Sir Frederick),
Boyer,
Brown,
Carrier,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm
(Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness) Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Delisle,
Demers,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
MeCoig,
McColl,
MeCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Regina), Martin '(Wellington),
Mayrand,
Meig9,
Michaud,
.Miljer,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Pardee,

Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Girard,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Harris,
Harty,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
King,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Laurier (Sir Wilfrii Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Smith (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Dorchester), Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Sperry,
Talbot,
Tobin,
Todd,
, Tolmie,
Turcotte (Quebec County),
Verville,
War burton,
White (Victoria), Wilson (Laval).-102.
Messieurs.
Ministerial.
Fisher,
Brodeur,
Bureau,
Templeman,
Stratton,
Low,
Sinclair,
Gordon (Kent), Currie (Prince Edward),
Gervais,
Richards,
Robb,
Martin (St. Mary's), Car veil,
Black,
Conmee,
Devlin,
Loggie,
Smith (Stormont), Turriff,
McMillan,
Rivet,
Knowles,
Savoie.
Opposition.
Bristol,
Foster,
Forget,
Thoburn,
Gordon (Nipissing), Smyth,
Monk,
Osier,
Maddin,
Barnard,
Marshall,
Stewart,
Lortie,
Ames,
Clare,
Lewis,
Blondin,
Maclean,
Reid (Grenville), Porter,
Wilcox,
Price,
Russell,
I'o.quet.


Mr. J. A. LORTIE (Soulanges).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that I was paired with Mr. M. Martin, the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary.- Were it not for that, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.
voted. He did not hear the question put. I am informed that the hon. member for Queen's, P.E.I., did the same thing.


Mr. BUREAU.: I have heard and read the question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Bourinot says:
A member who has indistinctly heard the motion read may ask it to be read again, but the rule is that he should be in his place all the time, the question is being put in either French or English and he can only require it to be read again in case he did not hear it clearly on the first occasion in either language. If a question is raised after a division as to the right of a member to vote under the condition stated, the speaker will inquire if the honourable member was present in the House and heard the question put.
If the hon. member can answer to that question, yes, his vote is good.


Jacques Bureau: I stated that I heard and read the question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The question is simply: Did the hon. member hear the question put?


Jacques Bureau: I was not here when it was being read in English, or during the first part of the reading in French. I was here most of the time, and I sent for the question and read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Jacques Bureau: I am allowed to make my statement, whatever remarks you want to make you can make afterwards. I was not here when the Speaker began to read the question in French, but I sent for the question and read the whole of it. I think that puts me in a position to give as intelligent a vote as any other hon. member.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule according to Bourinot is that the member must hear the whole question put.


Mr. NEELY.: If a member hears it in either language?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Was the same point raised in connection with the member for Queens, P.E.I.?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Mr. PARDEE.: The hon. member for Durham (Mr. Thornton) is paired with the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman).


Mr. BARNARD.: I wish to withdraw my vote, as I was paired with the hon. member for St. James division, Montreal (Mr. Gervais).


George Taylor: The Solicitor General entered the chamber when you had reaa about half the motion in French, and he1 Mr. R. L. BORDEN.


George Taylor: No, it is Mr. Thoburn. On the paper I have it as Mr. Templeman and Mr. Thoburn.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

Guelph armouries, $2,250.
William Pugsley: My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is in his place, and will be able to give some additional information, if it is required, as to the necessity for the room which was erected over the gun-shed. I may first say that a request was made by the Department of Militia for this building on April 12, 1907, in the following communication :
To the Deputy Minister of Public Works.
Sir,-I have the honour to state that, if possible, this department would like to have an additional storey built over the gun shed which you are now constructing at Guelph, Ontario.
It is, therefore, requested that you will have your chief architect look into this question, with a view to making the portion over the gun shed into a drill room, and let me know if it is feasible under the present construction.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
EUG. FISET, Colonel.
Deputy Minister, Militia and Defence.
On the 12th March, 1908, the following letter was received:
Proposed additional story Guelph gun shed. Sir,-I have the honour to return, herewith, for action, the plans which you submitted to this department on the 30th January last, showing the proposed additional etory for the gun shed at Guelph.
These plans have been approved by this department with the addition of a doorway and steps between the Assembly Hall and passage on the first floor.
I shall be glad if you can have this small change carried into effect.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. F. JARVIS, Acting Deputy Minister. To the Deputy Minister,
Public Works Department,
Ottawa.


Mr. HENDERSON.: How much has the Guelph armoury cost the country to date?


William Pugsley: I gave that when the item was under consideration before. Up to November 30, 1909, the total amount expended was $142,464.
Niagara Falls armoury, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the erection of an armoury in Niagara Falls, which has been asked for by the Department of Militia. As hon. gentlemen know, Niagara Falls is right on the boundary, and it is desirable not only that 'an armoury should be erected there, but that it should be one of adequate dimensions for the accommodation of the militia.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is to commence the work, is it?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Mr. BLAIN.: What will be the total cost?	*


William Pugsley: 

Ottawa Government Printing Bureau, building for storing type and supplies, $7,500.


William Pugsley: This has been urged on our consideration for a very considerable time, and we have felt that the time has now arrived when it is necessary to provide for what is now asked. It is to erect a building to store type and supplies at the Printing Bureau.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be interesting to know how much printing we are paying for outside of the Printing Bureau.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend would not expect me to give the information upon this vote, because it is not in my department. If my memory serves me right a motion was made for a return by the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) and that'retum was brought down.


Richard Blain: Partially.
Ottawa departmental buildings-improvements in lavatories, plumbing, etc., $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the improvements that we are making in the buildings.


Mr. JAMESON.: Is an improvement going to be made in the ventilation?


William Pugsley: It is difficult to improve that. I think the ventilation is all right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In this room?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman thinks that the ventilation in this particular Chamber is all right he is very much in the minority amongst gentlemen in this House. I think it is the universal opinion that the ventilation of this Chamber is absolutely wretched. We work in other parts of the building, and we seem all right, but when we stay here for three or four hours at a time we get sick headaches. It has been that way for two or three years.


William Pugsley: We had experts here who looked into the question of ventilation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They did not stay here as long as we do.


William Pugsley: There are 200 of us in this Chamber, and there are at times a good many people in the galleries as well, and it is impossible to keep the atmosphere absolutely pure under these circumstances.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Thar is a different thing. If it is impossible to do it, that is one thing, but what I was protesting against was the statement, that it was all right. I want to register my opinion that it is not all right.


William Pugsley: I meant relatively.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We can work in the Railway Committee room, or in other parts of the building, and we seem to be all right, but when we remain in this Chamber for three or four hours we get headaches from the bad air that we are breathing. I think that is the case with nine-tenths of the members who stay in the House for a few hours at a time. It may be that there are so many of us in the Chamber that it is difficult for the hon. gentleman's engineers and architects to deal with the matter, but I think it ought to be possible to find a remedy, and if it is not we should get a larger chamber, because the conditions existing at the present time are injurious to our health.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To find the remedy we should know the cause. The minister says that his experts have examined the chamber, and that there is nothing wrong about the ventilation. I take it that it is all right when there is no person in it. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) says that when we work elsewhere we have no trouble from bad air, but that when we come into the House we are in trouble. It must be, if we are all right outside, and that there is no trouble but plenty of pure air in the Chamber when it is not occupied by the members, then it must be due to the fact that we are brought into contact with the government, and that they are responsible for the impurity of the air in it.


Samuel Hughes: This aitemoon there were nine on this side of the House and fifteen on the other sound asleep when the right hon. First Minister was talking, and I do not think that he exercised a very soporific influence on the House.


William Pugsley: That shows that the atmosphere was good.


Samuel Hughes: That shows that the atmosphere was bad, that it was soporific. I do not like to blame any official, but when this new wing was constructed in which room 89 is located, with the exception of a few holes for windows, there was no provision made for ventilation.


William Pugsley: Which is room 89?


Samuel Hughes: The hole where the Conservative party is stored. I presume that the other rooms in the building are the same. There is not the first attempt at ventilation. The rooms were constructed the same as they were a thousand and fifty years before the birth of Christ.


William Pugsley: 


David Henderson: It seems to me that the chief source of difficulty is the long hours that we put in in this chamber. We are required to meet here at eleven o'clock in the morning during the latter part of the session after perhaps spending an hour in committee, and we sit here until midnight with only a slight intermission, and there is very little opportunity for the engineers to ventilate the room. I think that is the great source of the trouble, and I am sure that we are making a terrible mistake in trying to overtake the business of the country in a shorter time at the expense of our health. I have realized that fact, and I am quite sure that others must have realized the same thing. To-day we have a motion to sit on Saturday. After sitting five days in the week we are now compelled to come back on Saturday at eleven o'clock, and put in time possibly until midnight. I think it is absolutely absurd, and that the government are making a mistake in asking members of this House to work such long hours in a room where there are 200 members and, as the Minister of Public Works has said, often full galleries consuming all the fresh air that can possibly be brought in by the fans or otherwise. We are certainly acting very indiscreetly in our own interests. I see no good purpose to be gained by it. We had better put in two weeks more, and save our health than rush through the session in a shorter period for the sake of getting home a little earlier.


Samuel Hughes: If the minister would take a trip to one or two of the public schools in Ottawa or go to any second-class town in the country and examine the schools there he would see proper systems of ventilation in use by which the air in a room can be changed in a minute or a minute and a half. To tell us that it is impossible to ventilate a building such as this is childish on the part of those who are advising the minister.


William Pugsley: I think it speaks rather well for the ventilation of this room that we are able to stay here, and feel so brisk.
I notice that on this side there is a very nice breeze circulating in the chamber.


Samuel Hughes: There is now, but there was not this afternoon when the First Minister was talking.


Clarence Jameson: I have been told by members who have been in the House for some years that in the last few sessions the ventilation has not been as good as it was previously. That may be due to the fact that the new wing has been opened, and that the system of ventilation has been interfered with by it. I do not think that the ventilation has been as good during the last two sessions as it was three or four vears ago.

Ottawa parliament grounds-driveway pavement, $21,000.


William Pugsley: This is around the parliament buildings. It is to complete the work of reconstructing the pavements. We had to make a new driveway by reason of the erection of the additional wing, and we have been replacing the old driveway.
Mr. SPROULE What kind of pavement is being put down?


William Pugsley: Bitulithic pavement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is it costing per yard??


William Pugsley: $1.90 per square yard.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is that not very high?


William Pugsley: The deputy minister informs me it is quite cheap; $2.50 was the lowest tender which we got.


Adam Brown Crosby: What concerns did you have tenders from?


William Pugsley: The different paving concerns.


Adam Brown Crosby: Cannot you give us the names?


William Pugsley: I have not them here. This was some time ago.


Adam Brown Crosby: But we should know who gave tenders, and from whom you asked tenders. I know something of the bitulithic paving, and we have as well paved streets in Halifax as you have in Ottawa, and they do not cost as much as $1.90 per yard. I understand this is the main street you are paving.


William Pugsley: No, round the parliament grounds. It has nothing to do with a street. I would be glad to give my hon. friend information as to the cost of similar work done in 1905. The lowest tenderers were the Warren Bituminous Paving Company, of Toronto. We paid them $2.25 per square yard.


Adam Brown Crosby: For paving round these parliament buildings?


William Pugsley: That was street paving on Wellington street.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister tell us what the thickness of this pavement is? I notice that it is very much broken up, whether by frost or not I do not know. Down in front of the buildings there are great cracks nearly an inch wide.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has in mind the sidewalk.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, the front of the building.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is mistaken, there are no cracks in it. The cracks are in the walk built some years ago 259J


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are right from the building to the steps.


William Pugsley: I have not noticed the-cracks.


Mr. RUSSELL.: Would the hon. minister tell us if it is his intention to tear up the driveway at present round the grounds and replace it with this bitulithic pavement? We have now what I consider a pretty fair macadam roadway, and in my opinion a good macadam roadway is better than a bitulithic pavement in a park system of driveway. They are not to be compared, and with the use of oil, these macadam roadways are far better for driving than either asphalt or bitulithic. I think that with very little expense the surface of the present driveways could be made almost perfect.


William Pugsley: If the hon. member will go down by the east block, he will see. the new pavement we have put in there. It is exceedingly good, and has excited very favourable comment, but alongside the west block there is no pavement. There is only an ordinary earth roadway, and we propose laying down this bitulithic pavement there and around the buildings wherever there is no pavement at present, or where it is worn out. I think it is all right for horses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has not told us the thickness.


William Pugsley: About 6 or 8 inches of concrete underneath and then li inches of asphalt on the top.


Richard Blain: Why does not the hon. minister ask for tenders for this work?


William Pugsley: We can do it more
cheaply by employing the men in our own department.


Richard Blain: Are you sure about that?


William Pugsley: Yes, that has been demonstrated.


Richard Blain: How does my hon. friend get round the Act?


William Pugsley: The Act expressly states that where, in the opinion of the minister, the work can be done more economically and better by day work, it can be done without calling for tenders. We have men in the employ of the department, and we have a foreman, of course, and we find it more economical to do this class of work under the direction of our own foreman and by employing labouring men by the day.


George Taylor: What Act does my hon. friend refer to?


William Pugsley: The Public Works Act.


Joseph Russell: I would like to ask the minister again if he is bound to put in

this bitulithic pavement? It's surface is so hard that it is like glass. I think if the minister were to consult the wishes of the horse-drivers and those who use public -driveways, he would find that a macadam -or gravel roadway would be preferred to any new form of pavement, and we have already a foundation for a good gravel road there.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that a great deal depends on whether the roadway is level or sloping. There is a great deal of wash on this hill, and it has been found impossible to keep an ordinary roadway in good condition. That is the reason why we are putting down the pavement. I have heard no complaint from horsemen from driving on the pavement which we have already constructed.


Joseph Russell: I will register a complaint now. There is only one means of safety in driving on a pavement of that kind, and that is by putting rubber boots on the horse. I know a good deal about the bitulithic pavement, and it has only one advantage that I can see, that is in regard to dust; but by sprinkling crude oil on macadamized roadways you can overcome the dust altogether and make a very satisfactory surface.


Mr. BRISTOL.: I entirely -concur in what the hon. -member for East Toronto says, and if the minister were to take the opinion of -men who have to drive, I think he would find that it is absolutely correct. In park systems, like that around Boston, where the roads are supposed to be the best in the world, you do not find such pavements, but you do find excellent macadamized roadways welL looked -after, and there is nothing better for a country like ours, with such extreme changes of temperature. A pavement such as we have here, if it becomes wet and suddenly freezes, is so slippery as to be dangerous to drive over, especially if it goes down hill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are hardly in a position to make a fair comparison as to the cost and quality of the pavement around this building with ordinary street pavements. The pavement on the -street i-s much deeper and ought to be more costly. If this pavement costs $1.90 a square yard and the street pavement costs from $2.25 to $2.50, I do not think there is much -evidence that -this costs less than the other, because this is lighter and is not so carefully put down. I believe that if a fair comparison were made, this would be found to be the dearer at the price stated.


George Taylor: I do not like to dispute the hon. minister's interpretation of the law, but I t-hink it is so plain that a laym-an can see that it provides, that any Mr. RUSSELL.
work costing more than $5,000 must be done by tender and contract.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong, and my interpretation is that put On the Act by the Auditor General. Even if the amount is over $5,000, if in the opinion of the minister from the nature of the work it can be done more expeditiously -and economically by day labour, it can be done in that way.


George Taylor: I know that the opinion always entertained by the ex-minister of railways was that no work costing more than $5,000 could be done by day labour, except when a dam broke away or something of that kind happened.


Mr PUGSLEY.: I think I satisfied the ex-minister of railways that my view of the law was correct, and I have received a memorandum from the Auditor General confirming my view.
Ottawa parliament building-cleaning, painting and redecorating interior of senate chamber, $15,000.


Mr PUGSLEY.: This has been urgently asked for by the Speaker and other members of the Senate, and more especially the Committee on Internal Economy of the Senate.


Richard Blain: Is it to be done by tender?


William Pugsley: I am not sure whether it can be done by tender ot not. It will mean the renovating of the paintings in the panels of the Senate chamber and other work of that character, which it is somewhat difficult to do by tender.
Ottawa public buildings, Langevin block- new boilers and alterations in heating apparatus, $10,000.


William Pugsley: The old boilers are worn out and it is necessary to replace them.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the department pay for the heating or is it done by contract?


William Pugsley: We buy our own fuel and have our own men.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What kind of fuel?


William Pugsley: Anthracite coal.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: About what price does the department have -to pay for it?


William Pugsley: We invite tenders for all the coal supplied for the different buildings.	-


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Can the hon gentleman tell the annual cost of heating the Langevin block?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell that. We could of course take the quantity of coal consumed and the wages paid to firemen

and labourers, and in that way get at the cost. This will come up later under the item for heating, and I will then have the information for my hon. friend as to the price paid for coal.
Ottawa fuel testing building, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is the balance required to pay for the building for testing peat fuel.
Parkhill public building-$10,0G0.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the payments.
Port Arthur armoury-revote of $10,000, lapsed, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is a new building which has been pressed upon our attention. An armoury is very much needed at Port Arthur. In addition to the armoury there will be a drill hall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will that cost?


William Pugsley: When I was at Port Arthur I discussed the character of the building which would be necessary with the officers of the militia. The city is growing very rapidly, and the military spirit is excellent, and I think we should give them a good armoury and drill hall. I do not imagine that we can do it for less than $75,000 to $100,000. If we give them a drill hall as well, it will probably run over $100,000.


Samuel Hughes: What about Fort William?


William Pugsley: There they said they would be willing to wait for a little. We had hoped that one building would do for the two cities, but owing to the considerable distance between them, there did not seem to be any proper place where an armoury or drill hall could be constructed that would suit both cities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the strength of the militia who will use this building?


William Pugsley: The city is growing so fast that we cannot tell. It is the 96th Lake Superior regiment that is there at present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the strength of that regiment?


William Pugsley: I have no particulars about that.
Sarnia armoury-revote of $500, lapsed,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this going to cost?


William Pugsley: We have not prepared the plans yet. Of course, we will confer with the Militia Department, but my hope is that it will not exceed $50,00.


Samuel Hughes: What troops are there?


William Pugsley: It is the headquarters of the 27th Lambton regiment, the St. Clair Borderers, ' G ' and ' H ' companies, and the headquarters also of the 14th Field Ambulance.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Toronto drill hall-additional accommodation for new corps and armouries, $20,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What new corps is to be accommodated in Toronto?


William Pugsley: The medical corps.
Uxbridge public building-revote of $6,740, lapsed, $15,000.


Richard Blain: How much will this cost? Mr. PUGSLEY. We hope to complete this for about $15,000.
Wallaceburg public building, $5,000.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost of this?


William Pugsley: Probably about $20,000.


Richard Blain: Does that include furnishings, fittings, heating and lighting?


William Pugsley: It will include heating and lighting, but not furnishings.
Waterloo public building-revote of $2,970, lapsed, $20,000.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost of this building?


William Pugsley: Waterloo is a very important place. The population even in 1901 was 3,500, and it is growing rapidly. There is a very large public revenue. This will be for a post office, customs and inland revenue. I think the cost of this building will run up to $35,000.


David Henderson: There is no customs there.


William Pugsley: Perhaps this is for inland revenue and post office only. But it is a growing place and there is a large business.


David Henderson: And it is represented by a minister of the Crown.


William Pugsley: Quite true. The revenue there is extraordinary for the size of the place. The inland revenue alone last year amounted to $509,000.


David Henderson: Not very surprising when you have there one of the largest distilleries in the country.


William Pugsley: Surprising or not, it means a large business.


Richard Blain: Tenders will be called for by public advertisement for this building, I suppose.


William Pugsley: Yes.
Whitby public building-$15,000.


Richard Blain: What is to be the total cost of this building?


William Pugsley: It is estimated that th=>
total cost will be $41,645.86, including site" heating, electric wiring, furnishings, etc.'


Richard Blain: Whitby is only a small place.


William Pugsley: Well, Whitby is quite an important place. There is Whitby town and West Whitby, and the population of the two is considerably over 4,000. It is the county town, as well.


Richard Blain: Is this building to serve the two places?


William Pugsley: I think so.


Richard Blain: What constituency is it in?


William Pugsley: South Ontario.


David Henderson: Before we leave this item of Ontario public buildings, I would like to point out that the minister has been very generous to some counties. Take, for instance, the county of Wellington! Besides the armoury at Guelph, which the minister told us this afternoon would cost over $140,000, we find estimates here for public buildings for Elora, Fergus, Harris1-ton and Mount Forest.


William Pugsley: They are not in the same riding.


David Henderson: But they are in the same county. Harriston and Mount Forest are in North Wellington, and Elora and Fergus in South Wellington. Here is one county getting four buildings. True, it is represented by two Liberals. To the victors belong the spoils-that is the principle on which the Minister of Public Works proceeds. And I do not know that I should find fault with him. Sarnia is given a public building-and that constituency is represented by a Liberal. Seaforth-also,
I think, is represented by a Liberal. I am almost afraid the minister made a mistake -Tilbury is given a public building; I am not sure whether that is represented by a Liberal or not.


Mr. ALEX. McCALL.: It is.


David Henderson: And Tilsonburg?


Richard Blain: That is in South Oxford.


David Henderson: Also represented by a Liberal. And Whitby, represented by a Liberal.


William Pugsley: The hon. member (Mr. Henderson) passes over Toronto.


William Pugsley: 


David Henderson: It was quite impossible for the minister to overlook Toronto. They are only reaching out the long arm trying to capture Toronto.


William Pugsley: And Uxbridge, in North Ontario.


David Henderson: I suppose that was started before the last general election.


William Pugsley: It is not started yet.


Richard Blain: The amount was put in the estimates before the last general election.


David Henderson: It was one of these items carried over, I presume. I am not making a plea for the county of Halton. But here is a county that has never had a public building. I suppose it is the mistake made by the people in sending a representative who does not support the hon. gentleman.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman says 'hear, hear.' He approves of that policy. The money spent on these public buildings is tire money of the people; Conservatives contribute to the revenue of the country just as well as Liberals, and I submit that to erect public buildings on political lines is hardly in keeping with what I would think the good judgment of the minister undeT ordinary circumstances would be. I think he has allowed himself to be carried away when he puts a public building in a small place like Elora with a population of 1,200, and in Fergus, Harriston and Mount Forest, four public buildings in one county m a year, and leaves other counties that never had a public building without any consideration. Does it not appear to the minister that there is something political an the whole matter? I do not know that I have any right to complain. The hon. gentleman thinks he has a right to serve his friends. Does he think it will require four public buildings in the county of Wellington to bring back two Liberal members at the next election? He must think there is some doubt about the result of the next election or he would not spend so much money in one county. The money belongs to the people and it is the duty of the minister to consider the necessities of the country, independent of political considerations. If the minister will frankly state that he is guided by politics in this matter I shall rest the matter there and not complain, but every district in the country has a right to some consideration in the distribution of public money whether it sends a supporter of the government or one not in sympathy with them. I do not say this to try to influence the minister because I have no idea that I would in-

fluence him. He apparently has fixed on a decided policy. If that is his policy, I would like him to make an announcement, do not do it in a concealed way, do not try to keep away from the point by saying: Oh look at Toronto, and make Toronto a scapegoat for everything. Toronto is a big city, but it is not the whole country and there are other parts of the community just as much entitled to consideration as Toronto.


William Pugsley: I am sure that on reflection my hon. friend will not feel he has been very happy in his address to the committee. When I mentioned Toronto, I did it in good faith, simply to show that we are not generous to Toronto, but that we are just, as we are seeking to be just to all narts of the country. We cannot erect all the public buildings required at once, nor improve all the harbours. My hon. friend will recognize that I did not allow the fact that his constituency sends a Conservative to this parliament to interfere with my doing justice to the port of Oakville. I have made provision for improving that port. I would not allow the fact that my bon. friend represents that constituency to influence me. The hon. friend speaks of Toronto, and says that we are making a strong bid to win some seats in Toronto by erecting public buildings. If we had a vote here for a public building in the constituency of my hon. friend, he would say to his electors:	The Minister
of Public WoTks is trying to capture you by holding out >a bribe to you, and are you, the independent electors of Halton, not going to resent such an attempt as that to bribe you by the erection of a public building? It was not a happy speech of my hon. friend, and I am surprised that he should so forget himself as to depart from his ordinary practice of speaking with judgment.


David Henderson: I have heretofore taken the other stand. I have said to my people that I did not believe this government was corrupt enough to do that sort of thing and would only erect public buildings in ridings represented toy Liberals. But, I am sorry to say I have lost my good opinion of the Minister of Public Works to-night, notwithstanding, that he has given us a very respectable grant for the harbour at Oakville, which I think was generous and just. Oakville was entitled to it, Oakville has never had a public building and it is a very small sum, yet I feel thankful the minister did that, because if is an important port. It is a sort of harbour of refuge between Toronto and Hamilton, where boats can call and in the event of a storm can go in and ride at anchor in the harbour and be protected. Heretofore, I have defended the minister as I have said, and I am sorry that I had to-night to change my mind on that question.
Portage la Prairie public building-revote, $50,000.


Richard Blain: When was the first amount put in the estimates for this building?


William Pugsley: At the session of 1907-8.


Richard Blain: Immediately before the election?


William Pugsley: The election happened to take place afterwards. This is urgently asked for toy the people of Portage la Prairie.


Mr. STAPLES.: Has the minister given any further consideration to the erection of a public building in the town of Carman, in the constituency I have the honour of representing? I have brought this to the attention of the Public Works Department every year since I have had the pleasure of sitting in this House. Carman is a town of over 2,000 inhabitants. It is a progressive little town, the citizens have expended a large amount of money in putting in a sewage system and water works, and if there is a town in Manitoba entitled to a public building, Carman is. The minister on former occasions, agreed that I had a good case, and said he would look into it and would undoubtedly give it the consideration to which it is entitled. Taking the minister at his word, I now have to say that if he has looked into it he certainly will have to come to that view and greet a building. Carman is a railway centre. Three lines of railway run through it, the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific railway and the Great Northern, and I was in hopes that the minister would have placed in his estimates, an appropriation towards the construction of a customs office and post office there. Other towns throughout the Dominion which are much inferior to this have been given consideration. The postal revenue is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5,000 a year, and the amount of business that goes through the post office is greater by 50 or 75 per cent than that of a large portion of the towns which have got public buildings. I bring it to the attention of the minister, and I hope that he will, before this House rises, see fit to put an appropriation in the supplementaries towards the construction of a public building in the town of Carman.


William Pugsley: There are a great many places, without speaking particularly, where, I think, public buildings might be erected without exciting any just criticism. I do not say that they would not excite criticism, because my experience has been that no matter what care we exercise there will be some criticism. But, I have been obliged to omit them from the estimates. The supplementary estimates have been brought down, I do not anticipate that

there will be any more during the present session, and therefore, I am unable to give my hon. friend the assurance that he would like to have.


William D. Staples: You might give us a promise and probably we will live on that for a year if you cannot go any further.


William Pugsley: That is what I am not able to do.


William D. Staples: Will the minister look into the case I have cited before the end of the session of parliament?


William Pugsley: I have already looked into it.


William D. Staples: Do you not think it is entitled to the consideration I have asked?


William Pugsley: I can say to my hon. friend that if I had decided to have _a public building at Carman I would not expect that I could be very justly criticised for providing for it. But, outside of what my hon. friend has said, I have not had it urged upon my attention very strongly from the people. I have had no intimation from the Post Office Department that the people are suffering any particular inconvenience at Carman. But, I may say to my hon. friend that I will continue to give the matter consideration.


William D. Staples: The minister has said that he has had no pressure brought upon him by the citizens of Carman. I might call his attention to several resolutions that, if he will take the trouble to look at the records, he will find either in his department or the Customs Department, passed by the board of trade and other organizations of Carman, and I might go a little farther, and say that I think he has strong letters from the citizens of Carman who are of the same political faith as he is. When he says that he had no representations from the city of Carman, if he will take the trouble to look at the records, he will find that what I have said is correct.


William Pugsley: I will have the matter inquired into.


David Henderson: I suppose the Minister of Public Works is perfectly willing to say that he does not refuse to put a public building in a town, because it is represented by a Conservative!


William Pugsley: I did not intend to make any such statement.


David Henderson: I think perhaps the minister would state that that would not be a guiding feature in his policy, that he does not decide where a public building shall be located by the character of its representation. What dojs he say in respect to that?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: I always feel it to be my duty to give very careful consideration to the representations of our friends.


David Henderson: That hardly answers my question.


William Pugsley: I think so.


David Henderson: I want the minister to say whether or not the fact that a county is represented by a Conservative is to be taken as a reason why a public building should not be erected.


William Pugsley: No, these estimates prove the contrary to that.


David Henderson: These estimates prove that where a county is represented by a Liberal public money is expended,


William Pugsley: And where represented by a Conservative, if a building is needed in the public interest, provision is made for it.


David Henderson: Just as freely?


William Pugsley: In quite a number of cases.


David Henderson: Will the minister say just as freely?


William Pugsley: Well that is a pretty hard question to put to me.


David Henderson: I will be perfectly satisfied if the minister will say so.


William Pugsley: We would hear of it from the county of Halton.


William D. Staples: I might further say that the citizens of Carman have been put to a great deal of inconvenience. Dutiable goods have been coming in there, and the fact that there is no port of entry has made it very inconvenient. The minister will find a requisition along those lines for a public building if he will look at the records.


William Pugsley: That will be in the Customs Department.


William D. Staples: Carman is one of the oldest towns in Manitoba. It is the first town that was established south of the As-siniboine river, and I state again that if there is a town in that province that is deserving of consideration at the hands of this government it is Carman.
Winnipeg examining warehouse (new), $25,000.


David Henderson: Will that complete?


William Pugsley: Yes, it will complete the building.


David Henderson: Is this on Main street?


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: This is to fit up the post office building for savings bank and customs purposes.


David Henderson: Is $50,000 the entire cost of the alterations?


William Pugsley: We expect that will complete The alterations.
Winnipeg immigration buildings-government's share of cost of asphalt pavement laid by municipal corporation on Maple street, between Higgins' Avenue and C. P. Ry., in front of buildings Nos. 1 and 5, $871.28.


Alexander Haggart: The city collector of taxes sent me several communications about the pavement in front of several other public buildings in Winnipeg. I left these papers with the proper officer in your department, and I would request that the matters be expedited.


William Pugsley: Pursuant to my direction the matter has been taken up by the proper officer in my department, and he is now in communication with the authorities of the city of Winnipeg on the subject.
Estevan-public building, $15,000.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: About $36,000. Estevan is quite an important and growing town, and the cost of building is greater there than in the east. We have to build for the future, perhaps more so than in the small towns in the east, because of the rapid growth.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not like to trouble the minister, but I tried to be here at eight o'clock and missed it. On the item for Uxbridge, Ontario, does the minister object to give me a little information about that?


William Pugsley: No objection at all. We propose erecting a public building there, the cost of which will run to about $15,000. We expect to call for tenders during the present season as soon as plans and specifications can be prepared.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is there a proposition before the minister in reference to having an armoury in the basement of the building?


William Pugsley: Yes. There has been a suggestion made that there should be an armoury in a portion of the building. That, of course, will increase the cost, probably about $3,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to urge that upon the minister. Uxbridge is quite a market town, and a good sized town. It is the headquarters of Company 5 of the 24th Regiment, and for a number of years,
as captain of that company, I have paid out of my own pocket the rental of an armoury. The young man who is in charge mow is a mechanic amd he cannot afford to pay the rental, I could not afford to pay it, but I did. I do not think it is fair, where a public building is being erected, for the government to ask the ' officers ' to pay for the rent of an armoury when it could be constructed in conjunction with this building. I think the idea would meet with the approval of the citizens. I would urge upon the minister that when they are drawing the plans they should draw them with the idea of having an armoury in the basement of the post office.


William Pugsley: The matter will be noted, and carefully considered.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then I would like to ask the minister if there were any objections taken to the site which has been selected?


William Pugsley: The site has been purchased.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Were there any resolutions or petitions sent in to the minister objecting to it?


William Pugsley: I do not at this moment recall any.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Upon whose recommendation was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: We sent an inspector from the department to look over the different sites that were available, and it was upon his recommendation that this site was chosen. The price is very reasonable, $1,200. The property is a corner lot, 60 feet on one street by 90 on the other.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand that the majority of the citizens Object to the present site because it is not central enough, it is off at one end of the town. The central'site is the O'Neill site that the department had an option^ upon. What is the price of the O'Neill site?


William Pugsley: I have not a memorandum of that. But the gentleman whom we sent there is <an expert in the business of selecting sites.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did he receive any recommendations from public bodies?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell my hon. friend, but if he desires I will have the matter looked up to-morrow and let him know.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did he receive any legal expenses?


William Pugsley: $52.74 for the legal expenses, including the travelling expenses of the inspector.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Have you the expense? separate?


William Pugsley: I could not say as to that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Was it Mr. Ormiston?


William Pugsley: I have not any memorandum of that.


Richard Blain: He got $49.45.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would there be any chance of the minister changing the site? I understand that sometimes when citizens object to the site purchased the department make a change. The overwhelming sentiment of the town is that the central site at the market building should have been selected by the government. Three part? of the population reside in that part of the town, and if the central site had been selected it would have met with the unanimous approval of the citizens. I_was wondering if the department had any petitions or objections registered against this site?


William Pugsley: I am satisfied that the site selected is a good one. I think it would be very objectionable now to attempt to make a change in the site; it would mean selling this piece of land, and it would mean dividing the people on the question of the site, which is always unfortunate. The site has been bought; it had better go on the present site.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I thought perhaps the department in selecting the site might have consulted the representative of the constituency, and the residents of the town.


William Pugsley: No doubt the inspector consulted the people of the town; that is his duty, and those were his instructions.


Richard Blain: Surely my hon. friend did not select the site in the town of Uxbridge without consulting the member for the county?


William Pugsley: Yes, the sitting member was consulted.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What was his answer?


William Pugsley: I do not know, but I know he was consulted.


Richard Blain: What sitting member, may I ask?


William Pugsley: Mr. Grant.


Richard Blain: When wa3 the site purchased?


William Pugsley: It was purchased in 1909; it was decided upon before that, in 1908.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: About what date was it decided on?
Mr. PTTGSLEY


William Pugsley: Some time in the summer of 1908, I think.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think the minister is in error about the time of deciding upon the site. On the eve of the election there were three or four options taken on various sites, the options were allowed to expire, and after the election they took up this lot again. So it was not decided until after the election in 1908.


William Pugsley: I do not know as to that. I can say that the gentleman who selected it is a man who would consult with the people, he would examine different sites, and he would give his judgment, as I have no doubt he did in this case. He is a man of very excellent judgment, and is not influenced by personal considerations at all.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Were there any public bodies sending in requisitions for this building, or did the Post Office Department ask for a new building?


William Pugsley: There was a public meeting in the town as early as December, 1907, and they passed a resolution, and a memorial was sent in urging that a public building should be erected for a great many reasons, which are set forth in the memorial.


Richard Blain: Would m,y hon. friend read that memorial?


William Pugsley: It would take too long. I will send it over to my hon. friend.
Lethbridge immigration building-removal of building to new site, and repairs, renewals, etc., $6,000.


Uriah Wilson: This requires some explanation. We want to know why the building was removed, and how far it has been removed. .'This is a considerable' amount for removing a building of an ordinary size.


William Pugsley: The cost of the site was $2,200; and the estimated cost of moving the building to the new site, and repairing the same, and putting it in a state of completion, as per tender of Smith Brothers and Wilson, is $3,650; contingencies, $150, making a total of $6,000.


Uriah Wilson: How far was it moved, and why was it moved?


William Pugsley: It was because the Interior Department urged that it should be moved. In these western cities, which are growing, some of them with great rapidity, it becomes necessary sometimes to move the buildings to more convenient situations or for other reasons. In this particular case, I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who ovraed the land and leased it to the department.

wanted it, and it became necessary to move this building to another lot.


Uriah Wilson: I am sorry you are so poor in a country where you own so much land


William Pugsley: It is to be regretted


Mr. HERRON.: Has the minister had any representations from the Post Office Department regarding a public building in the town of Macleod? I have had very serious complaints from there in regard to the post office, which is certainly not suitable to the place. The Postma'ster General has spoken to me several times on the subject, and has said that he hoped that something would be done in the near future.


William Pugsley: I may say that quite recently, and only quite recently, I did receive a representation from the people of Macleod, urging that a public building should be erected, but it was too late to take the matter up during the present session.


John Herron: Is it under serious consideration for next year, and may the people hope that it will be erected then?


William Pugsley: There are degrees of consideration.


John Herron: The town is a very important one, with <a population of nearly 2,500, and with two railways. The mail is distributed in a small room about six feet by ten feet, and the condition is most serious. The place is not at all suitable for a post office in a town of its importance. It is a disgrace to the department.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that I have directed that a report be obtained from the Post Office Department as to the condition of affairs at Macleod with the view of giving the matter my serious consideration between now and the next session of parliament.
Strathcona immigration building-improvements, $3,000.


David Henderson: Apparently Strath-cona is rather a doubtful constituency.


William Pugsley: That is not a kindly remark to make. There are also three items for Lethbridge.


Uriah Wilson: This is a pretty large item for repairs. Will the minister give us some idea of what it is for?


William Pugsley: The building was constructed in 1900. It is a wooden building, set up on wooden posts, and these improvements are all absolutely required. The building has cost in the way of construction up to the 31st March, i909, $7,407.08. and there have been repairs to the amount of $1,548.35. The building is 2J stories,
55 feet by 28 feet, and there is a 3-story annex in the rear, 32 feet by 10 feet. It contains kitchen, baggage room, dormitories, washroom and storeroom.


Uriah Wilson: Are these immigration buildings finished on the inside with boards or plastered??


William Pugsley: This is plastered.


Richard Blain: May I ask the minister if he will supply at the next sitting of the committee a list of the newspapers, with the amount paid to each, in which advertisements were inserted for tenders for public buildings at Whitby to the amount of $354.95, at Welland to the amount of $340.80, at Leamington to the amount of $362.94, and at Dauphin, Man., to the amount of $236.91.


William Pugsley: I will be glad to do that.
Chilliwack, B.C., public building, $10,000.


James Davis Taylor: Will the minister kindly tell the committee what his intentions are in regard to this building?


William Pugsley: The intention is to purchase a site and later on to proceed with the erection of a public building. I may say we have not yet purchased the site.
I believe there is a considerable difference of opinion as to what would be a proper site for the building. We have made a good deal of inquiry and have had our good deal of inquiry and have had our representative there, but we intend to completing the purchase. Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor), who is familiar with the situation, would let me know what he thinks of the present post office site, for the new building.


James Davis Taylor: That is rather a delicate question to ask because I happen to have possession of the adjoining property. I would like to say, however, that Chilliwack is really suffering very much for the want of this building. I do not think there is any place in the whole country where one is needed more.
Feruie public building-$10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the public building at Fernie.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Is that a post office
building?


William Pugsley: Yes, that is a post office building now under contract.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I have a long letter
here a column and a half in length, the writer of which states that he has had to wait as long as half an hour and three-quarters of an hour in order to register a letter owing to the bad accommodation there.


William Pugsley: In the new building?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: That is what I wanted to know.


William Pugsley: That would be in the old building. The letter shows the necessity for the new building, which is nearly completed.
Greenwood public building-revote of $5,000, lapsed, $10,000.
Mx\ PLAIN. Wlia^t will this builtling cost?


William Pugsley: I do not think we can get this constructed for less than $25,000 to $30,000. Greenwood is quite an important place.


Richard Blain: When was the item first put in the estimates?


William Pugsley: I think it was put in the estimates in 1908-9, but I am not sure. However, Ithink there is no question about the building being very urgently required, and I regret that I have not been able to build it before this.
Vancouver public building-$15,000.


David Henderson: Is that the post office building?


William Pugsley: The new post office.
Williamshead quarantine station-improvements and repairs to building and fittings, etc., $5,000.


Richard Blain: Before we pass from the British Colombia items, will all this work in British Columbia be done after public tenders have been invited?


William Pugsley: Yes, unless some repairs, but all the new buildings will be constructed after public advertisement and tenders.
General-tobacco curing experimental stations, $5,000.


David Henderson: What are these?


William Pugsley: These are requested by the Department of Agriculture.


Uriah Wilson: Where are these stations to be located?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: The intention, as I understood, is to put one in Ontario and one in Quebec.
Ottawa public buildings-grounds, $12,000.


Uriah Wilson: Wha t grounds are these?


William Pugsley: These are the parliamentary grounds.


David Henderson: There is a contract, I understand.


William Pugsley: No, it is all done by day work under our own foreman.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: 


Uriah Wilson: Do you mean to say that it costs $12,000 a year to keep up the parliamentary grounds?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Taylor: And they are very badly kept at that.


Uriah Wilson: Do they include the grounds at Rideau Hall?


William Pugsley: This item does not include the grounds at Rideau Hall.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Walking around the rear of this building to-day I found the cedar hedge in very bad order. It ought to be replaced. Perhaps the minister has not noticed it.


William Pugsley: I notice that it is unsightly. But, if it were taken away, we should be under the necessity of putting up a nice substantial fence which would be expensive, and so we have not decided to do anything iyet.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Why not replant the hedge?-it would be much handsomer than a fence.


William Pugsley: It might not be a success. My hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) knows that here as elsewhere, cedar hedges have not been thriving of recent years.


George Taylor: All the trees around the summer house and the Queen's statue have been allowed to die for want of throwing a little water on them. I think that the grounds receive very poor attention. I would invite the minister, the first time he goes to Toronto, to observe the way the parliament grounds there are looked after. It seems to me that the men in charge here are not competent to do the work. The condition is simply disgraceful.


William Pugsley: We are supposed to have, and I believe we have, a first-class foreman gardener. I will see that my hon. friend's views are conveyed to him.
Rideau Hall, including grounds, improvements, furniture and maintenance, $35,000.


Uriah Wilson: This item ought to be explained. When our friends who now occupy the treasury benches were in opposition, they used to find a great deal of fault with a much smaller expenditure on Rideau Hall than this. And perhaps the minister could tell us what becomes of the old furniture that is put out of the building. Every year, there seems to be a lot of new furniture purchased, but I have never been able to find what was done with the old. It would be good enough, I fancy, for the houses of most of us. But these things seem to be appropriated by some one and no account given.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely in error. All the old furniture which seems to be of no use is auctioned off and the proceeds go into the treasury.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the minister would give us an account of that.


William Pugsley: I cannot give it tonight, but if my hon. friend would like it I will have it prepared.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to have it.


William Pugsley: I have asked the chief architect to make a note of it.


Uriah Wilson: Now, perhaps the minister would tell us how this money is expended.


William Pugsley: The best way would be to give some details of the expenditure of the past year:	decorating dining room,
$1,600; tennis court, $720; plants, bulbs and seeds, $992; dry goods, &c., $6,533; lumber, $1,752; hardware, paint and glass, $1,376; furniture, flags, cleaning carpets, &c., $1,231; sand, cement and manure, $305; salaries, &c., $18,110; sundries, $180. That is the expenditure up to December, and gives my hon. friend an idea of how the money goes.


Uriah Wilson: When I get the other account I shall have made a start for what I am after. I have a lot of figures, and I think they come to a good deal more than the minister has given.


William Pugsley: I will get the information my hon. friend (Mr. U. Wilson) wants.
Dominion cattle quarantine stations, renewals, repairs, &c., $20,000.
Mr. iPUGSLEY. In this case, as in others, 25 per cent of the amount has already been voted. And as the amount voted, $5,000, is sufficient, I move that this item be struck out.


Richard Blain: How does this happen?'


William Pugsley: We find that under this head we do not require more than $5,000.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Item struck cut.
Yukon public buildings, rents, repairs, fuel, light, water services and caretakers' salaries, $60,000.


Richard Blain: How is the money for Yukon public buildings to be expended?


William Pugsley: It will be the same as last year, rent, repairs and renewals, light, fuel, caretakers' salaries, etc. I am asking the same vote as last year, and I have no doubt my hon. friend will find in the Auditor General's Report a full statement.
Interior Department, civil government- salaries, $876,866.27.	/


Uriah Wilson: There seems to be a large increase?


David Henderson: I notice the number of officials in the Interior Department is to be increased from 670 up to 722. Is the minister simply making provision for that increased number, or are they already at work in the department?


Frank Oliver: Owing to the increase of work in the department we were compelled to employ a larger number of temporary clerks during the last year than we had provision for in the estimates. They were employed under the Act, and were paid out of the contingencies vote. I desire now to provide for that number in the permanent vote, and that accounts for the larger part of this increase. These people have been in employment under the Civil| Service Act as temporaries. We wish to make permanent provision for them, and also for further requirements to meet the increase of work. We would prefer to emi ploy permanent people, because the employment of temporaries is not satisfactory. Under the Civil Service Act we cannot employ a temporary clerk for more than four months in any one year, and of course where we have permanent work that is most unsatisfactory no matter how efficient the clerks may be.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How many temporary clerks were employed last year?


Frank Oliver: About forty-five.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are providing for fifty-two new ones this year?


Frank Oliver: Forty-five were in employment temporarily. We are making provision for fifty-two, including forty-five permanents instead of these forty-five temporaries, and as our work increases we will be able to take on further permanents up to the total number of fifty-two.


Richard Blain: Do the temporaries have to pass the Civil Service examination?


Frank Oliver: Under the Act we cannot employ any one who has not passed the Civil Service examination and been approved by the commission.


David Henderson: Why do they have to go in four months?


Frank Oliver: Because the Civil Service Act says they can only be employed for four months.
Contingencies, $47,600.


Frank Oliver: The increase of $10,000 in contingencies is due to an increase in the amount of printing and stationery, owing to the increased business of the department by reason of the larger number . of homestead entries with consequent-issue of patents, etc.


Richard Blain: Is any of this printing done outside of Canada?


Frank Oliver: Not of this vote; this is all done in the Printing Bureau.
Immigration-salaries of agents and employees in Canada, Great Britain and foreign countries, $200,000.


Uriah Wilson: I think this requires some explanation.


Frank Oliver: The amount is the same as was voted last year, and the division is as follows:	Salaries in Canada, $117,-
412; United States, $42,180; Great Britain and Ireland, $34,834; Europe, $5,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where have you W. T. R. Preston now?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Preston is in the Department of Trade and Commerce. He has not been in the Interior Department for some years.


Uriah Wilson: I want to call the attention of the minister to the fact that we have had an inspector on the Bay of Quinte railway. I put a question on the paper the other day asking how many immigrants had been located along that line. The answer was that they did not keep track of those located, and I do not know what they want an inspector there for. They also gave the information that they had deported sixty-eight. Following that question I asked how many had been located between Deseronto and a place just at the other side of Tweed-I forgot the name. I find that the department are in the habit of sending their special agents to the old country every year. Has that been done this year?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: And that they employ some of them the year round?


Frank Oliver: Yes, some of the men who are in employment the year round are sent to Great Britain during the season of immigration effort.


Uriah Wilson: Have you not some who are not employed the year round that you send abroad?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: I find there is Anson Aylesworth, and I do not want to make any exception in his case, because he happens to be a brother of a minister. The only exception I take is that I think this officer was entirely unnecessary. He was immigration agent in the old country, and the Auditor General's Report for 1908 shows that it cost this country $988.98 for a trip occupying four months which I call a pleasure trip. I moved two years ago for a return showing the reports that these people who went as special agents to the old country had made to the government. I did not find any reports made by any of these gentlemen. Mr. Walker, the assistant superintendent of immigration in London, made a report. He spoke in glowing terms of the success of these gentlemen, and told how they had eloquently addressed public meetings, how they had attracted jl great deal of attention, and he added that afterwards there had been a great many inquiries made as to this country. But, I did not find any particular report from him as to the number of people that they had induced to come to this country. At page K-118 of last year's Auditor General's Report Mr. Aylesworth is put down as superintendent of immigration on the Bay of Quinte railway. The report shows that he received $100 a month. The total cost to the country was $1,070.14. I would like to know what Mr. Aylesworth did as inspector on that road. I have no knowledge of any considerable number of immigrants being placed anywhere along that line except that they were sent to Deseronto during the time we had that great influx in 1907. The work gave out, some were deported, some returned to Napanee, some were scattered in various places, and they were a pretty unsuccessful lot of people. In addition to his other duties Mr. Aylesworth found it necessary to come to Napanee during the election and deliver an address in the committee room of the Liberal party. He did that at the last general election. At that time I did not know that he was in the government employ; I presumed that he had had his pleasure trip to the old country, and was through. But,
I found that he was constantly in'the employ of the government. I would like to know whether Mr. Aylesworth is still in the employ of the government as a regular official, what his salary is, and what his duties are? I do not take any exception to Mr. Aylesworth as an officer, but I think he should keep out of committee rooms, and refrain from making speeches. I remember that the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a promise to this. House that any civil servant that dabbled in politics would be given an opportunity to devote all his. time to politics, but in those days most of the officials were Conservatives, and most likely a great many of them were dealt with accordingly, but I have never known of a single instance where he dismissed a Liberal for interfering in politics. There are some other matters that, I want to speak about, but I would like to hear what the minister has to say about Mr. Aylesworth, and his conduct in interfering in the elections, and what his duties were as inspector of the Bay of Quinte railway.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Aylesworth was em-


Frank Oliver: .ployed temporarily-I cannot give just the time-as a farm delegate. He was a practical farmer.


Uriah Wilson: The return says four months.


Frank Oliver: He was employed temporarily as a farm delegate in the old country. I think it is not necessary to enter into a disquisition as to the value of the services rendered by these farm delegates, but I think the results of their work in past years is very well shown In the quantity and character of the immigration we are getting this year. However, Mr. Ayles-worth was employed temporarily, and we believed that he gave satisfactory service. He afterwards was given employment as inspector of the farm labour distributing agencies that we have throughout Ontario. If he is listed in the Auditor General's Report simply as immigration inspector on the Bay of Quinte railway it is not a correct statement of his duties.


Uriah Wilson: That is what it says.


Frank Oliver: That is not a correct statement of his duties, because his duties are not confined to the Bay of Quinte railway; in fact, I do not know that they have any particular connection with the Bay of Quinte railway. He is simply employed in Ontario inspecting the agencies which we have throughout the province to distribute farm labour, and during the season of immigration effort In the old country we have employed him during the past two years for three or four months. We believe that he is a very satisfactory officer. We have every reason to believe so; we thought he should be so by reason of his experience, character and ability. His salary when employed is $100 a month. I have no knowledge of the part he took in the election. If he was in the employ of the department I certainly think he should not have taken that part. I care not who he is, if he is drawing government money to an amount sufficient for his livelihood, if that is his salary, he should certainly have given his whole time to the government, and should not have interfered in elections. But I am not at this moment aware whether he was in permanent employment of the government at the time. Of course if he "was not in permanent .employment, the position is somewhat different.


Uriah Wilson: I do not take any particular objection to Mr. Aylesworth speaking against me in that election. He stumped against me in 1892, and our fellows rather made sport of him, pretending to speak for the other man while he was talking in my favour. He is a glib tongued chap, quite a good speaker. In
the Auditor General's Report for 1908, vol. 2, I find these items:
K-30 G. A. Aylesworth as special agent to England four months to 31st March at $100 per month, railway fares, $88.40; travelling expenses, $400.58, total $988.98. Return February 4, 1910.
5-G. A. Aylesworth January, 1909, for four months got $833.24. Auditor General's Report, 1909.
K-118 G. A. Aylesworth as inspector on the Bay of Quinte for nine months, $1,070.14.
I hardly know where he got his Pullmans on the Bay of Quinte railway. I never heard of Pullmans on that railway. I just call the attention of the minister to this item, because it looks to me absurd for any man who is inspector of immigration on a little railway like the Bay of Quinte. I recollect talking to the station agent, who was distribution agent of immigration at Yarker during the election. He had been appointed as one of the men to locate immigrants, and he said, I never located any. But you remember a man by the name of Miller, and he stole some money from the government that he had to refund, but the government never made him come to time as they would an ordinary criminal. If an ordinary man had settled with a criminal as they did with Miller, it seems to me he would have got into trouble. I would like some explanation about the children that Children's Aid Societies are bringing to this country, whether they pass a regular examination like ordinary immigrants; also I would like some information about grants to the different women's societies that bring out females, and I would like to know whether they also have to pass examination like ordinary immigrants. Then would the minister say whether female domestics are examined like ordinary immigrants. I see bonuses were paid on them to the amount of $4,878. I would like an explanation of the different societies to which you give bonuses, and whether all these people have to pass an examination like ordinary immigrants. I suppose you have got a number of inspectors, and I hope they are more useful than out friend Aylesworth has been, apparently. Tell us how many inspectors you have, where they are located, and what their duties are. I suppose they report to the department from time to time. There was another matter that I used to be interested in before the Agriculture Committee, that is, as to what reports were made by agents who were getting salaries. I have not heard of any of them reporting the numbers they sent in. But we always get reports from the men on commission, and I wondered sometimes whether they worked together. It seems strange that we never heard any particulars about the men on salaries sending in great numbers of people. But they do come in here in large

droves, and we find in the Public Accounts considerable bonuses paid for them.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the children who are brought out, they, as well as all other immigrants have to pass a medical inspection at the port of landing. There is no exception in that respect. But the children who are brought out are also subject to medical inspection before they leave the old country, that is, they are required to have a medical certificate before they start, but that does not relieve them from the medical inspection on their arrival in Canada. The same is true in regard to all people who land in Canada as immigrants, whether brought out by societies or not. We have inspectors for various purposes in different branches of the immigration 'service. We have one inspector whose duty it is to look after distributing agents, that is, those who are authorized to secure employment for farm labourers throughout Ontario. Mr. Ayles-worth is the only inspector we have for that purpose. Then we have inspectors for the boundary inspection service, or the exclusion service, as it might be called. We have inspectors also of the children who are placed in homes throughout the country. So we have three different classes of inspectors. But we have only one inspector for the farm labour distributing agents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does that inspector report to you?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is that report t) be found?


Frank Oliver: Those reports are in the department, they can be produced on an order of the House. They are not printed; if we printed all the reports we get they would make a very bulky volume, and probablv not be required. But the reports are in the department and can be produced.


Uriah Wilson: Does Mr. Aylesworth travel on a pass?


Frank Oliver: Yes, he has a pass.


Uriah Wilson: Over all the roads?


Frank Oliver: All the large railway1, svstems. The societies whose names are mentioned on page 124 of the Auditor General's Report for 1908-09, simply get the ordinary bonus on the people they bring out, under the regulations, the same as any other agents. They do not receive any special consideration. They get $5 a head on domestic servants, but not on factory women or any other kind.


Uriah Wilson: What guarantee have you that these are domestic servants who come to this country? I see that the On-Mr. U. WILSON.'
tario government are also giving a bonus on domestic servants. I do not approve of it, but they insist that a domestic servant must bring a letter from a clergyman as to her standing, and a recommendation from her last employer in this country, 'before the agent gets the $5. So far as I know, with this government all one has to do is to pass as a domestic servant and the agent gets the $5. Is that the case?


Frank Oliver: No. The agent who claims the bonus has to tell us where the person on whom the bonus is claimed is employed. We then inquire of the employer, and on receiving a satisfactory reply, we pay the bonus.


Uriah Wilson: How do you apply- by letter?


Frank Oliver: Yes. It might interest my hon. friend to know that in the immigration branch last year we got 220,000 letters.


Uriah Wilson: Were they all answered?


Frank Oliver: All that required answer.


David Henderson: I am informed that about at present 100 domestics are , expected to arrive in Toronto, in two parties of, I think, 50 each. Does the minister know anything of that or whether they are brought out under Dominion or provincial arrangement?


Frank Oliver: I have no specific knowledge of any party of that particular number. As my hon. friend is aware, the Ontario government is at present taking an active interest in immigration work, and it might be a party they were taking a special interest in. I may say that, as a department, we do not specially undertake to bring out domestic servants or to assume responsibility in regard to them. They are taken in hand by parties who make practically a business of conveying them out and seeing to the placing of them. We recognize the people who do this as long as we think they do it satisfactorily, and they get the benefit of the bonus.


Uriah Wilson: Of course, I do not agree with that view, because I think people who want servants ought to pay for them. When your inspectors are away from your office, I suppcrse you pay their board and lodging and their fare?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: Mr. Aylesworth could not have been away a great deal, because I find that hi3 board and lodging cost only $116.50, whereas the board and lodging of Mr. Mclnnis, of Detroit, cost $513. Mr. Aylesworth paid only $3.75 for sleeping car, $19.04 for transfer of baggage, and

$11.40 for fares. I understood that Mr. Mclnnis was supposed to be located in Detroit. Either one of two things have happened: either Mr. Aylesworth has not travelled a great deal as the general agent of the department to locate farmers throughout Ontario, or Mr. Mclnnis got a good board for very little travelling, or lived pretty well for a man supposed to be living in Detroit.


Mr OLIVER.: It is rather a mistake to suppose that the agent in Detroit has no other duty than to attend to the office there, The business of Mr. Mclnnis, as of all our agents of that class in the United States, is to go wherever in the state it may seem to him to be necessary to go, either to hold meetings, to give information, or to assist prospective settlers in commencing their journey.


Uriah Wilson: Have you not several agents in that state?


Frank Oliver: No. The only office we have is in Detroit, and Mr. Mclnnis is the agent. While he has control of the office, his business is more important outside of the office than in the office. Mr. Aylesworth has not the same class of duty at all. His business is simply to visit the different men who are authorized to act as distributors of farm labour, and it may easily be seen that such duties do not require nearly as heavy expenses as the duties of Mr. Mclnnis.


Uriah Wilson: I think Mr. Mclnnis' office cost more than $8,000 a year. Although it is a rented building, he put a stone front on it and plate glass windows in it. Why should he put on such expensive repairs instead of the owner of the property? If the owner wants to rent the building, he ought to put it in a rentable shape. I think Mr. Mclnnis pays $900 a year for rent.


Frank Oliver: 


Uriah Wilson: And he does his own repairs. Is it pretty general in your department to allow your agents to rent buildings at such prices, as they like, and then to make such repairs as they think fit at the public expense of Canada, instead of renting a suitable building and letting the landlord do the repairs? That is done in several cases, and I think it should not be continued.


Frank Oliver: I will take all the responsibility upon myself for the expense of fitting up the office at Detroit. Some years ago when I first visited Detroit, our office was in an upper room, where a visitor under ordinary circumstances would not find it, although it was in a very good street, and it seemed to me that if we were trying to do business in an agricultural 260
state like Michigan, and in a city like Detroit, which is the centre of an agricultural population, it was not economy to have an office in an upper room not convenient to the public or in the public view. Other people who are trying to attract public attention, who are trying to do business with the public, obtain the best situation and make the best front they can, and I took the responsibility of authorizing our inspector for the United States, Mr. William White, to secure a building or office accommodation that would be better adapted to our purposes, and the accommodation was secured. We made the best arrangement we could as to rental, and we would have had to pay more rental if we had not put in the fittings ourselves. We wanted the fittings to suit our purposes, and I think it will be agreed by those who have seen our office that we have a very suitable place for the purposes we have in view, and one entirely creditable to our country. I do not think it is economy to spend $8,000 in rent and salaries for an office, the purpose of which is to get in touch with the public, and not get full value for the sake of spending a few hundred dollars more in order to secure a good situation and an office with a good appearance and proper conveniences and appliances.


Uriah Wilson: I am very sorry that, there was not another building in Detroit that was suitable and that might havie< been rented without a great deal of expense on repairs. That is a very exceptional situation in any city or town, for you can easily get a suitable place without putting on repairs. So far as my knowledge goes a landlord who has his' rent assured would prefer to meet the tenant on reasonable terms. The fact that the minister takes the full responsibility does not alter the case a bit. He might have done what he thought was best, but, that is a matter of opinion. I think he should not have required so many repairs.


John Herron: Before we leave this item I wish to draw the attention of the minister and the House to a matter I previously discussed and to offer an explanation of some statements I made in this House on the 22nd March of this year, when a similar item was undier consideration. On that occasion I called the attention of the minister to a statement that was alleged to have been made by Bruce Walker who, I thought at that time, was Commissioner of Immigration for the Dominion in all foreign countries, but who, I now understand, is Commissioner of Immigration to the United States. I find that the remarks I then made have been very much misinterpreted or misquoted. The newspapers in my locality, thp southern part of Alberta, have construed my re-


Uriah Wilson: There are supplementary estimates for this service of $125.000, making an aggregate appropriation of $1,040,000, which is the highest estimate we have ever had for immigration up to this date, I believe. What has occurred since the main estimates were prepared to make it necessary to have this supplementary vote?


Frank Oliver: It is partly due to the greater precautions being taken from time to time in the exclusion of undesirables, and partly to the very great increase in the number of immigrants coming this year for whom we have to provide. The main estimates were prepared in the fall of last year. We could not know then what the movement this year would be. The hon. gentleman (Mr. U. Wilson) knows that the movement this year is beyond all previous records.


Mr. BEATTIE.: Is there any record of what these agencies do? For instance, the Detroit agency is an expensive one. Un-

less it pays by the number of immigrants it is not desirable to keep it going. I think a record should be kept of what the agencies do, to ascertain whether they pay or not.


Frank Oliver: It is not possible for us to keep a record of the results of the work of any agent or agency, for the reason that we have no control over the movement of people. We can only judge of the results of the work of the agency by the movement from the locality it serves. My hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) is aware that the movement of people from the United States during the past few years has been increasing, and is particularly large this year. We do not claim all the credit for that for our agents, but we do claim that they are a contributing cause, and that the continual growth of the movement is evident that good work is done. I have not the figures before me, but I think the record of the homestead entries from the different states will show that there is good work done in the state of Michigan by the agency there.


Thomas Beattie: Do the agents give a monthly, or a yearly report?


Frank Oliver: A monthly report. There is also the annual report which appears in the blue-book, but it would be too cumbrous to publish their monthly reports.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much did you spend last year in the aggregate?


Frank Oliver: We have not the full accounts for the last year, but I am informed that the total expenditure, including that from the supplementary estimates for the year, will amount to about $975,000. In the year 1908-9, the Auditor General's Report shows an expenditure of $979,326.


Uriah Wilson: If you add the supplementaries for last year $60,000, you will have an expenditure of over $1,000,000.


Frank Oliver: The estimates I have given includes the expenditures from the supplementaries. Including this, the expenditure will be about $975,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Speaking of Mr. Ayles-worth, the minister said he was travelling on a pass, which accounted for his not charging so much for railway fares. How many of the agents of the Immigration Department make use of passes, and how are these passes paid for if at all?


Frank Oliver: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not the minister aware that the granting of these passes is illegal under the Railway Act. It is legislated against in this country as discrimination. Under the Railway Act, there are certain passes that may be issued, but such passes as the minister refers to are not ampng them. When travelling on trains, I have observed these officials with passes. I thought perhaps they were travelling on private business; but it was no affair of mine, and I am not a detective. But, if these passes are gratuitous, if they are not paid for by the government in some way, they are contrary to the Railway Act of this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My object in asking was to find whether these passes were paid for, and so would form an addition to the expenditure.


Frank Oliver: I have all the burden I can carry in administering the immigration law, and the land law, without administering the Railway Act.


Adam Brown Crosby: How many officials of the Immigration Department^ such as doctors, are there at Halifax, and what are their salaries?


Frank Oliver: This vote. covers the salaries of the medical officers. There are two medical officers at Halifax, Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Chisholm, and their salaries are $1,800 each.


Adam Brown Crosby: Has any one been acting there besides these two doctors?


Frank Oliver: Dr. Chisholm broke his arm some time ago and another doctor has been acting in bis place.


Adam Brown Crosby: What do you pay him
for his services?


Frank Oliver: He was paid $150 a month for the time he was employed.


Adam Brown Crosby: Dr. Chisholm was paid his full salary, and Dr. Hogan, who was acting in his place would get $150 a month?


Frank Oliver: That is right.


Adam Brown Crosby: Are you awaTe that Dr. Hogan is also military doctor there and has a private practice as well?


Frank Oliver: I have no knowledge of that.


Adam Brown Crosby: Are these doctors permitted to have a private practice?


Frank Oliver: Yes, there is no restriction on them in that particular.


Adam Brown Crosby: It seems rather unfair that medical men should be paid from $1,800 to $4,000 by the government, and should at the same time carry on a private practice in competition with other medical men who are not receiving such salaries.

In Halifax, I understand, there are eight or ten medical men thus employed. It would seem to me to be more fair in cities to make one medical man the government doctor and pay him a sufficient salary to enable him to live without carrying on a private practice in competition with other medical men. This is a matter that the government should look into.
Immigration-Contingencies, in Canadian, British, foreign agencies and general immigration expenses, $700,000.


Frank Oliver: This is the same amount as last year.


Joseph Russell: Is any provision made in Canadian cities for looking after immigrants after they arrive? Is there any such provision in Toronto?


Frank Oliver: In some cities there is provision and in others not. We have provision at the ports of landing, St. John, Halifax and Quebec. We have detention accommodation in Montreal and general accommodation in Winnipeg and various other distributing points throughout the western country. We have none at Toronto. We have an information office there but no accommodation for immigrants.


Joseph Russell: I believe that Toronto is quite an important distributing point. Most of the farmers go there to get their help, and I have noticed lately something in the paper about the British Welcome League and their work. There is no doubt they are doing good work, and if it were not for such an institution there would sometimes be great hardship in Toronto. Would the minister not look into this matter and see if it would not be advisable to establish some sort of a place at Toronto where immigrants could be taken charge of while waiting to be taken up. Years ago there was an immigration shed where people went to pick out their help and I think it would be well to have a shelter where they could at least have a bed and be kept from the streets. It is not fair to rely on the Welcome League to do all this kind of work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice a newspaper report of trouble between the agent of the British Immigration League at Winnipeg and the Immigration Department-. Has the minister received any communication with reference to that?


Frank Oliver: I saw that item and communicated with the commissioner at Winnipeg and have his side of the case. 1 should be glad to give it to the House in a minute.
In regard to Toronto, many years ago, under the system of immigration effort that then prevailed, there was aocommo-Mr. CROSBY.
dation for immigrants at Toronto, Kingston, Hamilton and possibly other points in Ontario. After a time it was decided that the work of caring for immigrants in the province of Ontario might better be handled by the province than by the Dominion, and these different buildings which were used for the accommodation of immigrants were closed. Then for a number of years the Dominion made no provision and the province made such provision as was made. The province, I think, had some arrangements for caring for immigrants at Toronto. That did not seem to be satisfactory to the province, and after a while they abandoned it and gave the Dominion authorities notice that if they wanted to take any interest in immigration effort at Toronto, they were free to do so. Under the circumstances that had existed while the province had handled the matter at Toronto, using Toronto as a converging and distributing point, a sort of depot of immigrants, there seemed to have grown up a very considerable congestion of immigration at Toronto, and it seemed to us when we took fhe matter over that our business was rather to keep the immigrants out of Toronto than to get them in there, and we established throughout Ontario commission agents, whose business it was to find places for immigrants, placing an officer in Toronto to give information to immigrants that would carry them out of Toronto; that is to say to provide them with information which would enable them to make their railway connections in Toronto and generally secure and give out information that might be helpful, but in no way to make provision for the entertainment of the immigrants in Toronto, our business, as we understand it, being to keep the immigrant out of Toronto, to see that he gets on the farm and therefore we do not assist him in any way to stay in the city. That is the attitude that we have taken in regard to Toronto. As far as the matter has gone yet it has been more satisfactory than the former system. There is private effort for the entertainment of immigrants. There is the -Salvation Army and the Welcome League, both of which have accommodation. I think very probably that these institutions, both of which are very worthy in their way, meet the case as it is there to better advantage than if the government undertook it, because experience showed that it is in the interest of Toronto and in the interest of the province, that the immigrants should not be induced to congest in Toronto, but that they should be sent out to wherever their labour will yield the most advantage to themselves and the country as quickly as possible.


Joseph Russell: Around Toronto there is quite a farming district. In the townships of Scarboro and Markham and west of the

city quite a number of labourers are needed to work on the farms, and the farmers come to Toronto to get their help. Immigrants have to stay in Toronto for some little time before they are taken up, although in some cases they are snapped up as soon as they arrive, and the Welcome League have a lot to do, and have done a lot of good. If, on investigation, it is found that the British Welcome League are able to handle this work in a satisfactory manner I think it would be up to the government to help the league by giving them a grant each year. There is no doubt they have been doing good work, and the people of Toronto have had to put up for it, and they have done it willingly. I think it is only fair that these people who are working, not for the benefit of Toronto, but for the benefit of the outside country, should receive consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is considerable complaint from farmers that they find difficulty, notwithstanding the large influx of immigrants, in getting men. I had some letters during the present session about it saying that they had written to Toronto, and had written down here, and yet they had failed to get any satisfactory answer. They complain that while the country is paying out a lot of money for immigration, the immigrants are all shipped through to the west, and there is little opportunity for the farmers of Ontario, and the eastern provinces to get the help which is required. That seems to be one of the troubles. If you write down here they refer you to Toronto, but when you get to Toronto there does not appear to be very much chance of getting any satisfactory information as far as I can understand. Farmers complain that there is a disposition to send the immigrants to the prairie provinces, and not make any arrangement for a distribution through the older provinces as well.


Frank Oliver: We were able to place about 20,000 farm labourers in Ontario last year, but the demand is greater than the supply. We have no contract to do it, but we are not able to meet the demand when the demand is as large as it is. We have made a very reasonable effort. We have established these distributing agents throughout the country, and the distributing agent in the hon. gentleman's county would communicate directly with the booking agent in the old country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a distributing agent at Flesherton, but he does not know anything about it.


Frank Oliver: Our agent at Flesherton would make inquiry among the farmers of the surrounding country as to how many wanted labourers, and what wages they
would pay, and then he would communicate with the booking agents in the old country informing them that there were so many positions available in the vicinity of Flesherton in the expectation that the booking agent, knowing that these places were available, would be able to induce people to book direct to Flesherton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do these agents know about the booking agents or where to write?


Frank Oliver: They are informed on the subject, and that is the way they are supposed to carry on their business. Our idea is to get as direct communication as possible between the farm and the immigrant, and by all means to avoid the direction of the immigrant to Toronto as his ultimate destination. Our whole idea is to direct him only through Toronto to his ultimate destination, and we have the office in Toronto for that purpose. We have an agent there for the purpose of giving information to immigrants, and for the purpose of giving information to farmers as well. The services of our agents are available to either the farmer or the immigrant, but we do not think, in the light of our former experience, that it is well for us to do anything in the way of entertainment at Toronto.
^-r- U- WILSON. Will the minister tell us what change he has made in the pay of the distributing agents? I think it has been greatly cut from what it used to be The amount used to be $2 per head for every man, woman and child in a family that went on a farm.


Frank Oliver: We pay now $2 for the farm labourer himself, but not for any member of his family unless it should be that his wife was going to domestic service, m which case the agent would get a commission on her employment also.


Mr. NESBITT.: I would like to suggest to the minister Uiat in place of the distributing agents in the various towns writing to the booking agents in the old country, they should write to the head of the Immigration Department here. I believe that a great many of these agents throughout the country do not write as well as they should to the booking agents I think it would be better for them to write to the head of the Immigration Department and let the head of the Immigration Department distribute the immigrants according to his judgment.


Joseph Russell: I would like to ask the minister how far the territory of the agent extends east, west or north from Toronto?


Frank Oliver: He has no specific territory. His office is in Toronto. His business is to give information to the immi-

grants who are passing through as to their trains and destinations. His business also is to answer any inquiries that may come to him with regard to labourers. Any inquiry that comes to him from any part of the province it is his business to attend to as best he can. Wherever the farmer may come from, whether it is five, ten or a hundred miles away, it makes no difference; if Mr. Stewart is able to find a suitable person for him, of course, that man gets the benefit of it, and if he is not, there is no help for the situation.


Joseph Russell: Then the farmer in Markham would have to come to Toronto?


Frank Oliver: He could either come or write. Mr. Stewart said -to me: The man who comes in here naturally gets the preference. When the man is here and is able to see the man he wishes to engage, and when the man who wants the engagement is able to see the farmer, it is very much more satisfactory than communicating by letter. The man who comes to Toronto gets the advantage over the man who writes, but the man who writes gets the information as well as it can be given to him.


Joseph Russell: That goes to prove that there is need for some accommodation in Toronto for these immigrants. The farmer who leaves his work and comes in gets the best man,- and there is no doubt that the best time to select a man is when you can see him. It would be unsatisfactory to undertake to select a man who was away across the ocean with no means of knowing what kind of a man would be senit out. Farmers generally do not realize that they want a man until the very day they need him, and then they run to town and try to find a man. I think that the minister should give consideration to the question of providing better accommodation for immigrants in Toronto. Some years ago the number of immigrants conn ing to this country was a great deal less' than it is now. Everything has gone ahead so rapidly with the immigration business that it is getting almost beyond control. I think it would be wise to have something set aside to provide for accommodation for these people in Toronto.


Frank Oliver: In the light of experL ence it was our judgment that it was better not to provide accommodation in Toronto by the Dominion government. It is not for any lack of attention to the matter, or any lack of willingness to do it. But judging from our experience in 1906-7 when there was such a congestion of immigration in Toronto, we did not think it was desirable by offering accommodation there to favour that congestion. As I told the representatives of the Ontario government when they spoke to us about taking over Mr. OLIVER.
the office in Toronto, I said our business will be to keep the immigrants away from Toronto, not to bring them there, or entertain them there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is desirable that there should be some central place where people can go and get a man. Sometimes it is impossible for weeks or months to get such a man as you want. It frequently happens that a man is sent who turns out to be absolutely no good. For instance, a man was sent to me who couldn't even drive a horse. I set him digging post holes, and he spent the whole afternoon at one post hole. What is needed is some central place where the farmers can go and select such a man as will suit his. purpose.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend asked me in regard to a matter that occurred in' Winnipeg, and which was mentioned in the papers. I inquired from the commissioner in Winnipeg, and he replied as fol-fows:
Man named Rogers, presumably local president English Welcome League, refused admission to immigration hall here late Monday night by night watchman acting upon my general instructions. Have hitherto refused to permit unknown and unauthorized young men access to the immigration halls under any pretext after 10 o'clock at night_ as in this particular case. If Rogers admission was desired or desirable it would doubtless have been arranged by the simple expedient of applying to the proper authority.


Mr. THOBURN.: I would like to know from the minister on what class of immigrants the government pay bonuses. If it is domestic immigrants, where are they sent to? Are they sent to the cities? Because in the towns of the province of Ontario there is a dearth of domestic servants, we have never had one_ sent to our town. I venture to say that in the town I live in we could place 75 to 100 domestic servants. It is only fair, if the government pay bonuses on domestic servants, that the towns should get their proportion.


Frank Oliver: The question of domestic servants is a very serious and important one, and I may add a very difficult one. We have taken some means of dealing with the question of farm labour, but we have not taken the same measures in regard to domestic servants. There are difficulties in the way of handling the domestic servant question which lead me to hesitate at taking up a matter as a government responsibility. The domestic servants who are brought out as such come under the auspicies of certain societies, or of certain ladies who make a business of selecting servants in the old country, of fetching them out here, and of placing them after they get here. They are entitled to a bonus upon those servants after they have been placed in positions. But we do not

assume any responsibility or control of the movements of those servants, except that the person who claims a bonus upon them does not get the bonus unless the servant has been placed in domestic service. We do not undertake to say where the servants shall go. But as I say, there are difficulties in the way of handling domestic servants, and we have not undertaken to do more than offer these inducements, and to give as close supervision as we can to see that the work is not wrongly conducted.
To pay the balance due on rent of house leased for W. T. R. Preston while engaged as commissioner of immigration in London, Eng., $801.71.


Uriah Wilson: Do you continue to pay rent for the successor of Mr. Preston?


Frank Oliver: 
FIRST READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 220) to incorporate the Chambers of Commerce of Quebec-Mr. J. P. Turcotte.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 28, 1910.