1910-05-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PUGSLEY laid on the table of the House a return to an order dated the 14th February, 1910, relating to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. He said: This return was moved for by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. White). I may say that this return contains the last proposals which have been made, and I understand that the hon. gentleman who moved for the return stated that that would be sufficient.

Mr. LANCASTER.: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the condition of affairs in the Railway Committee, which I think everyone in the House should consider.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Has the hon. gentleman a motion?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not written it but I move that the special report presented by the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines be now considered. Before the session closes I think it is my duty, as a member of the Railway Committee, to suggest to the House that next session the number of that committee should be largely reduced. The Railway Committee to-day, without any doubt, is unwieldy, and the result of its deliberations are not in any way as perfect or as correct as they would be with a much smaller committee. For instance, one day when some large principle is under discussion, perhaps 15 or 20 members of the committee may be present and vote upon it, with the balance of power against the proposition or against a certain principle. Probably two days later, or the next week, a different set of members, not the same members at all, vote to reverse that policy or that principle, and in that way they make the Railway Committee, so far as precedents are concerned, not only unsatisfactory to the House and to the country, but one might almost say without offence they make the committee ridiculous. What I suggest is that there should be not more than 40 members at most on the Railway Committee, and that 25 should form a quorum, instead of having nearly 200 members on it at present, with 25 to form a quorum. The prevailing opinion among members I have spoken to is that we would do much better work if we were a smaller

body; we would be governed by precedents; we would feel our responsibility and the desirability of doing the same thing under the same set of facts, which we do not do now. We would be able to present to the House a report on some stated principle for the benefit of the House, as a result of our deliberations, instead of making reports contradictory in principle as we do at present. We have got to remember that human nature is such that if gentlemen would feel their responsibility, and that the House is going to hold them, and they alone, responsible for a duty that they cannot shirk, they must realize that they are answerable to the House for the work they do, and then they would do better work, the business of the House would be facilitated, and the legislation of the House would be much more uniform than it is at present. This has occurred to me for several sessions, but I have hesitated to remark upon it until this session in order that I might be absolutely certain that I was right in what some might say was a radical change in the constitution of the Railway Committee. After ten years of actual work in that committee, this being my tenth session, it is apparent that the evil is increasing and that a change such as I have suggested would result in greater expedition of the work and in greater benefit to the country and to this House. If we had a committee one-fifth the size of that which we have now, if we had a committee of forty members with a quorum of 25, so that there should be a sufficient number present to agree to what is enacted, I am sure that the results would be in every way satisfactory. I would suggest this to the government and to the House so that it may be well considered during the recess and at the opening of the next session we may make up our minds if there is not something in what I contend for. I think that the chairman of the Railway Committee agrees with me upon this, and is going to second anything I have said in regard to it.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I regret that I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) who has just taken his seat. In the first place the recommendation to which he has referred was passed when there were but a very few present and I do not think the matter received that consideration which was its due. I believe that there is always safety in numbers, and I recognize that there are matters which come before that committee which are of great import to the people of the country. They affect great corporations and they oftentimes affect interests that are opposed to those of the great mass of the people. There are questions which come up in the interests of the few as against the interests1 Mr. LANCASTER.
of the many. I do not speak of this as in any way reflecting upon the views which are oftentimes advanced in the interest of the corporations, but the very conditions which prevail in Canada to-day make these a necessity. In my judgment, when it comes to a question of representation, there is always safety in numbers. My hon. friend has referred to the conditions which exist. I am sure that the interests of the masses of the people of the whole country will be more safely guarded in the hands of the larger committee than in the hands of a few. If the suggestion of my hon. friend were carried out and the committee were limited to forty, what would be the result?-that these Bills would come before the committee and, in the ordinary course of events, there would be not half of that number present.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Twenty-five would be a quorum.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There would not be even twenty-five present in the ordinary course of events. Hon. gentlemen, and especially those who live within a reasonable distance of the capital, are here to-day and [DOT] away to-morrow and it is only on special occasions that there is anything like a full and fair representation at the committee to give consideration to the more important Bills that come before the committee. I would therefore think that the result would be disastrous, that Bills would be considered by the committee when there was perhaps only a very small percentage of the members present. If you had a'committee of forty, or fifty, or sixty, or a hundred members who would always be present and who would feel their individual responsibility perhaps there would be something in the remarks of the hon. member. But that would not be the case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was careful to say that I would desire a quorum of at least 25, so that we would always have 25 members present and business could be done. I think the hon. gentleman understood me also to say that the very fact that there would be a limited number of members would cause them to give strict and diligent attention to the duties that they had to perform. That is human nature.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I fail to find anything in the report dealing with this question.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I "would suggest that this is a very important discussion and it should go over to the opening of next session rather than be proceeded with now.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.
Motion allowed to stand.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL.

Mr. GEOFFRION moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the sixth report of the Special Committee re Lumsden inquiry, proper fees and expenses he paid to counsel appearing before the said committee, and the Clerk of the House and the Law Clerk are hereby authorized to tax the said fees and expenses and to pay the same when so taxed, out of any moneys voted by parliament for the expenses of committees.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I do not know that there will be any objection, but it might stand as a notice of motion until to-morrow.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. DANIEL.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he will lay on the table before prorogation a return that was called for by the member for York (Mr. Crocket), with regard to the survey of the St. John river between Fredericton and Woodstock. I understand that the minister promised to lay it on the table before prorogation, and the member for York asked me to remind him of his promise as he had gone away.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: In order to more than fulfil my promise, I laid it on the table last evening.


Mr. FOSTER.: I would like to ask the Prime Minister as to one of the three returns which I asked for yesterday. Two have been brought down this morning, but there is another in reference to the armament on the great lakes. Does he think he can bring it down?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will make inquiries and let you know to-morrow.



ADDRESS TO THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.

[Stage Direction]
Rt, Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would beg to interrupt the order of proceedings which is laid down on the programme of this day in order to remind the House that the term of office of His Excellency the Governor General is fast drawing to a close and that when we meet again at the opening of the next session he will no longer be with us and His Majesty will have selected another person to be his representative in this country. There is, I have reason to believe, a unanimous wish in this House that ere we separate we should convey to His Excellency an expression of our high appreciation of the great services he has
rendered to this country whilst he has had the honour of being the representative of His Majesty. The observation has on more than one occasion been made that Canada has been extremely fortunate in the character of those who since confederation have held the high office now held by His Excellency, and the five years of his stay with us I am sure will give still more prominence to this prevalent opinion. From time to time in recent years paragraphs have appeared in the press to the effect that at the present stage of Canadian development it would be fitting that a Canadian should be representative of His Majesty. In this we find the expression of a laudable, but to my mind, a misguided expression of national pride. The system which has been in operation since confederation of His Majesty appointing to be his representative in this country some of the great names of Great Britain has worked most harmoniously and most satisfactorily, and any change in that system would not,
I am sure, be productive of good results, but perhaps on the contrary would jeopardize something which we hold dear. The first effect of this system of having some high statesman of Great Britain to be the representative of His Majesty in this country has undoubtedly been to strengthen if possible the ties which bind us to the motherland and to keep them constantly before the hearts of the people. The next effect is to place at the head of the administration one who by the very nature of things is not connected with our party or political differences, and who by the same nature of things is more apt than anybody else to keep even the balance between all contending parties. The other value of the system is to ensure the presence at the head of the political administration of one who from early youth has been bound to public life and who has had the advantage of experience of constitutional government in the country where constitutional government originated, and where it is best understood. In these respects His Excellency was pre-eminently qualified. The name which he has the honour to bear, the name of Grey, may have equals, but it has no superiors in the long list of statesmen who for ages have been connected with the history of constitutional government in Great'Britain, and His Excellency proved a worthy addition for he had a distinguished career not only in England, but in some distant parts of the empire. So in his case it was pre-eminently a case of noblese oblige, and from the very day he landed on our shores it is a matter of history that he gave his whole heart, his whole soul, and his whole life to Canada. Canada became the all-absorbing _ object of his thoughts. He was not satisfied, as every one knows, to give to the discharge of his official duties the most careful and close at-
[Stage Direction]
tention, but he associated himself with everything that went to make the national life of Canada. His constant object was to advance and to elevate the national character in everything, in all the human speculations which go to make up the highest expression of civilization. It is nothing but justice to say that under his wise and generous guidance the arts, letters and the sciences have received a notable impetus. In the matter of science especially he gave the most careful' attention'and was diligent and active in that branch which is connected with public health, and it is due to his efforts, not only his own efforts but to the efforts of those associated with him, that a disease has been checked which levied every year a large tribute, the disease that is known as tuberculosis. But if anything were the characteristic of the career of His Excellency amongst us, I would say it was the particular attention he gave to the study of our own history. The conception was his and his alone which resulted in the establishment of the Battlefields Commission, the effect of which will be to consecrate and to hallow the ground around the city of Quebec which has been marked by the most dramatic events in our history. But we should not forget the graceful and noble companion of his life. The Countess Grey associated herself readily with all the efforts of her illustrious husband to promote the Canadian welfare.
Several hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Wilfrid Laurier: 
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I have very great pleasure in seconding this motion. The fitting terms of the resolution and the eloquent words of the Prime Minister in moving it leave little to be said by me. I join most heartily in the appreciation which the Prime Minister has expressed to the House of the work of their Excellencies Earl Grey and the Countess Grey and their charming daughters in all that concerns the -welfare of Canada during the period in which Earl Grey has served this country and the empire as Governor General of Canada. To say that Canada has been fortunate in her Governor Generals, particularly during recent years, is so true that it needs not be emphasized. Earl Grey and his distingu-

ished predecessor, Lord Minto, have presided over the destinies of Canada at a most interesting period, not only in the development of this country, but in the development of the empire as a whole. They have seen, in all the great dominions of the empire, wonderful material development. More than that, they have seen throughout the empire-in Canada, in Australia and in South Africa-a great advance towards the development of a closer co-operation between the great dominions. of the empire and the mother country in all that concerns the welfare of the empire. The work and the activities of His Excellency in this country have been characterized by a broad and generous sympathy which has won the affection and the esteem of the people of Canada, and when he leaves these shores he will leave behind him an affection and an esteem in the hearts of the people of Canada which will be a monument to his memory more enduring than any other he could desire. A man of courage, of initiative, of imagination and of clear imperial vision, we recognized him when_he came to the shores of Canada as a man than whom there was no truer imperialist throughout the empire. As he leaves the shores of Canada we recognize in him as true a Canadian as is to be found in this great Dominion. I may be permitted to say, in conclusion, that when he returns to the motherland he may bear with him from the people of Canada this message to His Majesty the King, that the free people of Canada are gravely conscious that there are great problems in respect of co-operation between the great dominions of the empire and the mother country which must in the early future present themselves for solution by the statesmen of the empire. I think he may bear with him this further message, that the people of Canada are not less gravely conscious of their responsibility in the solution of those problems and are perfectly willing, and indeed anxious, to accept every legitimate responsibility in connection therewith. The terms of the resolution and the words of the Prime Minister make it unnecessary that I should add anything further, except to say on behalf of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that I have the greatest possible pleasure in seconding the resolution which has been so appropriately and eloquently proposed by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Borden:
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has passed an Address to His Excellency the Governor General on the occasion of the approaching termination of His Excellency's official connection with this country, and
requesting that their Honours unite with this House in the said Address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. EDWARDS.: Early in the session, I asked for some information in regard to drill halls and armouries in Canada. A part of my question was answered in due time by the Minister of Militia and Defence but the balance of the information which should have come from the Minister of Public Works has not been furnished.


William Pugsley: I presume my hon. friend dropped the question. If he will send me a note I shall endeavour to get the information to-morrow.


William Cameron Edwards: The minister will remember that I made a personal call on him some days ago.


Mr. U. WILSON.: The Minister of Public Works promised me a list of furniture that had been sold from Rideau Hall and the prices paid. I have not yet got the list.


William Pugsley: I judge that my hon. friend is engaged in an interesting examination in regard to furniture at Rideau Hall extending over a good many years and it will take some time to get the information. I did not understand that I Jwas to get it immediately, but I will have it obtained as soon as possible.


Uriah Wilson: For how long ?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend did not limit it particularly to any number of years. I presume I am to go back to the date of confederation.



ORDER DISCHARGED.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, No. 14,
House in committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, That it is exj>edient, in connection with Bill No. 95, now under consideration by this House, respecting the naval service of Canada, to provide for the establishment, under regulations in that behalf, to be made by the Governor General in Council, of pensions and gratuities for the permanent naval service; such pensions and gratuities not to be larger in amount or granted upon more favourable terms than the pensions and gratuities authorized under the Militia Act,
was discharged.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fielding to go into Committee on Ways and 'Means.
["Sec. 32 setting forth the powers of the board gives the board power to summon witnesses and enforce their '\t278\nattendance. The Senate has added the words: ' from any part of Canada ' to make it clear that when the board is holding sittings in one province it can compel the attendance of witnesses from other provinces. Sections 22 and 23 have been amended by striking out the word * unduly ' where it appears before the words ' to restrain or injure trade or commerce.' As the word ' unduly ' does not appear in the Criminal Code before these words, it was thought it should not appear in these sections, that they may be uniform with the sections of the Criminal Code.\nAmendments read the first and the second time and concurred in."]
Robert Laird Borden: I do not
intend, at this stage of the session, to make any extended remarks with regard to the

matters that were brought to the attention of the House by the Finance Minister earlier in the session. The concessions which have been granted by the government as a result of negotiations with the government of the United States are not, of themselves, of great moment, although, of course, a certain importance is to be attached to tariff changes involving, I think, about $5,000,000 worth of business. I thoroughly agree that we should use every possible effort to maintain the best possible relations with the United States with respect to the tariff and all other matters, and I think that Canada is to be congratulated upon the fact that those now in authority in the United States of America evince the most friendly possible disposition towards this country.
The attitude of this government in November and December last was a very pronounced attitude indeed. I will not quote at length from the debates which then took place, but I may say that the position taken by the government at that time was substantially this: That the negotiation and acceptance of commercial treaties with other countries by Canada was a matter with which the United States, or the government of the United States, was in no wise concerned, and that, for this reason, it was not proper or prudent for the government to make any attempt whatever to discover what would be the action of the United States government under the Tariff Act of last year. Certain possible difficulties were pointed out by hon. members on this side of the House, but they were waved aside by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). We observe, in look-[DOT] ing at the debate, that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) took ground on behalf of the government which, perhaps, was a little more definite than that taken by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. He said, as reported on page 210 of unrevised 'Hansard:'
The United States, as I understand it, have always held that it is not to be considered a violation of the favoured-nation doctrine, if they considered themselves under it, when they choose to give to another nation certain favours for certain favours received. They have always taken that ground. In my judgment they will have to change their whole past procedure if they decide to penalize us because we have made a treaty with France in which we get advantage for advantage. They have their treaties. Would they ask from other nations, would they take away from other nations the liberty that they claim for themselves? They have a treaty with Cuba at the present time, I believe; they have had treaties that we did not participate in, a limited number, a treaty with Germany, and with France also. That has been their course all through. They have always taken Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
that stand, and I see no reason why they should depart from that policy at the present time.
So far as I understand the attitude of the United States government in the past, the language that was used on that occasion by the Minister of Customs was thoroughly justified. Any hon. gentleman who is desirous of examining the attitude and record of the United States government with respect to such matters will find them very fully set forth in a volume I have here, House documents, volume 132, part 1, No. 551; Digest of International Law, vol. 5; 56th Congress, 2nd session, 1900-1. Beginning at page 257 of this volume, the whole subject is very elaborately dealt with, and at pages 272-3, I find the attitude and record of the United States government set out precisely as indicated by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs. Therefore, the position, so far as the United States government is concerned, is this: they have held, and, I assume, they still hold, that a favour granted for a favour received is not, per se, a discrimination. More than that, they have held, even under the most favoured-nation clause that a favour given for a favour received cannot be legitimately taken into consideration; in other words they hold that any country claiming concessions from the United States under the most favoured-nation clause must be prepared to give to the United States the same favours which are granted to the United States by the third country with which the United States negotiates a treaty. The principle is, favour for favour, and that principle has characterized the attitude of the United States throughout negotiations of this kind. Now, the Minister of Finance, in dealing with this question in this debate on the 30th of March, put the action of this government upon the ground of magnanimity. He said, as reported at page 6101 of unrevised ' Hansard -
But there are victories that are dearly bought. If we bad achieved such a triumph over the United States government as I have spoken of, while, for the moment, it might have been a cause for congratulation, yet it would not make for the future advantage of the relations between these two peoples.
My hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was a little more explicit as reported at page 6130. He said:-
Sir, the answer we had to give to the American commissioners was easy for us. We have been requested to place upon the table the correspondence which embodied our answer to the question. Their was no correspondence on this point. The answer -we had to give was known by the House even before we uttered it. The answer we gave the American commissioners was the same as we have given to parliament-that the relations be-

tween Canada and France as embodied in that treaty had nothing to do with the United States, and the United States had nothing to do with them, and could not be concerned in them.
That is a perfectly definite attitude, easy to be understood, and, in fact, it was the same attitude that was taken by this government in November and December last when this question was mooted in this House. But the Prime Minister went further. After entering into certain conjectures as to what would have been the attitude of the President of the United States if Canada had not made certain concessions, the Prime Minister continued as follows:-
Will anybody refuse to approve my words when I say that if we could avoid the possibility of such a result without the sacrifice of Canadian dignity oi interest, it was our duty to take the course which would bring about that result? At any rate, I take the position in the name of the government and in the presence of the Canadian people, with regard to the United States and every other nation we will do everything possible to maintain in the case of one and all the best rela tions consistent with the maintenance of the dignity and the interest of Canada. It was represented to us that if we would make certain concessions we should avoid the possibility of any difficulty with our neighbours, we should avoid the possibility of having this maximum tariff enforced against us. Very well, our answer was easy. We were asked: Cannot you make it easy for us, cannot you make some concessions? We asked: What are these concessions? We were told a moment ago by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) that we had made a surrender. What have we surrendered? In this discussion with the United States representatives we were told: All difficulties will be overcome, all danger will be averted if you will give some concessions.
Now let us look for a moment at the tariff relations between Canada and the United States up to the time when these negotiations were entered into. We had made a treaty with France many years ago, we had made a further treaty with France which was ratified in the early part of the session. Both these treaties were in the nature of reciprocal concessions. Cana'da made certain concessions to France and France made certain concessions to Canada. According to the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, that was a matter purely and exclusively for the consideration of France on the one hand, and of Canada on the other hand, it was a matter with which the government of the United States was in no wise concerned.
Well, that is one consideration. Ttie other consideration is concerned with the respective tariff conditions between the United States and Canada. How had trade developed between the United 277	,
States and this country, and were the duties of customs imposed by the United States against Canada higher or lower -in the aggregate than the duties imposed by Canada against the United States? Let us look for -a moment at -the two tariffs, and you will find that on every important item of merchandise or agricultural products which -might reasonably be expected to pass from -the United States into Canada or from Canada into the United States, the duties imposed by the United States upon Canadian products under the Payne-Aldrich Act were from 25 per cent to 100 per cent higher than the duties imposed by the Canadian tariff upon the products of the United States entering Canada. There cannot be any doubt about that. I do not think any man in this House would for a moment dispute that. If it were seriously disouted 1 have here a comparative statement of the duties imposed by, the United States on the one hand and by Canada on the other hand, and I would be prepared to lay it before the House in support of what I have just said. Let us look further at the figures of trade between the two countries from 1905 to 1909 :
Total imports from United States for five years, 1905-1909.
Dutiable	$ 448,253,118
Free	 396,208,008
Total	$ 844,533,126
Duty collected	$ 111,511,493
Average rate of duty on dutiable goods		24-88
Average rate of duty on total imports	'.. ..	13-20
Exports to United States during same period.. ..$ 392,303,187 Excess of imports over exports	 452,229,939
So that the* United States imported into Canada and Canada bought from the United States during -that period of five years, no less than $452,229,939 in excess of the amount which the United States purchased from Canada during that same period. On referring to the items of the tariff, on referring to the relative duties in the two tariffs, on referring to the development of trade, certainly it doeis not seem that under the circumstances any reasonable man can find the slightest room for argument that there was any discrimination by Canada against the United States. If there is any discrimination at all in the tariff relations between the two countries, the discrimination is certainly not on the part of Canada. Now let us look at the trade returns in another respect, and to our imports from Great Britain during the same period:

Imports from Great Britain for five years,
1905-1909.
Dutiable	$ 269,898,081
Free	 89,143,368
Total	$ 359,041,449
Duty collected	$ 66,653,091
Average rate of duty oil
dutiable goods	 24-70
Average rate of duty on total imports	 18-87
Exports to Great Britain during same period.. ..$ 575,841,366 Excess of exports over imports	 216,799,917
So we observe that the rate on dutiable goods imported from Great Britain is practically the same, just a trifle lower than the rate on dutiable goods imported from the United States; while on the total imports from Great Britain the rate is about 50 per cent higher than on the total imports from the United States. Now look at our trade relations with Great Britain during the same period in another aspect. We exported to Great Britain during that five year period $575,841,355, and we imported from that country $359,041,449. So Great Britain purchased from us during that period no less an amount than $216,799,917 in excess of the amount which we purchased from Great Britain dur-that same five year period. If any country in the world would have the right to complain of discrimination in regard to development and progress of trade, it seems to be that Great Britain would rather have that right than the United States, in view of the figures I have just read. Now look at our imports from and our exports to the United States during the past year. Our imports from the United States during the fiscal year, ending 31st MaTch, 1909, were $170,066,178 ; * our exports were $68,008,501, leaving an excess of $102,047,677 of goods purchased by Canada from the United States oveT goods purchased by the United States from Canada. During the same fiscal year our exports to Great Britain were $124,395,037; our imports from Great Britain were $70,-! 555,895, showing an excess in goods purchased by Great Britain from us of $53,839,142 over goods purchased by us from Great, Britain. In that computation goldbearing quartz nuggets, dust and silver concentrates and ore are excluded, because these go to pay the balance of trade which exists between this country and the United States or Great Britain.	.
Now let us look for a moment at the; Payne-Aldrich Bill of 1909, and let ns consider what right the United States government would have to urge that the maximum rates to be iound in the Payne-Aldrich Bill could legitimately be imposed on this, country, having regard to the figures I have quoted, and having regard to any, Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
other condition which by any possibility might be brought into consideration of the whole matter. I will take section 2 of the Payne-Aldrich Bill, and I will consider what are the circumstances and conditions as set out in that Bill which could justify the United States government in imposing its maximum tariff against Canada. I will leave out the immaterial words and I will apply the various branches of this clause to the tariff relations between Canada and the United States. There are three branches of the section which are important for this consideration. In the first place, the United States would be justified, under the terms of this section, in imposing its maximum tariff against Canada if the government of Canada had imposed any terms or restrictions either in the way of tariff rates or provisions, trade or other regulations, charges, exactions, or in any other manner, directly or indirectly, upon the importation int-o or the sale in Canada of any agricultural, manufactured or other product of the United States which should unduly discriminate against the United States or the products thereof. That is the proposition, and I will ask any hon. gentleman in this House, having regard to that language, whether the United States could reasonably say that there was in the tariff conditions to which I have alluded any such discrimination as that which is embodied and referred to in the section from which I have just quoted. The second-branch of section 2 is as follows. The maximum tariff could be imposed by the United States if Canada:
Pays any export bounty or imposes any export duty or prohibition upon the exportation of any article to the XTnited States which unduly discriminates against the United States or the products thereof.
Can any hon. gentleman in this House say that there was in the tariff of Canada, in the French treaty or in anything affecting the tariff conditions between the two countries any provision which could reasonably be held by the government of the United States to come within the condition set out- in that branch of the section which I have just now quoted? Having read it over carefully and having given the best possible consideration to it, I must say that in so far as I am concerned, I cannot find anything that would have justified the United States in imposing its maximum tariff under that branch of section 2. The third branch is this. The maximum tariff could be imposed by the United States unless Canada:
Accords to the agricultural, manufactured or other products of the United States treatment which is reciprocal and equivalent.
I venture to say that the treatment which we had accorded to the United States upon the statement of the Prime Minister and of

the Minister of Finance was in every respect reciprocal and equivalent. Why was ix not equivalent? In so far as that is concerned, we do impose to-day upon the products of the United States entering Canada very much lower rates of duty than those to which the products of Canada entering the United States are subjected. The word ' reciprocal ' may be quoted. Again I take mv stand not only upon the attitude of the government in November and December last, but upon their attitude in March in this very debate. I also take my stand on the attitude of the government of the United States as set forth in their own congressional records with respect to their policy on such matters. The only possible argument which might be made on the part of the United States in justifying an attempt to impose the maximum tariff, would be the argument that there was a discrimination by reason of our having entered into the treaty with France which was confirmed at the commencement of this session. That could not justify such possible action by the United States if the attitude of this government were a correct one, and I have already quoted their words in that regard. The government of the United States would not be justified, having regard .to their own action and to the principles upon which they bad acted in such matters in the past. So that, so far as I am concerned, I am not convinced that the government of the United States were at all serious in suggesting to the government of Canada that the maximum tariff must be applied as against this country unless some concessions were made.
Now, I have said that I do not regard the concessions in themselves as of any very great moment. If it werS merely a question of granting these concessions for the time being I would not have one word to say in criticism of the action of the government in that respect. Speaking merely of the amount and value of the concessions, I say that they are of no moment at all compared with the maintenance of good will and cordiality in trade and other relations between tllie two countries. But,: let us look for a moment at the position in which the government . find themselves to-dav. Under the terms of the Pavne-Aldrieh Bill it seems to have been apprehended that the government of the United States would impose the maximum tariff unless Canada were prepared to make concessions. Well, the government did make concessions. What will be the position of this country in the future? I do not desire to use extravagant language in regard to what the outcome may be, but let us just consider one or two possibilities. How will it be possible at any time in the future to deal with these items in our tariff, the duty upon -which has been lowered as the result of these negotiations, unless the 277J
government asks and obtains the consent of the government of the United States? The outcome of these negotiations seems to me to be practically this ; the government of Canada have agreed with the government of the United States that it will not at any time in the future alter the duties of customs imposed upon those articles without the consent of the United States, unless it is prepared to have the United States instantly act against us by imposing the maximum tariff. Is there any reasonable or legitimate conclusions which can be drawn from the negotiations other than that which I have just started? As a condition, in order to avoid the imposition of the maximum tariff, you have agreed to reduce certain enumerated items of our tariff. You have not agreed to that by a formal treaty, but you have agreed to it by negotiations resulting in an informal convention which may not in the future be disregarded any more lightly than a. mere formal treaty or convention. This seems to be the practical result of it. So that, whenever the government of Canada proposes to deal with these items at any time in the future, it must have regard to its understanding with the United States, and it cannot lightly depart from the rates which are now fixed or imposed unless it first consults the United States government. But there is something further than that. I have referred only to the tariff items which have been reduced. The government of the United States has looked at our tariff as a whole. It has said, I assume, that its maximum tariff must be imposed under the terms of its statute unless Canada made certain concessions. These concessions .have been made. I have said that these particular items of the tariff cannot in future be interfered with go as to alter or interfere with the understanding arrived at with the government of the United States. But farther than that, I say that the government has placed in the hands of the United States a very plausible argument that no item in our tariff can be interfered with in future without the consent of the government of the United. States unless we are prepared to have that maximum tariff imposed. It has looked upon our tariff as a whole and has said: Grant us these concessions. How shall the government of this country deal with the tariff as a whole in the future unless it is prepared to invite from the government of the United States an expression of its wishes in that regard.
There is another illustration which I regard as being of an equally serious character with that to which I have already alluded. The government of this country has had complete freedom of action in dealing with other countries in trade matters. It was at liberty to make a treaty with France. That treaty did not involve any such condi-

tion as that which results from the negotiations with the United States. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance made that clear to us when the French treaty was being debated in this parliament. He said this treaty does not fetter us in any way in dealing w7ith our tariff, we can raise our tariff and wre can lower our tariff; the only thing this treaty requires at our hands, so far as France is concerned, is that the intermediate tariff so far as these items are concerned shall be granted to France at all times in the future. That in effect was the argument made. Suppose to-morrow we undertook to make a treaty with Germany or with Italy. The Minister of Finance has spoken of the possibility of our doing so. We may make with Germany a treaty somewhat on 'the same lines as the treaty with France. Will not the United States government the moment that treaty is concluded be in a position to come to the government of Canada and say: You admitted that the treaty with France involved a certain discrimination which would have justified the imposition of our maximum tariff unless you had made some corresponding concessions in your tariff and we likewise demand in respect to this treaty with Germany or with Italy that further concessions shall be granted to the United States. The same reason and just as legitimate grounds could be advanced as those which were urged by the government of the United States in the negotiations which have just taken place. I cannot see any distinction between the two cases. If it was a proper and legitimate argument for the government of the United States to say this treaty with France involved a certain discrimination against the United States, which must be compensated for by certain concessions in your tariff, equally the government of the United States can say, when we make a treaty with Germany or Italy, this treaty involves certain concessions, granted, it is true, for corresponding concessions, but it does involve certain concessions to Germany and Italy which we regard as a discrimination against us just as we regarded the French treaty as a discrimination against us, and therefore we invite you to make further concessions to us in such items of your tariff as may be agreed upon. If that is not the result of the situation to which the government has brought this country by its action, then I am absolutely unable to understand what is the nature of that situation, or in what respect the government have committed the country.
Now, one word more. I have spoken very briefly, and I do not know that I have made my meaning absolutely clear to my hon. friends on the treasury benches or to the House, but there is one other observation which I desire to make in concluding Mr. K, L. BOKDEN.
my remarks. It appears by the correspondence which has been brought down, that negotiations are about to be carried on between the government of this country and the government of the United States looking to the revision of the tariff in both countries with a view to the extension of trade between the two countries. As 1 have already said, no one Is more desirous than 1 am for good relations respecting trade and all other matters between this country or the empire as a whole and the United States of America. But we have otheT considerations. We have the consideration of Canada and of Canada's relations to the empire as a whole. 1 am one who believes that the British empire is not very well organized. It is more a disorganization than an organization to-day, having regard to the utter absence of any effective co-operation up to the present time in trade, and having regard also to the lack of organization up to the present time, or almost up to the present time, in matters of defence. Now, I believe it to be the desire of every man in this country who has considered this subject with any attention that we may at some time in the future, and I hope in the not too distant future, bring about a system of mutual trade preferences within the empire, and I would say to the gentlemen upon the treasury benches that any negotiations which they enter into witli the United States ought to be subject to that consideration above all.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: And we ought not to place ourselves by such negotiations in any position which would hamper our future fiscal action with regard to any country in the world. Especially we ought not to enter into any such negotiations as will prevent the consummation of that great ideal which Mr. Chamberlain presented to the people of the British Isles and to the people of the empire some few years ago, and which I hope may have its consummation and realization before many years are passed. I think it would be a fatal mistake for the government of this country, whatever party might be in power, to embark upon any such negotiations as would hamper or prevent the consummation of that great ideal. I desire as much as any man may desire the extension of the trade of this country, but I desire also the maintenance of our own fiscal autonomy, the maintenance of our own industries in this country, agricultural, industrial, and of every other description. I desire last, but not least, that the fiscal freedom of this country shall be so maintainea that Canada shall be at liberty at all times in the future to enter into the great scheme, or mutual trade preferences between the

mother country and all the dominions of the empire by -which the whole empire will be bound'together not only by ties of sentiment, but by ties of interest and of trade to the great good, not only of the mother country, but to the great good of every dominion of the empire and to the enormous advantage of this great Dominion of ours.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: I will endeavour to take a very few minutes in making a few remarks upon the subject that is before us. At the outset I would say that I regret the position that has been taken by the leader of the opposition and I Tegret his utterances with reference to the negotiations that took place between the United States and Canada to their effect. I -will not argue the question with him. I content myself with saying that the fiscal autonomy of Canada remains with Canada unabbreviated in any direction by any negotiations that have taken place. There is no danger of Canada's hands being tied unless there was a government in Canada which sympathized with his views. That might be the danger but there is not at present that government in power. Now what are the facts with reference to this case. Let us just get down to the facts and then we will understand the situation, and the leader of the opposition seems to take the same position as other speakers that President Taft, President of the United States, had the power to make a tariff which is recited in so many figures with 25 per cent plus added and that any negotiations that we had were with a view not of having Mr. Taft enact this 25 per cent but of his being allowed to take it off. The United States Congress made the ISw. President Taft did not make the law. President Taft could not make the law, and the law to-day in the United States is this: that, they have a schedule commonly called their minimum tariff with 25 per cent ad valorem added. That is the tariff of the United States today. The power that President Taft was entrusted with was that, of looking over the tariff of other nations and if he^ in his judgment determined that the relations between a particular country and the United States were favourable then he had the power to declare that the 25 per cent should be deducted from any imports from that country. President Taft did not make the law; the congress made it. The power in President Taft's hands was not to put on the maximum tariff; that is on to-day. The power put into his hands was under certain circumstances to reduce the tariff by 25 per cent ad valorem. They recognized that the tariff imposed by congress involved a consideration of the trade relations between the United States and the other nations of the world, Canada included. I
am not arguing the question. I am not disposed to disagree with the leader of the opposition that Canada has certainly greater freedom and a lower tariff than the United States. That is not the question. The leader of the opposition is not to determine the question whether Canada shall come under the maximum tariff or not. That was a question for the President of the United States to determine, and the President of the United States said that he saw that there was discrimination, that we had in some way given to some other nations more than we had given to them; and therefore he felt that he would have to have negotiations with Canada just as he had with France, Germany and other countries. I need not detail the circumstances of what took place. You know how parties came from the United States authorized to have a conference with this government; you know how that conference resulted; you know how President Taft solicited an interview with the Finance Minister. You know how he went to the United States and discussed this question with the President. I need not tell you the position the Finance Minister took nor the position the President took. The President ultimately suggested that if certain concessions were made in the Canadian tariff, the United States in return would grant to Canada the concessions of her minmum tariff. The concessions made by the Minister of Finance are now before us for consideration. What are they? What is their effect? They affect articles imported from the United States to the value of $4,814,293 on which the revenue undeT the proposed tariff amounts to $927,861.94. The estimated reduction in the duties on these articles amounts to $192,814.03. This is the amount of the concessions asked by the United States and granted by the Minister of Finance of Canada. The question has been asked: What concessions do you get in return for that? You have given away something; what do you get? Why, what a question that is to ask' Canada sent into the United States in 1909, $43,072,010 worth of dutiable goods, on which we get a 25 per cent reduction amounting to $10,768,000 in return for the concession by Canada to the United States of a reduction of $192,814.


George Eulas Foster: It, is a pity the surtax had not been 50 per cent.


William Paterson: If the surtax had been 50 per cent and the imports had been the same, there would have been so much more reduction.


Mr. BRODER.: You do not pretend to say that .the shipper pays the duty?


William Paterson: Not always. Will the hon. gentleman say that the importer or the consumer always pays the duty? The

hon. gentleman knows my view about the payment of the taxation-that in some cases it is paid by the importer and in some cases it is divided. But the net result of this transaction is that there is a reduction proposed in our tariff to the United States amounting to $192,814 and in return we get from the United States a reduction in their tariff amounting to $10,768,000. If any one can cite an instance in the history of diplomacy between nations, where one nation conceded so little and gained so much, I will yield the floor to him.


Mr. BRISTOL.: Does the hon. gentleman consider that we could at the present time raise the duty on manufactured and other goods coming in from the United States other than the articles that 'have been dealt with under this concession?


William Paterson: Certainly. I understand that Canada is in a position to do what she chooses.


Edmund James Bristol: Without any risk of having the United States tariff changed?


William Paterson: They can judge for themselves. We do what we like and the united States will do what they like.


William Findlay Maclean: One suggestior occurs to me m connection with this matter, and I regard it as a mast important point The Lmted States is attempting tc assert a supremacy on this continent II has taken under its control all the South American republics and is more or leas dictating their policy, and is trying tc organize them into a great commercial and other union of America. It would like tc include the Dominion of Canada -in that policy, and it will steadily try in some way to assert supremacy over the tariff arrangements of Canada.
President Taft, whose name has been mentioned to-day in a speech at Buffalo on Saturday night, used the term * commercial union with Canada,' saying that it was now the policy of his government to enter upon negotiations that would look to commercial union with Canada. Commercial union with the United States means to the Canadian people, as we found out years ago, some kind of control of the Canadian tariff by the government and the Congress of the Lnited States. Canadians want nothing of that kind nor do they want anyi negotiations with the United States which will end in commercial union, or in any disruption or dislocation of Canada's present tariff policy, which is based on what? Canada s policy to-day is a national policy for Canada, and it is based on east and west lines. Our policy and our tariff has in view that in some way our object must be to make our trade move east and west. We have built all our railroads to make our trade move east and west. We have


William Paterson: entered into or have in view an imperial trade policy which is also based on lines of latitude, east and west lines, and the object of the United States to-day is to divert that movement and t-o have our trade move north and south. If we enter into negotiations with the United States, it will 'be to in some way change those trade lines which we have established and intend to perfect. So I regard it as a matter of the highest moment that we maintain in the fullest sense of the term our tariff independence, our fiscal independence, and that we have few if any negotiations with them on the lines of what the president said yesterday would end in commercial union. We want commercial independence in Canada, and a policy that in some way will make trade move east and west instead of north and south. The American nation sees to-day that a large portion of their population has started to move north into Canada. They wrnuld not object greatly to that it they could get a trade policy that) would make trade move north and south. They have that in view, and I trust the' government will be very careful in regard to any negotiations they may enter into with the United States for commercial! union, because the people of Canada will have nothing of that. We want our own fiscal independence asserted at all times, and never to be in the position of the South American republics, that in some way our policy may be dominated by the United States. The Secretary of State of the United States to-day is being lauded for the letter that he wrote to the government of Nicaragua not long ago. It -was the most, dictatorial piece of diplomacy I -have ever seen in connection with the history of America. That- small republic was lectured, told what it ought to do and was threatened and bullied in every way. That same thing will be attempted in regard to Canada if they think they can do it. They are lecturing all the republics to the south, and would like to dictate to U3 as to our policy, and they do wish to anticipate and to side-track if they possibly can what I call imperial trade relations between the mother country and the various dominions that make up the empire. They have as- . serted what they call the Monroe doctrine in regard to the whole of this continent. They would like to extend that- Monroe doc-, trine, whatever it is, for it is difficult to define, to trade matters as well, and, therefore, again I say our policy ought to be framed and directed to this end of con-) stantly maintaining our fiscal independence, to be very careful in regard to any relations that would end in anything like commercial union, because, as I said, the people of Canada will not tolerate anvthing of the kind, and the whole future of Canada and her relations with the empire de-

pend upon trade lines that run east and west, and not trade lines on this continent^ that run north and south. If we assert that principle Canada will continue to grow, the national policy will be vindicated and this country will be united. The moment you cause the trade lines to <pun north and south, the dismembership of Canada has begun.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
Mr. HENDERSON.: I hoped that the Minister of Finance would give some information as to who selected the special items which are found in this resolution for negotiations between this country and the United States. Were these special items suggested by President Taft or those acting with him or were they suggested by the Canadian government? I think the committee should be informed as to why these particular items were selected above all others to be dealt with. I am not complaining, as has been well said by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) of the changes proposed, I shall not take exception to more than one or two of them. The changes, it is true, are slight. They may be important to some industries with which I am not familiar, but I have had no representations in regard to any except one, and therefore I do not propose to discuss them. Going back to 1895, before the present government came into power, hon. gentlemen opposite were fond ,of proclaiming that they were the low tariff party. Well, at last, after the lapse of fourteen or fifteen years, we find them proposing a reduction in the tariff, the first substantial reduction they have ever proposed. Their first step in relation to the tariff, after coming into power, was to increase the tariff very largely and on many items. But now we actually have a reduction proposed. And I am free to say that, after all the increases in the tariff that have been made time and again by the present government, I believe that these slight concessions will be welcomed, with the exception of one or two cases.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
604. Dongola, cordovan, calf, sheep, lamb, kid or goat, kangaroo, alligator, and all leather dressed, waxed, glazed, or further finished than tanned, n.o.p., harness leather, and chamois skin reduced from 17J per cent to 15 per cent.


David Henderson: I notice that harness leather is included in this item. Only three years ago the government increased the duty on harness leather from 15 to 17i per cent. I am not authorized by any one to make any complaint with reference to this item, but I draw the attention of the government to something that I consider peculiar in this matter. Only three years ago it was determined that the proper duty on harness leather should be 17J per cent. During those three years, I have no doubt that men engaged in the production of harness leather have largely increased their plant, and gone to a considerable expense with a view to larger production. I know that is the case in the village in which I live, where a large harness leather industry is carried on. I have had no communication from any one, but I apprehend that a good deal of feeling will be created when those people learn that the government, without notice, has again reduced the duty from 17i to 15 per cent. I am not complaining about the reduction of duty, but in a special case like this where the duty was increased only three years ago, and where men were encouraged to increase their business with the expectation of a wider market for their output, it seems to be rather a hardship that they should, without notice, be called upon to carry on their operations in a market that is Very much limited. I do not know the extent of the imports of harness leather into this country, but I remember a tanner in my riding telling me years ago with regard to sole leather, that if the American tanners were to throw into Canada two per cent of their output it would take up the entire market of the Canadian people for sole leather. If that should be the case, or anything approximating to it, with harness leather, it might be a very serious matter.
711. All goods not enumerated in this schedule as subject to any other rate of duty, and not otherwise declared free of duty, and not being goods the importation whereof is by law prohibited, 20 per cent to 17| per cent.
Provided that duty shall not be deemed to be provided for by this item upon dutiable goods mentioned as ' n.o.p.' in any preceding tariff item.
Provided further that when the component material of chief value in any non-enumer-ated article consists of dutiable material enumerated in this schedule as bearing a higher rate of duty than is specified in this tariff item, such noil-enumerated article shall be subject to the highest duty which would be chargeable thereon if it were composed wholly of the component material thereof of chief value, such ' component material of chief value ' being that component material which shall exceed in value any other single component material in its condition as found in the article.


David Henderson: contained in 711. Where an item is rated in our tariff under the general term, I see no reason why the government should change the rate in order to bring it under this item. To make my case clear, I refer to the article of lime which is named in a paper which the government has laid before us, stating the value of the articles entered under the tariff item 711:	' All
goods enumerated in the tariff schedule in the general tariff, entered for consumption in Canada during the year ending 31st March, 1909.' Amongst those articles is mentioned the article of quick lime, hydrated lime, lime practically of any kind produced in this country. Now in our tariff we have an item ' manufacturers of stone, n.o.p.' I do not think it requires much thought to arrive at the conclusion that lime is a manufacture of stone. To my mind it is clearly such, as it is produced by heat being applied to the lime stone; it is the result of an industrial process brought about by the application of heat to convert the stone into lime. It is clearly a manufacture of stone, and therefore should not be placed among those items in article 711 of our tariff, or amongst the unenumerated items. The difference is this:	Under the unenumerated articles
the duty henceforth will only be 17J per cent; treated as a manufacture of stone, as it ought to be treated, and where parliament declared it should be treated, it would be 30 per cent, because parliament passed a law placing manufacturers of stone not otherwise provided for, under a rate of 30 per cent duty. That is clearly to my mind where lime ought to be classified; it is a manufacture of stone, and does not require to be put in the unenumerated list. You can only classify in this unenumerated list an article which is not covered in any other way by the tariff. Clearly lime is covered by our tariff specifically, under the item of manufacturers of stone, n.o.p. What I ask the government to do is to change the classification of this article, and put it where it ought to be, under the item of manufacturers of stone, and not keep it as an article unenumerated in the tariff at all. Now this is an industry in which considerable capital is invested, it is an important industry all over the country. I know whereof I speak in western Ontario, and .something of it in the great west. A considerable amount of money is invested in the production of this article, it employs a considerable amount of labour. It consumes a large amount of fuel which probably would not be required for almost any other purpose, furnace wood, which is usually wood of an inferior quality. In the burning of lime a large amount of coal is used. That coal is imported from the United States. Those who are engaged in the industry Mr. HENDERSON.
have to pay 53 cents a ton duty on their coal, and I think it hardly fair, on an article where such a high duty has to be paid on the raw material, or what is necessary to produce this article, that we should now reduce the duty from where it has beqj| for a great many years. I cannot conceive what argument could be advanced for putting this article under item 711. I want to impress upon the committee that lime is simply a manufacture of stone, and manufacturers of stone are n.o.p., 30 per cent under the tariff, and there lime ought to be classified.
If it is classified in that way, as it ought to be, it would not be subjected to a reduction such as is going to be made under this new American treaty. I do not think it would interfere with the government's arrangement with the United States. All that the government is bound to give are the articles enumerated in item 711, but the United States cannot claim the right to send into this country at the 17J per cent rate any item that is enumerated in our tariff schedules under any other heading. I think that is quite clear. The Minister of Finance would have no difficulty in relieving himself of any obligation to the American government with regard to this matter if he would simply change the classification. The only argument that I have heard advanced to justify this article being put on the unenumerated list is that lime is a chemical. You may call it a chemical, or an acid, or anything you like, but you cannot get away from the fact that it is a manufacture of stone, and manufactures of stone not otherwise provided for are on the 30 per cent list and not in item 711 at all. I care not whether those who have the interpretation of our tariff call it a chemical or not; if it is a chemical it is still a manufacture of stone, and would be properly rated in that way. You might as well call iron and steel chemicals because they are produced by means of heat from ore, but notwithstanding that fact no one hesitates to place such articles in our tariff schedules. Lime ought to be properly enumerated, but as it is not definitely enumerated under a name, we must fall back upon the general name under which it is enumerated as a manufacture of stone. I appeal to the government to see that those who are engaged in this industry do not suffer by means of this new tariff. Ordinary quick lime may adapt itself to the requirements of the tariff more readily, although this change might handicap the industry a great deal coming on the producer suddenly. But there is a class of lime known as hydrated lime, or hard wall plaster, which is more expensive in its production and is being called for very extensively. Recently in the city of Guelph a plant has been put in at a cost of $8,000 for the manufac-

ture of hard wall plaster that can be shipped all over the country after it has gone through that process, and kept for six or ten months without deteriorating, in this respect being unlike ordinary quick lime, which would spoil in warm weather in four or five days or a week. Plasterers in the large cities during the winter season demand it, because it is easier for them to work it than the ordinary quick lime in the cold weather. A very considerable quantity of this is being imported into this country at the present time. The manufacture of hydrated lime is a comparatively hew thing in this country, and, therefore, I think it is well that we should guard the industry as much as we possibly can. I notice that up to December 31, 1910, there were imported into Montreal of this product, 10,856 barrels of a value of $4,488, on which there was duty paid of $885.65. There were imported into Toronto, 14,686 barrels, at a cost of $8,060, paying a duty of $1,612. This, as I have said, is a comparatively new thing, it is a growing import, and I do not doubt that next year you will find the import of this article very much increased to the detriment of a new industry which has been established at a very considerable expense and which is yet simply in its initial stage.
I appeal to the government, more especially on the article of hydrated lime, to see that it is properly classified as a manufacture of stone,' and not put in the enumerated list in order that the duty will not be reduced from 30 per cent to 174 Per cent. It may be said that the import of lime is not verv great. The importation of lime into Canada last year was 191,572 barrels, of a value of $116,946. So we see that the importation is very considerable, and it is growing year by year. Now, I make this appeal, i leave it to the members of the government to see that there is a new classification of this article before the matter is finally ratified, and that it is put into its proper place as a manufacture of stone and not left on the unenumerated list. There are many counties throughout the province of Ontario particularly that are interested in this question, for instance, the counties of Wellington, South Oxford, South Perth, represented by the chairman of this committee, Mr. McIntyre, and Renfrew; while the county that I represent perhaps produces more of that article than any other county in the province. Consequently, I feel somewhat keenly on the subject. I hope the interests of these people may not be jeopardized. I hope their interests may be guarded as well as they have been before, and that the government will not allow American lime to invade the country to a larger extent and at a lower rate of duty. I trust that the government will take a fair view of this matter and do what is necessary to comply with my request.


Mr. FIELDING.: The point raised by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) has no particular reference to this Bill, although it affords him an opportunity of calling attention to what he deems to be an error. It is a question of the interpretation of an item of the tariff. Whether or not that interpretation is correct is a fair matter for consideration. The Board of Customs is the body authorized to rule as to the meaning of the tariff, and it has in the past held that lime ought to come within the list of unenumerated items. If that is a mistake, I am sure that I will be very glad to have my hon. friend call attention to it. I cannot offer any opinion as to what is the proper classification of this article. The Board of Customs, I am quite sure, will be glad to have any observations that my hon. friend may submit to it.


David Henderson: I thought this was a very proper time to bring this matter to the attention of the government.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not objecting. My hon. friend's point would still seem to be quite in order.


David Henderson: I took this opportunity, as I did not know that I would have any other. I repeat again that parliament has declared that stone not otherwise provided for is dutiable at 30 per cent under our tariff, and bv what course of reasoning can any body of men occupying the official position that has been designated- the Board of Customs-take that article, which is a manufacture of stone, and place it in another item and say that it is not enumerated? I think that the government is responsible for this. It has been so classified for forty years. Possibly the Board of Customs is simply following what is the old practice.


William Stevens Fielding: Very likely.


David Henderson: If the minister will go back for fifty or sixty years, I can show him that lime was on the enumerated list up to 1859. You will find lime on the enumerated list before confederation.


William Stevens Fielding: Where?


David Henderson: In the Customs Act.


William Stevens Fielding: There was none before confederation.


David Henderson: There was between the provinces of British North America.


William Stevens Fielding: They had their different tariffs.


David Henderson: I am speaking of the tariff of UppeT and Lower Canada. That tariff had the item lime which was then in the unenumerated list. Now, why should it be changed? If it was a proper thing then it should be a proper thing now.

The whole matter was possibly brought about as a result of an accident. Possibly it had been left out of the tariff and because it was not found in the tariff it was treated as an unenumerated article and continued in that wray. I submit to the minister that it is a proper matter to bring before the Governor in Council in order to have what I consider to be an error rectified and in order to do justice to an industry which is of a very considerable importance in this country.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 233) to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 229) to encourage the construction of dry-docks-Mr. Fielding-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 4,
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to ask the minister what those statutes are that are referred to in this section? It refers to the works and property of any existing dry-dock company whose dock has been constructed under the provision of certain statutes. What are these statutes?


William Stevens Fielding: We have had for many years Acts on the statute-book of a general character authorizing the construction of dry-docks and providing certain subsidies for them. These have been changed from time to time to meet the changed conditions of the country. The law as it stands tc-day authorizes the government to grant a subsidy of 3 per cent per annum for 20 years for the construction of a dry-dock with a maximum cost of one and a half million dollars and this would mean that any dock constructed under the terms of these Acts might be enlarged under the provisions of the new law. "


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do the latter statutes amend the former?


William Stevens Fielding: I think in each case the former Act was repealed and the new Act substituted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As to subsection 3, is not this a rather harsh regulation that the Governor in Council shall fix the amount that is to be paid for these works that are to be confiscated or expropriated? The subsection states that the value of the works and property shall be fixed and determined by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister ol Mr. HENDERSON.
Public Works based upon a report of the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works before the agreement for construction is entered into. Is it intended that the expropriation shall be arbitrarily determined by the Governor in Council -without the company who owns the property having an opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal like the Exchequer Court or any other institution to settle the dispute. The information of the Governor in Council might in his belief be correct and yet greatly unfair to the people who own these dry-docks. .


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend has a misconception of this clause. It does not contemplate expropriation of any company's property. This is to enable a company voluntarily to come and make a proposal to the government to enlarge its dock. It is not contemplated that the government or anybody else shall expropriate the property. If they do not want the dock enlarged things will remain as they are. It will be an entirely voluntary matter to be adjusted between the company and the government.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is a sort of bonus on a percentage basis?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the subsidy is on the basis of 31 per cent for 35 years on a first-class dock, 31 per cent for 25 years on a second-class dock, and 3 per cent for 20 years on the smaller docks.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is merely for the purpose of computing the value of the property?


William Stevens Fielding: It is for the purpose of determining the value of the old work. Let us take the case of a dock that has been built for some years and is now inadequate for the larger vessels. If the company desires to enlarge that dock it may have the benefit of the largest subsidy for the longer term, but we will have to fix the value of the old work in determining the total cost That is the purpose of that clause.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


BOUNTIES ON IRON AND STEEL. -
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 231) respecting bounties on iron and steel made in Canada-Mr. Fielding-read the second time, and House went into-committee thereon.
Mr. SPROLTLE, Will the hon. minister explain this Bill?	.
William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend was not here last evening when I explained that the payment of most of the bounties on iron and steel will expire on the 31st of December next- by the effluxion

of time, but there is no fixed time for the termination of the bounty on steel rods used in the manufacture of wire in Canada, and we thought it well to. introduce a Bill fixing the date. As there has been no previous notice,, we fix' the time at six months later than the date at which the other bounties expire, that is, the 30th of June, 1911, when these bounties on steel rods shall cease, provided that we may continue to make payment on any rods made prior to that date.


Mr. SPROULE.: Will that be the end of; the bounties?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, except one on electric smelting, which expires in a year or two later; but to the best of my knowledge, that has never been used at all.


Mr. J. D. REID.: It seems very strange-that the Finance Minister should be introducing such important Bills at this late stage of the session, when we have no opportunity of going into them at all. A Bill' was introduced here to-day and put through that had not even been printed.


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill is a mere reproduction of resolutions which have been on the order paper for a considerable time.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there is the Combines Bill, as well as a number of others. We have been here for six months, but the government has not brought these Bills before us until the last four or five days. In another session I hope they will brings their Bills forward at an earlier stage of the session. This is not the first time we have had this played on U3.


William Stevens Fielding: The only suggestion I can offer is that on some of those occasions when hon. gentlemen feel disposed to take up a day on some matter which we in our erroneous judgment do not consider important, we take time instead for the consideration of government Bills. These Bills have been on the order paper for some, time, and if they have not been taken up, it has been because the time has been otherwise occupied-whether wisely or not is a matter of which hon. members can judge.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman brings up estimates in the early stages of the session and leaves these important Bills to the last. If these Bills had been fully discussed, they would probably be in better shape than they are now. Does the hon. minister contend that the Combines Bill or the Insurance Bill should be left til! within three or four days of the end of the session? I, for one, do not think so. He is now trying to justify that action.


William Stevens Fielding: How would my hon. friend keep the balance? There are only a certain number of hours in the day. There
has not been a day from the beginning of the session that the order paper has not been full, not a day that the government had not its business ready and pressing, and sometimes, when we wanted to work a little later, hon. gentlemen opposite said we had done a good day's work and should adjourn. This has been a busy, active session, and the government has at all times been ready to push forward its business. As to distinguishing between one item and another, my hon. friend speaks of the estimates. We will be told by and by that estimates are going through in the last hours of the session. It is hard to judge which is the most important; they are all important and we are trying to press them forward.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Is it the intention of the government to add a duty to take the place of the bounties that are removed?


William Stevens Fielding: We certainly have no such intention at present; what may come in the future I cannot say. The future will have to take care of itself on that point.
On the preamble,


William Findlay Maclean: Does the minister think that the retirement of these bounties will interfere with the building of steel ships in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not anticipate that the abolition of bounties will change the fact that steel will be produced in Canada, and if we are capable of producing it for ship-building purposes no doubt those ships will be built. I do not think the stopping of bounties would prevent the use of our steel in ship-building. Some gentlemen in the trade have said that- if the bounties are abolished they will set forth claims for something substantial .in the way of duty. They will probably do so, but what will be the result is not for me to say at present.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the Finance Minister, the vessels for the navy are to be built in Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: We hope so.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 think the Prime Minister practically stated that would be done. If that policy is to be followed for the navy, will the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister agree that vessels for 'the fisheries will also be built in Canada? Last year a steamer costing $300,000 was purchased that could have been built at Toronto or Collingwood. But the Finance Minister refused to have it built in Canada because it would cost $15,000 more. If the policy of having ships built in Canada is to be followed for the navy all ships should be built here in order to build up Canadian industries.


William Stevens Fielding: There should be one policy for both. I would certainly prefer to have them all built in Canada, and would willingly pay a moderate increase in price to secure that.. Just where the line is to be drawn is difficult to say. If the difference were only slight, personally, I would prefer to see them built in Canada. To some extent we might make up the difference by the duty we would collect on materials imported into Canada for shipbuilding, although much would be imported free. Speaking generally, if our ships can be built in Canada at a moderate advance over the English price, I would be willing to pay a moderate advance, but in view of the fact that we are going to advertise for tenders, I would rather not fix a percentage where the line should be drawn.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister has said he is willing to build in Canada even although .the vessels cost 331 per cent more.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not remember that.


John Dowsley Reid: At least a certain percentage. If the government are willing to pay 10 per cent or 15 per cent more for a vessel built in Canada, they would not do so in the past. On a vessel costing $300,000, the difference of $15,000 would be only 5 per cent, but the Finance Minister was not willing to have that vessel built in Canada at an increased cost of 5 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend is in error.


John Dowsley Reid: I can turn up the ' Hansard ' : I remember the discussion well. By having these vessels built in Canada, Canadian young men in Collingwood and Toronto who have grown up and learned their trade in Canada would be getting employment.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not recollect the case of which my hon. friend speaks. I certainly would not claim that a difference of 5 per cent would justify us in rejecting the Canadian building. I would personally be willing to pay more than 5 per cent, although I would not subscribe to the doctrine that these ships, naval or any other, shall be built in Canada at any cost. That would be a dangerous position to take. But I do say that if they can be built-I am not distinguishing between naval vessels and any other vessels-any vessel that Canada requires for any branch of her public service, if it can be built in Canada at a moderate advance on the British cost, I would cordially support the building of it in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood that the Prime Minister stated the other evening Mr. J. D. REID.
that on a vessel costing $180,000 in Canada, the English tender was only about $4,000 less or, $175,000. Therefore for the saving only two and a half per cent on the cost, the Prime Minister sent that tender over to the old country. Now there have been a great many vessels built in England for these departments, and I think that when the Prime Minister promised to build them in Canada he should do so. The Prime Minister has promised this House that the vessels will be built in Canada if the cost is at all within reason. I might give instances where the difference has been five per cent. So far as I am concerned if it were five per cenf, or even ten per cent, let them be built in Canada; because we have intelligent young Canadians, and skillful mechanics just as well qualified to build vessels as they are in England. I hope that when the tenders show a difference not greater than five per cent, or even ten per cent the Prime Minister will give the work to our Canadians, and they will build boats just as good as they can be built any where else.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to plead guilty. This government is altogether too economical, and we will try not to do it again.


Mr.   .J. D. REID@: I do not blame the Prime Minister so much for it, but I stated in this House the other night that there was a gentleman in Montreal that this" government had sent to England to negotiate for these vessels. There was no chance of his getting a rake-off if they were built m Canada, whereas, by getting them built in England, or buying them in England, he could get a good commission.


John Allister Currie: The Finance Minister is giving wide notice of the abolition of these bounties. To my mind I think it is a vicious principle. He refuses to make any statement that a duty will take the place of the bounty. The result will be that all improvements in the way of enlargement of_ steel works will be halted until this decision is arrived at by the government. I understand that large improvements were contemplated by several companies, but the statement now made that the bounties will be withdrawn, coupled with the statement that there is no hope of any duty being placed on steel to take the place of those bounties, will work adversely against the companies, and will depress their securities and prevent them from getting the necessary capital to carry on their proposed enlargements. I think it would have been much better if the notice as to these bounties was delayed until the proper time came, then a statement whether there was going to be a duty to take the place of the bounties,

would dovetail into the change, and would not seriously affect the companies.


Mr. MACDONALD.: I am much interested in the question of bounties on the steel industry which is carried on so extensively in the province from which I come. But I apprehend that my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Currie) will hardly expect the Finance Minister to make an announcement in advance what action he will take with regard to items in the tariff.
I think the best guarantee of the interest of this government in the steel industry is the success which has attended the policy of the government in dealing with it in the past. I would like to say to the government that I trust when the time comes to give the notice for the final suspension of these bounties, the government will take into consideration the absolute necessity of readjusting the tariff so that this great industry, which has made such strides in the past', may be further encouraged in the future.


Mr. CONMEE.: On previous occasions I have called attention to the necessity of encouraging this industry. I still hold the same view, but I believe the time has come when perhaps the government would be justified in turning its attention more strongly to the manufacture of iron and steel from Canadian ore, than from foreign ore, all our furnaces, in On-t.ario, at all events, are using foreign ore. Ninety per cent, perhaps, or more, of the iron and steel produced' to-day is produced from foreign ore. There was a time in the history of our country when we did not have smelters and furnaces to produce pig metal or steel, that time has to a large extent passed away. We have to-day a number of furnaces and steel works, we also have the iron ore. It can be no longer argued that we do not possess the necessary iron ore deposits to produce the metals which these furnaces are producing to-day. I do not want them to be crippled. I think fair warning ought to be given that the time must come in the near future when they must depend upon Canadian ore instead of foreign ore. That would give a great impetus to mining in this country. If the government can stipulate in its aid to railways that the rails, for instance, shall be manufactured in Canada, they could go a step further and stipulate that they shall not only be manufactured in Canada, but manufactured from Canadian ore. That would give a still greater impetus to mining in this country. That was the course followed in the United States when they gave a large sum of money towards the construction of the Union Pacific railway. Mining was then in its infancy in that country, and they stipulated, not only that the rails should be manufactured in that
country, but manufactured from American ore, and I think that has a great deal to do with the development of the iron and steel industry in the United States. A similar policy would greatly assist us, and I hope in any revision of the tariff the government will keep that principle in view, and that at as early a day as possible manufacturers will be given_to understand that they must look for the supply of their furnaces to Canadian mined ore.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 230) respecting the city of Ottawa-Mr. Fielding-was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
William Stevens Fielding: This measure was also very fully discussed on the resolutions yesterday. It was a proposal to extend the sum we are giving to the Ottawa Improvement Commission. They are now receiving $60,000 per annum. It is proposed by this arrangement to increase the grant to $100,000, and also to pay into the city treasury $15,000 per annum for ten .years for fire protection and water service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In addition?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the amount paid to the commission will be $40,000 in addition to what is already being paid, and $15,000 into the city treasury. There will be $100,000 to the Ottawa Improvement Commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And how about the $100,000 for the purchase of the hotel site?


William Stevens Fielding: That goes to the Ottawa Improvement Commission.


Uriah Wilson: Has the government always had to pay for water and fire protection?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and no. Prior to making the arrangement under which the Ottawa Improvement Commission was established, the Dominion paid $15,000 into the city treasury for fire protection and water. When the commission was constituted, we took that $15,000 and turned it over to the commission and added $45,000, making a total of $60,000. We propose, under these resolutions, to pay $100,000 to the commission and $15,000 direct to the city treasury for fire protection and water.


William Findlay Maclean: Has it ever struck the Finance Minister that, in carrying out these improvements in Ottawa, in connection with the commission, the government, if it has not the foresight to acquire lands before improvements are made, is supply-

ing money to put up the price of real estate which the government itself must subsequently buy? I think that, in connection with this matter, the government ought to have a well defined policy for acquiring any additional lands needed for governmental purposes, and the sooner they do it the more economically it can be done.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe that thought was expressed years ago in the days of Sir John Macdonald, but I am told that Sir John expressed the opinion that it w'as not the business of the government to traffic in real estate, that if they wanted real estate for public purposes, they ought to buy it at the current rates. Perhaps that is too broad a statement, but we certainly do not want to buy a lot of property and have it lying idle.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) does not accept that statement?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not say we should, not look ahead at all, but I say we should not buy a lot of property merely to have it lie idle. We should look ahead, but not^ too far ahead.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the government is dealing pretty generously, with the city of Ottawa. The government gave the dity $60,000 for twenty years, making $1,200,000. We are going to give them $40,000 for ten years, making $400,000, and $15,000 a year, I suppose in perpetuity?


William Stevens Fielding: No, for ten years. But it would be a reasonable expectation that it would be paid hereafter


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That makes at least $150,000 more, a total of $1,750,000. In addition, we have handed over $100,000, the proceeds of the sale of land for the hotel site, so that Ottawa gets the benefit of about $2,000,000. I think Ottawa is faring pretty well. As long as Ottawa can get these grants, it will not be slow to ask them and to find reasons that will justify the putting forward of claims every few years for something additional.


John Allister Currie: As it is not the policy of the government to speculate in land, and as the government made a tidy speculation in Toronto under which they profited to the extent of .$300,000 by the deal in the Garrison common, I suppose they will turn over that money as conscience money to the city of Toronto?


William Stevens Fielding: Or, perhaps, it would be better to hold it against other speculations in *which we have not made money.
Bill reported, and read the third time, and passed.


Mr.  W. F.@: 


MACLEAN
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 205) to amend the Civil Service Act. He said: The amendment appears to be the correction of some figures in the salary list of the Inland Revenue Department. A certain class of clerks are stated in the Bill to have salaries of from $1,500 to $1,600. This should have read from $1,300 to $1,600- a correction of what appears to be a typographical error.
Motion agreed to, and amendments concurred in.	.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 232) to amend the Government Railways Act-Mr. Graham-was read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. GRAHAM.: As was explained on a previous occasion the object of this Bill is to bring the Government Railways Act into harmony with the General Railway Act in regard to limiting the liability of the railway for damages to $5,000, provided that modern protection appliances have-been used by the railway and its employees.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is, in case of lire?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Why not extend to individuals in the case of the government railways the same right you give them in the case of other railways, the right to sue? The aggrieved person must seek a fiat, and the granting of that fiat is a matter wholly in the hands of the government.


George Perry Graham: That is a large question. We have encroached a little on the prerogatives of the King in allowing claimants for damages for cattle killed, and so on, to sue in the local courts up to $200. That is a departure from what has always existed. The Act has been changed materially for the benefit of those living along the line of railway. Heretofore the Government Railways Act did not allow as much latitude in the claiming of damages as the general Railway Act did. During the present session the Act has been changed so that the government railway will come under practically the same Act as that which governs an ordinary railway. We have accepted all the liabilities of the ordinary railway and this provision is the one that exists under the general Railway Act with respect to the $5,000 liability.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is a great deal in what my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart) says. The Crown still maintains the power to refuse a fiat.
I _am very much of the opinion that when the government carries on the business of transportation, or any other similar business it should not only subject itself to the actions for negligence to which an ordinary corporation would be subjected, but it ought to give to all persons dealing with it the same rights of action in the courts that such parties would have against a corporation. This is only a half measure that the government presents, as my hon. friend from Lanark very well pointed out.


John Allister Currie: Yesterday I brought to the attention of the House a copy of the rules. I suppose the minister has read my remarks in ' Hansard '. The Railway Commission has approved of a ' uniform code of rules for Canadian railways '. This book is issued to every trainman, and he has to sign a receipt of acceptance in which receipt he acknowledges that he accepts the conditions amongst which I find this:
' Employees in accepting employment assume these risks.' I would like to ask the minister if that is approved by the government, and if it is the intention to deprive workmen on the railways of their rights under the ordinary statute law in case they are injured.


George Perry Graham: These are rules issued by the Board of Railway Commissioners after a good deal of study with the labour organizations and the railways. As a matter of fact I think the courts have held that an employee cannot contract himself out of his rights under the statute, and I do not think that the signing of that, would alter the statute in any way.


John Allister Currie: Then why does the commission put such an absurd rule as that in if that is the case? I understand that these rules have virtually the force of law once they are approved by the commission. A protest has been made by the railway train men against the inclusion of this clause in their rules, but in spite of that the commission has inserted it. I call the attention of the Minister of Railways to this fact, and I hope that he will inform the commission that it has no right to legislate in a code-book of this kind contrary to the statute law of the country.


George Perry Graham: I never thought that any rule of the Railway Commission made could override the statute. That question has been raised and it has been decided by the courts. The question does not arise in the acceptance of employment per se, but it has arisen in connection with employees being members of a provident fund when, by accepting the benefits to be derived from the provident fund, they have waived their other claims to sue for damages, but the courts, I think, have held that they could not do that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the object of the commission was this: The men have to run some risks, and the commission, properly, wants them to realize the risks that they will have to run. I think the intention of the commission is that men, on taking employment, shall look before they leap and see what they are signing, because some of the risks they have to assume are greater than those which they would assume according to the law.


Mr. RHODES.: There is a matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways. It is probably hardly germane to the discussion of this question, but as it is near the end of the session, I will ask the indulgence of the committee for a few moments in order that I may bring it up. Recently, employees of the Intercolonial railway have been called upon to take the oath of allegiance. In the first place, I would like to ask the minister why this has been deemed necessary in view of the fact that since confederation down to the present time they have not been called upon to do , so. In the second place, since it has been deemed necessary to call upon them to take this oath. I would like to call his attention to its wording, which is as follows:
I solemnly and sincerely swear that I will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties which
devolve upon me as	 and that
I will not ask, or receive any sum of money, services, recompense, or matter, or thing whatsover, directly or indirectly, in return for what I have done or may do in the discharge of any of the duties of my said office, except my salary or what may be allowed me by law or by an order of the Governor in Council.
From this wording there is a question as to whether the employees of the Intercolonial railway would be precluded from asking for an increase of pay. There has been grave concern among the employees, who fear that it does preclude them. I would like to have the opinion of the minister upon this point.


George Perry Graham: I am sure that if the employees think that it does preclude them from asking for an increase of their wages they do not act as if they did, because, like the rest of us, they are looking to the main chance. I had that declaration brought to my attention a few weeks ago. Perhaps I do not feel like the ordinary individual, but when I became a member of parliament, I did not think that I was humiliated at all by having to take the

877G
oath. A civil servant does not think he is humiliated by having to take the oath.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think it is a question of humiliation at all. A civil servant contracts to accept office at a given scale of pay. He knows he must comply with the regulations and that he will be classified according to his examination. But the employee of the government railway is in much the same position as the employee of any other railway privately owned, and as the cost of living increases he feels that he should have an increase in his wages. In view of the fact that each employee has been called upon to take this oath there is a question as to whether he -would not be precluded from applying for an increase of pay. It would cripple the unions if that interpretation were placed upon the oath. I do not think they object to take the oath, although it is an innovation. But if there is to be an oath it would seem to be wise to have the wording changed so as to make it clear.


George Perry Graham: I am not very familiar with the object of the introduction of the oath, but I think it was owing to a desire that the employees on the Intercolonial railway should feel that they are civil servants just as others are civil servants. They are promoted now absolutely on their merit according to the rules of their unions where they belong to unions. If the effect is what they think it is, the oath ought to be changed, but I can assure my hon. friend that within the last two weeks I could give him absolute prgof that they do not think it precludes them from asking for an increase of pay.


Mr. McKENZIE.: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) made a statement a moment ago about the standing of employees on the Intercolonial railway as to whether or not they have the right to contract themselves out of an action for damages. The minister stated that he understood the common law to be that they could not contract away their right of action.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That was in regard to the Railway Commission's orders that do not apply to the Intercolonial railway.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not at all. The minister stated that he understood that a railway employee could not contract in such a way as to deprive himself of the right of action for damages. That is sufficiently important to have no misunderstanding about it. I do not agree with the minister's understanding of that point. In so far as damages to the individual himself are concerned, of course, he can contract his right away in every province of the Dominion except the province of Quebec. As to any redress that the family or children of a Mr. GRAHAM.
workman would have they -would have all the rights in Canada generally that we have under what is known as Lord Campbell's Act. His widow or his children cannot succeed under Lord Campbell's Act unless he could have succeeded himself had he lived after the Act. That is clearly the law under Lord Campbell's Act, and it is quite competent for an employee of the Intercolonial railway in any other province of Canada outside of Quebec to contract away the right his family may have to damages. But there is no statute in the province of Quebec under which it is possible for the individual to contract away the rights that his family would have to bring an action. I make this statement so that the Minister of Railways shall have no misapprehension as to the general state of the law in Canada outside of the province of Quebec.


John Allister Currie: I am very glad to see an hon.. member of the House giving a little light on this question. Not being a lawyer, modesty compels me to refrain from expressing the same view, but I am very pleased that my hon. friend from the east (Mr. McKenzie) has thrown a little light on it, and shown that when a man signs for this book and accepts everything in this book he virtually contracts himself out of any dangers for injuries by this last clause in the general instructions. I would therefore ask the Minister of Railways to bring to the notice of the commission that they have no right under any statute to insert any such regulation in this book.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


TELEGRAPHS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 234) to correct an error in the Telegraphs Act.
William Findlay Maclean: Explain.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: When the marine telegraphs were brought under the operation of the Telegraphs Act in 1875 it read as follows:
This part applies to every company (a) hereafter authorized by any special or general Act of the parliament of Canada, or under the provisions of this part to construct or maintain telegraphic wires or cables in, upon, under or across any gulf, bay or branch of any sea, or any tidal water within the jurisdiction of Canada or the shore or bed thereof respectively so as to connect any province with any other province of Canada or to extend beyond the limits of any province.
When the statutes in 1886 were revised parliament used the word * hereafter,' in the first line, and again when the statutes

were revised three years ago the same oversight was committed. If the word ' hereafter,' were allowed to remain here the Telegraphs Act would not apply to cables which had been laid before the date when the Act came into force. So it is only to correct this error that this Bill is introduced, by using instead of the word ' hereafter,' in the first line of paragraph (a) the words ' authorized on the 8th day of April, 1875.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, and House went into committee thereon.
John Allister Currie: I would like to ask the Postmaster General if his policy of state-owned cables and telegraphs has been dropped indefinitely?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh! State-owned cables. It is a magnificent theory, but we have not yet put it into practice.


William Findlay Maclean: I just want to say this, that the sooner Canada builds, and owns a cable between here and Great Britain the better it will be for this country, and the country will support such an expenditure. The way to sci cneap cable rates is for the state to own its own cable across the ocean, and its own land lines across the continent.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it retroactive? It does not affect any litigation or rights, does it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. The marine telegraphs or cables were brought under the operation of the Telegraphs Act in 1875, and in 1875 the legislature used the word ' hereafter,' because the first cables came into operation that year. In 1886, parliament in revising the statutes again used the word * hereafter,' inadvertently. As a statute goes into force from the date of its being passed it must be read from that date, so that the cables in operation before that date would not be included under the operation of the Telegraphs Act. The same error was committed a few years ago when our statutes were revised, and this is only to correct that mistake.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. MACKENZIE KING moved concurrence in the Senate amendments to Bill (No. 101) to provide for the investigation of combines, monopolies', trusts and mergers.
Robert Laird Borden: Give us some explanation?


Mr. KING.: Sec. 32 setting forth the powers of the board gives the board power to summon witnesses and enforce their '	278
attendance. The Senate has added the words: ' from any part of Canada ' to make it clear that when the board is holding sittings in one province it can compel the attendance of witnesses from other provinces. Sections 22 and 23 have been amended by striking out the word * unduly ' where it appears before the words ' to restrain or injure trade or commerce.' As the word ' unduly ' does not appear in the Criminal Code before these words, it was thought it should not appear in these sections, that they may be uniform with the sections of the Criminal Code.
Amendments read the first and the second time and concurred in.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.

Mr. C. B. MAJOR (Labelle).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to call, for a few moments, the attention of the House and the government on the grievances to which are subjected the settlers living on that part of the river Lievre, extending from a point five or six miles distant from the town of Buckingham, to the townships of Wabassi and Kiamika, which grievances have caused the abandonment of "the land in that part of the county of Labelle.
As is well known, extensive lumbering operations have always been carried on in the Ottawa river and its tributaries, which are the river Rouge, the river Blanche, the river Lievre and the Gatineau river.
Within a few miles of the town of Buckingham these people complain of having no means whatever of communication with the large centres of population, inasmuch as they have no railways and are left with only the water route which is controlled by a powerful company claiming to be the owner of the improvements made for the driving of logs. Moreover, this company controls the prices and which puts these people under its dependency and deprives them of the benefits accruing to people of other parts where communications are convenient. I may point out the mistake made by people who assert that the settler and farmer do not protect the forest. The proof lies in the fact that that part which has been cultivated and worked for more than 80 years has still a forest reserve amounting to at least 35 or 40 per cent of its land considered unfit for cultivation.
This shows plainly that these people have taken good care to preserve that which is of primary usefulness to the country even before anybody had thought of creating a


The Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Labelle has raised a question to which my attention has been called on several occasions, that is to say, the northern counties, and particularly the constituency represented by the hon. gentleman, have no other communications with the markets than by the Lievre river, and from what he has stated, the passage of the river is obstructed by the works of a private company.
There is one thing I do not understand: why should that private company or any company whatsoever arrogate to itself the right of preventing the other lumber companies or the other citizens from using the river? A river is a public road. True, a company may possess exclusive rights; but, at least, that must be under a special Act granting a monopoly. There is nothing in common law that debars any one from the free use, without obstruction, of any river.
My hon. friend is a lawyer, a man of high standing at the bar and a patriotic member of this House. Let me remind him that in the case of Caldwell against Mac-laren, that question has been tried by the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and the law lords decided that Maclaren, who had built a dam, had no right to close, the river to Caldwell who owned limits further up stream. The lords of the Privy Council most emphatically declared that Caldwell had a right to use the river as a public road.
In the case referred to by my hon. friend, there is a position which I fail to grasp, and I would like to see the charter of the company. I cannot understand how that company can exercise such a monopoly. I do not know whether it is in virtue of a general statute passed by the Dominion or by the province, or even if it goes back to confederation.
The question deserves consideration. As I told my hon. friend who called the attention of the government to that matter, I hope that sooner or later and sooner than later, we shall be able to afford the settlers whom he represents here, the means of facilitating the carrying out of their work.
My hon. friend has stated that those people had applied for a railway charter, which they had been denied. I may tell him again, as I said before, that should a company be organized with a view to the building of a railway in that district, the government will be happy to grant them a subsidy.


THE CANADIAN NORTHERN.
Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE (Quebec West).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, before you

leave the Chair, I wish to draw the attention of the government to a state of things which seems to me detrimental to the public interest.
Last session, the Canadian Northern Railway Company was granted, by statute, the right of building a line of railway from a point on its line at or near Hedleyville, in the immediate vicinity of the city of Quebec, thence in a generally easterly direction to a point on the Montmorency river.
That statute was assented to in due course and I presume that the Act was passed, subject to the ordinary conditions, namely that in return for the power of expropriation, the right of way on the property of other people, the company should assume all the liabilities which result from such a state of things.
What happened? Last summer or last fall, the company constructed that line, secured the right of way or made the expropriation. Whenever disputes arose as to the price tendered by the company and the amount asked for by the owner, the sum fixed by the judge was paid into the office of the court, according to law, and there was a temporary right of way. I know whereof I speak, as I served the interests of the company upon that occasion. Thanks to our combined efforts, and in view of the fact that a railway line always results in increasing the wealth of the country thus accommodated, the road was put in operation late in the fall of the year, in November. But, instead of running passenger and freight trains, they kept freight trains in operation, without any stop, from Hedleyville to Montmorency. People said that the road was not in a proper condition to be operated in the winter season. It was only in April that the trains began to run in the same direction, but under similar conditions. The trains leave the main line at Hedleyville and run without any stop to Montmorency; there they take pulp wood and come back to Quebec. The line is out of repair to such a degree that serious accidents have taken place, and trains have been ditched.
Last winter, we made representations to the company, and in view of what had happened last fall, I was urged by my constituents in the parish of Beauport to go and meet them. I heard their grievances and as it was announced that the company did not wish to use that road for anything else but for the lumber operations that are carried out on the Montmorency river, I then formally undertook to communicate with the Railway Commission in order to reach some practical result, so that there should be freight and passengers run by the company, with stations between the termini, and that the railway should be worked not only for the personal benefit of the company, but also for the accommodation Mr. TURCOTTE.
of passengers and the carriage of the goods of farmers on the line.
The answer I got from the commission not officially but officiously, was that they had no power to order the company to build stations on the line nor to give a passenger service. Those lines are called spur lines; they are intended as feeders for the traffic of the main line. I was told, moreover, that the farmers could by no means require from the government or the company that there should be stations built between the termini and that a regular passenger service should be established for the convenience of the public in general.
Well, Sir, I have undertaken to bring the matter to the attention of the government, and in case the Act should not provide for such an emergency, I invite the government to bring down some amendment. At any rate, I have undertaken to leave no stone unturned to reach the desired end.
I should have raised this question before to-day, but as the new service began only in April, the opportunity did not offer before.
Now, I bring this question before the government and before the House. Should it be found that the Railway Commission has no power to order the company to operate passenger and freight trains, for the accommodation of the public, it would mean that under the Railway Act, as it is, a railway company would be entitled to all the powers of expropriation and could vex and annoy the public; that it could take private property and convert it for its own use into money.
I believe that such a situation is abnormal. If the Railway Act is such as one of the members of the Board of Railway Commissioners holds it to be. it ought' to be amended.
I have taken advantage of the occasion to discharge what I deem my duty not only to my constituents but also to the general public. For, should such a construction of the Act be placed on the case I have brought before the House, there is nothing to prevent its being applied elsewhere, and then other sections of the country will be liable to suffer from a state of affairs, things which seem to me quite prejudicial to the general interest.
I hope, then, that the authorities and particularly the hon. Minister of Railways, will see to it that an investigation be held into the facts I have just stated; and should my statements prove true, I trust that means will be taken to force the company to dicharge its duty, or should the Act be found inadequate, iet it be amended in the direction I have suggested.


George Perry Graham: The question raised by my hon. friend is one in which the people in the parish of Beauport on the line

of the Montmorency river are deeply interested. As I understand, the railway has been constructed from the line of the Canadian Northern, but it only carries freight, and that in the summer time, it has no stations between the termini, and does not carry passengers. That is quite a list of grievances. I do not know whether this road has had any subsidy from the Dominion government.


Joseph Pierre Turcotte: it has.


George Perry Graham: I cannot understand why the Railway Commission would say that they have no power to deal with this matter unless it be owing to the fact that until the amendment to the Railway Act which we have just adopted becomes law the commission have no power to allow a construction company or a contractor building a railway to carry passengers. They could allow them by an order to carry freight when the condition of part of the road was such that that would be feasible, even although the whole of the Toad was not constructed, hut they have no power under the Act to allow them to carry passengers. It strikes me that this road was being operated, though practically by the Canadian Northern, really by the construction company.


Joseph Pierre Turcotte: They were through with it.


George Perry Graham: They might be through with it to all intents and purposes, but the road might not have been approved of by the Board of Railway Commissioners so that they could carry passengers. However, the amendment to the Railway Act will enable the Board of Railway Commissioners to allow roads even under these circumstances to carry passengers although they may not be taken over. If that be the condition the difficulty will be obviated after the passing of the amendment to the Railway Act which is now before parliament. It being a spur line probably does not make any difference as to the power of the Board of Railway Commissioners. If it is a completed railway they have full power not only to authorize them to give accommodation, but also to give direction as to the number of stations to be erected. I shall call the attention of the Board of Railway Commissioners to this matter which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend.


GIFTS TO MINISTERS OF THE CROWN.
Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West.Algoma).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply, I desire to draw the attention of the House briefly to some matters of history with respect to this House, a course which I deem to be necessary in the light of recent events. The right
hon. gentleman who leads this House, prior to the year 1896 was the leader of the opposition, and while enjoying the privileges of that position laid down and struggled for certain high principles to which he pledged himself. I am going to refer briefly to one of those principles. I speak of the complaint, the very vehement complaint that the right hon. gentleman made while leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in 1891 with regard to certain gifts having been given to ministers of the Crown, and to the offence against good government which he said had been committed by ministers rf the Crown or ministers of state, as he was pleased then to call them, accepting, while in office, gifts of money or other presentations as ministers of the Crown. A colleague of my right hon. friend who is now the leader of the Senate, Sir Richard Cartwright, moved in the House, on August 13, 1891, the following resolution to which I now refer, and wThich I unhesitatingly commend to my right hon. friend. At page 3827 of ' Hansard,' 1891, Sir Richard Cartwright moved:
That Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair, but that it be resolved:	That the acceptance
of gifts or testimonials of any kind on the part of ministers of the Crown or of any member of their families from contractors, government officials or other persons having pecuniary relations with the government, is entirely opposed to sound principles of administration, and is calculated to bring parliamentary government into contempt, and that the example thus given tends to corrupt and demoralize the officials serving under ministers who have accepted or permitted the acceptance of gifts or testimonials as aforesaid.
That is the resolution which was moved, and while deprecating the manner in which it was moved, and some of the statements that were made by the mover of it and by my right hon. friend who seconded it, Sir John Thompson, then Minister of Justice, on behalf of the government of the day accepted that resolution, and it became the resolution, and principle adopted by this parliament. But all the glory, all the honour, all the esteem, and all the prestige for the high principles laid down in that resolution were claimed by, and gathered in by my right hon. friend the present Prime Minister. At page 3839 the right hon. gentleman, then leading the opposition said:
I congratulate the Minister of Justice upon what I conceive to be the very wise course he has now taken, but I still more congratulate the hon. member for South Oxford on the signal victory he has obtained. He has laid down a principle which has been long contended for on this side of the House, which has always been refused on the other side of the House, but which, at last, circumstances compel the government to accept.
So much for the principle that was so strongly contended for by the right hon.

gentleman, and, according to his contention, so strongly resisted by the then government. I do not desire to criticise or to offer any remarks that I may have to make on the subject in any hypercritical sense. I do not desire to offer any criticism upon the fact itself at the present time. I desire to state facts, and I propose to state facts, and then I propose to leave some questions to my right hon. friend. Public notoriety has been given in the last few days of this session to the fact that the Minister of Finance, who has enjoyed the office of minister of the Crown since 1896, and now enjoys it, while occupying that office of the Crown, to wit, Minister of Finance, has been presented with, and has received, according to newspaper accounts, especially that of the ' Globe,' which commends the transaction very highly, a gift or testimonial aggregating some $118,000, or $120,000 in round figures. If that statement be true, and I have never heard it denied, the government organs in different parts of the country have referred to it as a fact, then it is a matter for the consideration of the House, and I am quite sure that my right hon. friend would be the very last to reproach me as a member of this House, having the privileges and responsibilities of a member, for mentioning the matter and drawing the attention of the House to it in the light of the resolution which he so highly commended. That on or about the 26th day of April, a presentation was made to the Minister of Finance of so large a sum of money, a fortune in itself, is, as I said, a matter which certainly should, and does excite the curiosity of this country. That presentation was made, according to the newspaper reports, in the presence of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. More than that, the Liberal organs which I have read, and which refer to the fact, state that the right hon. gentleman expressed his unbounded delight at the exhibition of confidence shown by the magnificent gift. Well, Sir, the fact not being disputed, it does form a pretty bold, blunt presentation of a fact. Congratulations have been expressed with great unanimity in Liberal papers all over this country upon this matter. Some sombre effect has been given by criticisms coming from quarters where perhaps they were least expected, and which refer back to the good old days when my right hon. friend sat here as leader of the opposition, and was contending for the principle contained in the resolution to which I have referred. But if the fact be not disputed, if the notoriety which has been given to this transaction is just, if I am correctly informed by the government organs throughout the country, if the newspapers are not publishing that which would otherwise be a very serious reflection upon the minister, and the whole of this gov-Mr. BOYCE.
ernment, I say that the matter calls, here and now, for some explanation on the part of the government. There has been a dead silence on the part of the government. I am not saying that there is anything significant in that silence, but there has been an utter absence of any word in this House coming from government benches to the effect that that which has been done is openly declared to have been done with the absolut unbounded joy of the right hon. the Prime Minister himself, and was not within the mischief, and the purview of the legislation which he commended to this House in 1891. I, therefore, ask my right hon. friend the first question:	Does he not
think under the circumstances that it was his duty, if he was true to those principles, to come down to the House, and if there was any explanation, if this transaction did not infringe upon the principles involved in that magnificent resolution, that he should have explained the circumstances? I ask my right hon. friend now to state whether this gift, this testimonial, was not the result of a subscription, whether there was not a public subscription list, whether it was not delivered and presented in public, and whether the names of the persons who subscribed to this large testimonial of money were not made known to the Minister of Finance, and to the right hon. the Prime Minister, and if they were made known, I assume of course that the right hon. gentleman will without any hesitation make public the names of the subscribers. I can only assume that pressure of parliamentary business heretofore has prevented him from doing so. I am sorry indeed to have the matter so long delayed in the session, but I could not regulate the time at which this magnificent fortune was to be presented to the minister, and I can only assume that having risen to such high principles in 1891, having congratulated his colleague the present right hon. Sir Richard Cartwright upon having obtained this signal victory in getting this resolution through the House, the right hon. gentleman will certainly, before this House prorogues, and if possible without a moment's delay after I have taken my seat, lay before parliament and before the public the facts, so that in the light of day every one in Canada may see that that which has been done, that which is publicly reported to have been done, did not in any way come within the mischief of the resolution of 1891. My hon. friend will see, of course, that there is only one course to pursue along the lines of this resolution, and that is to make the facts public. Here and now is the time to make the facts, public, and I think it will not be necessary to urge my right hon. friend very strongly, f quite conceive that he realizes his duty and responsibility in the matter. I urge

him now to lay upon the table of the House forthwith the list of names, and the amounts subscribed which made up this magnificent testimonial. My right hon. friend will agree with me that that is due first to the Minister of Finance himself, secondly to the Prime Minister, and his government, to every minister of state, and ex-minister of state. It is due to this House, and it is due to the people of this country that a full disclosure of these matters should be made, and having brought this matter to the attention of the House I can only again say that the responsibility incident to the acceptance of such a gift-and I am making no comment as to whether the presentation or the acceptance of the gift in itself is right or wrong-the responsibilities incident to the acceptance of the gift of such a large sum of money make it absolutely imperative upon the government or upon the minister to make that full disclosure to which I have referred, and to forthwith give publicity to the list of all those who have subscribed. I shall not attempt to dwell upon the principles involved nor to moralize upon the dangers of the situation, but I feel safe in assuming that my right hon. friend, realizing that he spoke upon this resolution in 1891, and that he congratulated his party upon the signal victory obtained, will see that the grand victory of which he speaks, and which was attained as he would argue through blood and tears, be not besmirched now in 1910 by a derogation from the principles then enunciated. The only way, as I submit, in which my hon. friend can put himself square with the resolution, the only way in which I submit he can discharge the duty he owes to this country as Prime Minister and leader of the government, is to make full disclosure, and publish the names and lay the list on the table. -


Wilfrid Laurier: It is true. Mr. Speaker, that in 1891, Sir Richard Cartwright was 'a prominent member of this House, and when I had the honour of leading Her Majesty's opposition, he introduced the resolution which has been read by my hon. friend, but which I think can bear to be read again. It was in these words:
That the acceptance of gifts or testimonials of any kind on the part of ministers of the Crown or of any members of their families from contractors, government officials or other persons having pecuniary relations with the government, is entirely opposed to sound principles of administration, and is calculated to bring parliamentary government into contempt, and that the example thus given tends to corrupt and demoralize the officials serving under ministers who have accepted or permitted the acceptance of gifts or testimonials as aforesaid.
It is a matter of notoriety that the public men who have served Canada have not
always been blessed with wealth. A prominent example was Sir John A Macdonald, and what Mr. Fielding's friends have done for him, Sir John A. Macdonald's friends did for him, they came to his rescue, and gave him a testimonial accompanied by a large sum of money, which was invested for the benefit of his family. I am not aware that any fault was found by anybody, whether by friend or foe, when the fellow countrymen of Sir John A. Macdonald thus provided for him in his old age and put him above the anxieties of providing for bis family. I am not aware that any fault was found on that account, and I do not think that even the hon. gentleman who has addressed the House finds fault with that. But, there were other testimonials given on a subsequent day; a testimonial was given later to Sir Heetor Langevin. I would prefer not to have to speak of these things. Nothing but good should be spoken of the dead. Sir Hector Langevin is no more, he has been long in his grave, and if I have to speak of his memory in this way the fault is not mine, but the fault is that of the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House. If the resolution of Sir Richard Cartwright, which I have just read was brought before the House, was accepted by the House without a word of dissent from anybody, wa3 passed unanimously by the House, it was because the charge was made in the newspapers, not in the press of his opponents, not in Liberal newspapers, but in Conservative newspapers, that directors had been permitted to subscribe to that fund. I have before me and I could quote a paragraph from a pamphlet which was issued at that time, and which I read in 1891, in the presence of Sir Hector Langevin, when he was in this House, and which I do not care to read now when he is in his grave. But, that was the reason why the resolution of Sir Richard Cartwright was brought in, it was to prevent matters of this kind taking place, contractors, public officials, men having business with the government, subscribing to a similar fund and under similar circumstances. The resolution of Sir Richard Cartwright was adopted by the House.
Now, Sir, it may happen, and it has happened, that other men than Sir John A. Macdonald have not been careful of their own interests, have given their time, their health, their brains and their life to the public service, and have made no provision for their old age and no provision for their family, and such a man, unfortunately, is my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. But, if there is a man in this House, or if there is a man in this country, whose honour is above reproach, is above the rebuke of the hon. gentleman, it is the Finance Minister. If there is a

man who has a high sense of honour, a most delicate sense of honour, it is my colleague the Minister of Finance, Mr. W. S. Fielding. Does the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House think that the man who has been at the head of the Department of Finance for the last fourteen years, and against whom there has never been raised even the breath of suspicion, does he believe that that man would consent to take a dollar of money if it came from a contractor, if it came from a man who had anything to do with the government? If my hon. friend holds such an opinion as that, he does not know the Hon. Mr. Fielding as I know him, and as his friends know him. When the friends of Mr. Fielding undertook to lay before him a testimonial and to provide for him and his family in his old age, the committee who had the matter in charge consulted me, and I told them that I approved of what was being done. The letter can be quoted, it was quoted the other day by the gentleman who presided at the meeting where the presentation was made to Mr. Fielding, and in the letter I said ' There is nothing too good for Fielding.' At the same time it was understood and stipulated that not a man would be called upon to subscribe to that testimonial if he was a director, if he was a government official, or if he had anything to do with the government. It was well understood that only men in private life would be allowed to contribute, men who had no connection whatever, directly ot indirectly, with the government, who had no expectation of profiting ever so remotely from any transactions -with the government. I am glad to say that the answer came, not only from the political friends of Mr. Fielding, but from his political opponents as well. I have this to say to the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House, that not a dollar, not a penny has been contributed to that fund, which I am glad to say has reached a very substantial amount, by anybody except personal friends and admirers of Mr. Fielding; not a dollar has come from public contractors, or government officials, or anybody who could expect to profit therefrom. Now, all sorts of rumours have been circulated in regard to this matter. I read yesterday with deep chagrin, in a respectable newspaper published in this city, the following paragraph:
' Where did the money come from ' ? The answer is that the money came from private sources; that I assert on my honour as a man, on my responsibility as the Prime Minister of Canada. I will read from the article I refer to:
Sir Wilfrid and some other prominent Liberals could, of course, answer this, but so far as the ordinary member of parliament is concerned, the test has not been seen.


Wilfrid Laurier: A report is going around the corridors of the House that the Bank of Montreal subscribed $25,000 of the gift.
There is not a word of truth in that statement. The Bank of Montreal did not subscribe one dollar to that fund. That 1 assert. And I made inquiry at once when I saw the paragraph about it.
The Dominion Iron and Steel Company are also said to have contributed a very large sum toward the presentation.
Concerning this I have not the personal knowledge I have of the statement with regard to the Bank of Montreal, but I do not believe there is a word of truth in it. At all events, if such an institution as that had been allowed to subscribe, it would be a gross breach of the understanding which was arrived at when Mr. Fielding's, testimonial was started. I will look into that further. I do not speak with the same authority as in the case of the Bank of Montreal, but I do not think there is any truth in this statement. At all events, it is not to my knowledge, and I think I ought to know if there i3 anything of that kind.
Sir, I have only to repeat what I have, already stated; not a dollar has come into that fund except from honest, legitimate sources. And I do not believe that that which was done for Sir John Macdonald could not be done also for Mr. Fielding. I do not believe that there is a man in this House who, knowing Mr. Fielding as we know him, would believe that he has com sented to put his hand upon a dollar the receipt of which would prevent him from looking his opponents in the face. The honour of Mr. Fielding is above reproach. This I say with full confidence that my word will awake an echo, not only in this House, but throughout the length and breadth of this land. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce) told us that his curiosity-curiosity!-had been aroused by what has taken place. I am glad to relieve his feelings, and I am sure he will be glad to know that the suspicion he had in his mind had no foundation whatever.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, my only reason for rising on this occasion is that it seems to me that only half the question has been touched upon in the discussion that has so far taken place. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce) called attention to the fac-t that a certain resolution had been passed in the year 1891 whereby both sides of politics in this House agreed that no testimonial should be presented to a minister of the Crown to which contractors or those having any financial relations with the minister had contributed. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in his reply, has admitted that, in fact-and, of
course, it could hardly be denied-such a resolution was passed, and he has said two things: First, that the honour of Mr. Fielding is above question-and on that point 1 have no intention of engaging in a discussion with the right lion, gentleman;-and, second, that no contractors or parties who have been forbidden by the resolution of 1891 had contributed to this fund. Sir, this is very satisfactory so far as it goes. Perhaps it would have been a little more satisfactory if the right hon. gentleman whoi made the statement had not been obliged' to admit, in reading the quotation from the newspaper charging that the Bank of Montreal had made a subscription to this fund, that only since yesterday he had inquired into that matter, and, as to the other great corporation, he did not believe' that they had contributed-I say it would' have been more satisfactory had his statement not been weakened by these admissions. But, taking his statement in full, admitting that the right hon. gentleman' had denied, and had proved to the satisfaction of every member of this House so that no member on this side would dare to contradict his statement, that no contractor or official had contributed to this testimonial, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman: Does he himself think that that is a sufficient answer to the question propounded by the hon. member for West Al-j goma? There are different ways of view-* ing this question, of course, and the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), in introducing this question in 1891 was very careful to say that he had no intention of entering on the vexed question whether or not a minister of the Crown ought, under any circumstances, to accept a present while he was in office. Now, the case of the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald has been referred to. I will not occupy more than a moment on, that subject. I would only point out that the remarks made in 1891 by Sir Richard Cartwright and by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who now leads the House, showed that the testimonial to Sir John Macdonald was raised in 1870 when he was lying on what was supposed to be his deathbed, that'his family was unprovided for, and both the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and Sir Richard Cartwright thought it a most laudable and most praiseworthy spirit, a most honourable spirit, that actuated the gentlemen who raised such a testimonial at such a time, for all the objections that naturally apply to a testimonial to a living statesman had practically ceased to apply to Sir John Macdonald then. And yet, Sir, even in that case of Sir John Macdonald, Sir Richard Cartwright, in referring to it, used this language,-and I wish particularly to call attention to these words, because
they justify my statement that, even if every word that the present leader of the House had said, were accepted by this side of the House, the real question has not been answered:
It was perfectly well known that he

That is, Sir John Macdonald.
-was in deeply embarrassed circumstances; deeply indebted I believe, and that but a very slender provision indeed had been made for his family. Under these circumstances, if ever, it was quite justifiable for the hon. gentleman's personal friends and admirers to have contributed for the purpose of relieving his family from any danger of want, and had two or three very obvious and reasonable precautions been taken no blame could have been attached to the parties who were engaged in getting up that testimonial. Unfortunately, these precautions were not taken, unfortunately, publicity was not given, as I have always said publicity should be given to the names of persons who subscribed.
The language of Sir Richard Cartwright seems perfectly clear and distinct. But his were not the only words heard on that occasion. The Tight hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who now leads the House spoke on the same subject. He said:-
The testimonial to Sir John Macdonald, as was said by my hon. friend (Sir Richard Cartwright) was conceived in a very proper and laudable spirit at a, critical time in his life, when his life was despaired of, and with a view of providing ^for his family, since he had not been able himself to provide for them. So far, so good. The only thing, with which my hon. friend found fault in regard to what was done on that occasion by the friends of Sir John Macdonald, was that, instead of being done publicly, as it should have been done, it was done in secret.
Later on, the right hon. gentleman said:-
The Minister of Justice said a moment ago in reference to the testimonial offered to the hon. Minister of Public Works, the member for Three Rivers, that that hon. gentleman did not know who were his subscribers. Sir, if he did not know, why did he not look at the list? If the hon. gentleman did not know, it was because he chose to remain ignorant of what were the names on the list, and if he chose to be ignorant of the names which were on that list, is it not because his moral sense told him that he might there find the names of persons giving contributions, which should not be accepted at all? Is it not simply because his conscience told him that if he were to look at that list he would find there the names of men who were every day suppliants in his office for favours? [DOT]That is the reason why the hon. Minister of Public Works did not choose to have a look at that list. If that is not the reason why did he choose to be blind on that matter? Then, I call on the hon. gentlemen opposite to tell what is the reason, if there could be any good reason for it. Certainly there could be nothing wrong of the admirers of a man in public life coming to his help and rescuing

him; but it seems to me that the recipient of such favours would naturally be too glad to know who are the persons to whom he owes gratitude, and if he does not choose to know who are those to whom he owes gratitude, it must be because his moral sense tells him that he would find there names that would be a condemnation of his accepting such a testimonial.
It seems clear from the language of Sir Richard Cartwright and the language of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the House that it was with them a sine qua non not only that contractors should not subscribe, but that the testimonial itself should be published, that the public, knowing who had subscribed, would have a guarantee that the contribution was bona fide. Now it is all very well for any hon. gentleman to stand up in this House and say that he has seen the list and that he knows that every name on that list was the name of a person who was justified in contributing to such a fund. Any gentleman might make that statement with absolute truthfulness, but he may not know the circumstances under which any name was attached, and he may not know that the names attached to any particular list were not the names of the individuals whose hands had gone into their pockets and who had put their names to that subscription. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says, going even farther than the right hon. leader of the government, says:

I have observed, Sir, that some of that hon. gentleman's apologists have undertaken to mitigate the error, or the crime, call it what you wrill, which was committed by the reception of that testimonial under the circumstances by the plea, which I think was also _ advanced in the other case, that the hon.
' gentleman did not know who had subscribed to his testimonial. Such a plea, in my judgment, is a direct aggravation of the offence.
A public minister has no right whatever to allow any gift to be made to him unless it is done publicly, and unless he knows from what sources it proceeds; and, Sir, I would say this, that if a minister of the Crown tells me that he has accepted a gift not knowing and not choosing to know from whom it proceeded, so far from regarding such a plea as a mitigation, I say that such a plea raises a presumption of guilt. It was his duty to know it; it was his duty to find out; it was his duty to see that not one penny went into his pockets or into his coffers unless it came from such sources that he could honourably and fairly receive it.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am quite prepared to admit that a testimonial might be presented to a public man in this country, to an hon. gentleman who had given the best years of his life to the country. I am quite prepared to admit that a testimonial of $120,000, or five times that amount might be presented under such


William Barton Northrup: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Will you allow me to say that I have just received a note from a member of the committee stating that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company did not contribute one dollar to that fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Law books and books of reference for library, and binding of same, $6,000.
John Graham Haggart: That is a large sum for books surely.


Mr. BUREAU.: That amount was added on account of new subscriptions.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.

After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Administration of justice-salary to stipendiary magistrate for the Northwest Territories, $3,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that the same as last year?


Jacques Bureau: This is a new position. Justice has been dispensed in the Northwest Territories by various officers. There has been some dispute as to jurisdiction as to cases arising in the Northwest. For instance, an Indian was killed there, and there was no one to try the person accused of the murder until a special commissioner and a jury were appointed for the case.


John Dowsley Reid: Will a member of parliament be appointed to this position?


Jacques Bureau: No application has been received yet.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is this officer to devote all his time to his duties?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, so I understand.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member (Mr. Bureau) ought to know.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, he is to devote his whole time.
Labour-Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $20,000.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, flow many cases of industrial disputes have been referred to arbitration during the past year?


George Gerald King: Thirty.


Robert Laird Borden: How many strikes have there been in which the Act has not been used?


George Gerald King: During the past year, all except four have been settled under the Act.


John Dowsley Reid: How about the Dominion coal strike? Did the minister take part in that?


George Gerald King: A board of investigation was appointed to inquire, and presented its report, but the report was not accepted by the employees. Later on, the deputy minister of the department made a full report on the matter, and what he stated has since turned out to be correct-the strike has been declared off, and the men have returned on conditions as they existed at the time the award was given.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase here of $4,000 over last year. What is the reason for that?


George Gerald King: The increase is apparent rather than real. The sum of $4,000 was voted in the supplementary estimates last Mr. BUREAU.
year. Thus the amount is the same as last year.
Department of Labour-Technical Education Commission, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Has anything been done yet?


George Gerald King: The personnel of the commission has not as yet been determined.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the policy of the minister with regard to carrying out a resolution of the House?


George Gerald King: This virtually carries out the purpose of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). It is to appoint a commission to inquire into the needs for the promotion of industrial training in the Dominion, and to give power to the commissioners to visit other countries with a view to ascertaining the manner in which these countries have developed technical training.


Mr. GERVAIS.: What countries is it intended the commission shall visit?


George Gerald King: The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and if it should appear that it would be of advantage to the commission to visit any other European countries in that connection, they would have liberty to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: When is it expected .the report will be made?


George Gerald King: When the money has been appropriated steps will be taken to appoint the commission forthwith, and it is altogether probable the commission will require a considerable period in which to carry on its work. It will not be possible to conclude its labours in less than a year.


John Dowsley Reid: Will there be one or more than one on the commission?


George Gerald King: Possibly five.


John Dowsley Reid: Will they be officials of the government or outsiders?


George Gerald King: I think they will not be officials of the government.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that in appointing a commission of that kind some particular official, such as the deputy minister would be better qualified to inquire into matters of that kind than possibly some politician who does not know anything about technical education. I suppose this is to be put through to give a trip to the old country to four or five politicians who will bring back a report. The minister has visited these different countries, and knows something about this matter. Instead of sending such a man, probably four or five political heelers will be sent to investigate the industrial situation in these countries.


George Gerald King: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the aim of the government in the selection of the personnel of this commission will be to obtain men eminently qualified to render useful service to the country in connection with the work which they are called upon to perform. They will be chosen primarily for their ability to give satisfactory service on the commission. As to Mr. Acland. the deputy minister of the department, acting, I quite agree it would be difficult to find any one who would fill a position of that kind more ably, but the commission will possibly be engaged in thi3 work for a year and the deputy's services will be required in the department here. What is true of the deputy in this respect is also true as respects other officers of the department.


John Dowsley Reid: We have heard that story before about the government engaging'men with knowledge of these affairs, but generally some one who knows nothing about the subject is appointed. The minister, while acting as deputy minister, was sent abroad, he was all over the world, and since he has been a minister he has again been all over the world inquiring about these technical matters. He has had his deputy all over the world, and yet he comes here to-night and says he does not know anything about technical education and has to appoint a commission to tell him what he shall do. When the minister was appointed to his present position, the reason given was that he knew so much about industrial matters. There were members in the House who had served for a number of years and who knew all about political matters but they were turned aside, they knew nothing about industrial matters. These men have served their party, fought the battles. There is the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Tolmie) who knows all about it; there is the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) who has employed labour, and we have a number of men from Ontario qualified to fill that position, but still the Prime Minister had to bring the deputy in because he knew so much more than these gentlemen did. I think it is a reflection on a gentleman of the ability of the hon. member for South Wellington for instance, that he should have been passed over and the deputy minister brought in. The Prime Minister should at once depose the Minister of Labour and bring in the member for Wellington or some gentleman like that. I believe that hon. gentleman does know something, even although he has not travelled abroad, and judging from its being necessary to appoint this commission, the minister certainly is not qualified for the position after all his travels.
Library of parliament, $30,212.50.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it contemplated to build a new library soon or to do over the
present one? The library, it seems to me, has got to be a disgrace to parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: No. The matter has been talked of from time to time, but no steps have been taken. I rather agree with my hon. friend: the library is overcrowded, and the time is close at hand when some reformation will have to be made.
Royal Northwest Mounted Police, $753,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is an increase of $5,000 in the pay of the force, and a decrease of $5,000 in subsistence, which makes the total amount the same as last year.


Robert Laird Borden: Why should there be an increase in pay and a decrease in subsistence?


Wilfrid Laurier: The increase in pay is due to the fact that we have increased the force from 600 men to 700; and as the country is getting settled, our subsistence is a little cheaper than it was formerly.
Royal Northwest Mounted Police - rifle range, Regina, $15,000.


John Dowsley Reid: That is a pretty big price to pay for a piece of land for a rifle range. How many acres does it take?


Wilfrid Laurier: 296 acres.


John Dowsley Reid: That is about $65 an acre for land in the North West. Does the Prime Minister know that there is any amount of land given away there for the settler?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not in Regina.


John Dowsley Reid: You do not have to have the rifle range inside the city limits.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have to have it where our barracks are. At present we have a 1,000 yards range, and this is to give us a 2,000 yards range.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the first time I have heard of land being sold for $65 an acre in the North West. Around Regina, if they can get $30 or $40 an acre, with buildings and improvements, they think they are getting a very good price. $63 an acre for vacant land seems to be quite a big price.


Robert Laird Borden: It is in strong con-tiast with the lands of the Indians at Selkirk that sold for $5 an acre.


John Dowsley Reid: From whom was this land purchased?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not purchased yet, but it is the intention to

purchase it. It is land adjacent to our present barracks.


John Dowsley Reid: Why should they pay such an awful price for land adjacent? When they buy a new rifle range for localities in Ontario they go two or three miles out of town. It is not necessary to purchase land at $70 an acre practically within the city limits for a rifle range. It seems to me the Prime Minister is getting a little extravagant. I think he ought to be more careful. When he comes to pay $15,000 for a rifle range he is paying a pretty big price.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am satisfied that the land can be got at a fair price. All precautions will be taken that we are not imposed upon, and that we only pay a fair price.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the gentleman who owns this land?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have a telegram from the commander of the forces, Commissioner Perrv, stating that the land is owned by Hamilton and March. There are 96 acres suitable for rifle range, two miles from the barracks.


John Dowsley Reid: Two miles from the barracks the land is $65 an acie?


Wilfrid Laurier: We ask an
appropriation of $15,000 to buy this rifle range. The matter is not concluded. Every precaution will be taken, and next year the hon. gentleman can move for the correspondence and see whether we have abused the confidence of parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the Prime Minister know this man Hamilton?


Wilfrid Laurier: Never heard of him before.


John Dowsley Reid: It strikes me that is the name of a gentleman that was mixed up in the Robins land deal out in the Northwest. That is the reason I am a little suspicious.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will be suspicious without that.
Customs-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $50,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is this not put in the main estimates, and why are you tacking it on the Civil Service Act?
I thought we had done with that.


William Paterson: We want $50,000. I am asking for $75,000 to prevent them from coming in for supplementaries during the current year.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not possible to make some reasonable estimate in time to put it in the main estimates?


Wilfrid Laurier: 


William Paterson: The main estimates were prepared in October last. We thought we would require $75,000 extra. My accountant tells me that $50,000 of that has gone on new appointments, additional officers we have had to appoint.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the trouble of appointing so many of these gentlemen that have to be provided for. Were these men required, or was it necessary to appoint a lot of new men for political reasons?


William Paterson: Here is a list of the additional officers appointed since the main estimates were prepared on the 1st of October: 1 at Beachburg, $700 ; 2 at ! Fort William, $800 each; 1 additional at Dundas, $800; 2 additional at Cobalt. $600 and $650; 1 additional at Oshawa, $700; 1 at Ottawa, $800; 1 at Owen Sound, $650; 1 at St. Catharines, $1,200; 1 at St. Thomas, $650; 5 at Toronto, at $800, $600, $800, $600 and $800. Since tihen the collector at Toronto has asked for 4 more boys with salaries of $400 each, and 4 men with salaries of $800 each. These were put on within the last few days.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are these all ap-piaisers?


William Paterson: No, they are landing waiters, lockers and clerks.


Mr.   J.@: D REID The minister has not explained the reason why this amount is increased. I can tell the minister why it has increased in many instances. The minister knows that whenever a political heeler wants a position he has to superannuate some of his officers to make a vacancy. I will give him a couple of cases. The minister knows that the collector at Prescott was superannuated against his will although he was doing his work in a proper manner. Provision had to be made for another man and of course the collector had to be superannuated. The result was that $600 or $800 per annum had to be paid to this superannuated official. The minister superannuated the collector at Port Stanley to make room for another man. This "was one of _ the best officers in the service. I am satisfied that if the minister would give us a list of those who were superannuated during the last year or since October to make room for men who have been active wiorkers, we would see where most of this $50,000 had gone. I can give the hon. gentleman instances of where they superannuated a postmaster sixty years of age on account of old age and appointed a man sixty-seven or sixty-eight years in his place. The Minister of Finance seems to pass all these things without any protest although he is the guardian of the public purse. This explains why we are spending $100,000,000 a year. In'the Cus-

toms, Public Works, Militia and other departments there are increases in expenditure because of the superannuation of officials against their will in order to put others in their places. If the minister would stop increasing the expenditure by superannuating officials, and if he would increase the salaries of some of his officials so that they could live a little better, and so that he could get a better class of officials, I think it would be more satisfactory.


William Paterson: I suppose that I need not say any more?


John Dowsley Reid: If the minister admits that this $50,000 of increased expenditure is practically all accounted for by the superannuation of officials against their will in order to enable him to appoint ward heelers in their places I will have nothing more to say.


William Stevens Fielding: I beg to deny the statement of the hon. gentleman that men are being superannuated without cause. The returns of superannuations are brought down to the House every year, and as far as I recollect this is the first time that I have ever heard any question raised as to the propriety of the superannuation of any officer. It is nonsense to generalize. If the hon. gentleman believes that any particular officer has been improperly superannuated let him designate the name, time, and place and we will look up the records and show that the superannuation is amply justified.


John Dowsley Reid: When the minister says that this is the first time that the question has ever been raised he does not' speak with a knowledge of the facts.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no recollection of any question ever being raised as to the superannuation of any official. If it has been brought up by somebody else it has escaped my notice. If my hon. friend will give the name of any official whom he states has been improperly superannuated I will undertake at the first opportunity to give him the information, and I think I will satisfy my hon. friend himself that superannuation was called for by the circumstances.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, according to the law, if an officer has served thirty-five years he may be superannuated whether he wishes it or not.	*


William Stevens Fielding: He can be superannuated at any time whether he wishes it or not if in the public interest it is deemed desirable.


John Dowsley Reid: Exactly. But, I do not think it is fair that a man who has served the department up to 65 years of
age and who is as active as the Minister of Finance himself should be superannuated against his will,


William Stevens Fielding: Give us the name and place.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Finance was a member of the government at the time the postmaster at Kingston was superannuated. That gentleman who was about 60 years was superannuated on account of old age, and the minister knows that they appointed a man who was older than the man who was superannuated. Then, there was the case of the Collector at Port Stanley who was superannuated although he was active and doing his work well.


William Paterson: Why do you say that?


John Dowsley Reid: I say that from information. Take the Collector at Prescott; he was active and doing his work all right.


William Paterson: How do you know?


John Dowsley Reid: He was there every day doing his work and not the slightest complaint was made with regard to him. I am satisfied that the minister cannot say that that man was not doing his work as well as he had been doing it for the last twenty years. He had been there twenty-five or thirty years but it was necessary to make room for another gentleman. The President of the Liberal,Association was appointed. I am not finding fault with that gentleman. He is all right, but I object that there should be $600 or $800 added to the expenditure in that way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Customs mentioned a new officer at St. Catharines. Will he tell me the name of the gentleman and what the new office is?


William Paterson: Mr. Geo. Beggy has been appointed appraiser there.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it a new office?


William Paterson: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was it found necessary to have a new officer there?


William Paterson: Yes, it was thought so.


Mr. WILCOX.: I would like to ask the minister why the officers at Windsor are not paid overtime when they work. I have been informed that they go on at eight in the morning, that they are supposed to be relieved at eight o'clock at night, but that while they are compelled to work five and: six hours overtime, they are only allowed two hours pay for it. What is the reason that they are not paid for the full overtime they work?


William Paterson: Well, we think that if, a man works from eight to six, and puts in

two hours besides, it is as much as we can, expect a man to do.


Oliver James Wilcox: But he is compelled to work. The service demands it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And he does work.


Oliver James Wilcox: Yes, he does stay till two o'clock.


William Paterson: In some cases they, have to do that. Facilities must be given in trade and commerce, but we think that on an average you cannot reasonably ex-, pect a man to do more than two hours extra.


Oliver James Wilcox: Does not the minister think he is justly entitled to payment for the full overtime he works?


William Paterson: It is true that they are out, but they are waiting for trains, and may be they are not engaged in bodily work, if I might use that expression, all the time. They can perhaps lie down and rest between trains.or something like that. But they must be there. I know it is not a very nice business, but we try to arrange it, and put on new men so that they will not have to work more than two hours extra.


Oliver James Wilcox: It is not at the station, it is at the ferry boats. Sometimes he works till one and two o'clock in the morning, and it is impossible for him to get remuneration after ten o'clock.


William Paterson: Yes, there are some on the ferry boat3.


John Allister Currie: The minister gets a good fat vote every year to pay for this extra time, and I understand the men are paid for extra time at the harbours of Halifax, Montreal and ports of that kind. Why not pay them at the port of Windsor?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice you say: 'Notwitstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' why do you put that in?


William Paterson: Just on account of this overtime we are discussing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Civil Service Act does not allow you to pay for overtime unless you put that in?


William Paterson: That is the reason.
Customs-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $2,157,500.


William Paterson: 
William Stevens Fielding: There is a small increase there due to the appointment of two extra clerks at $500 each, and there is the appointment of an actuary in the annuities branch also. Otherwise the staff is the same as before.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions, $1 647,200.66.


William Stevens Fielding: These are the steamship subsidies. Although they are very numerous it will be observed that with two or three exceptions, the services and the appropriations are the same as last year.


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: There are only four increases. You will explain them when you come to them?
Steam service between Canada and Australia, $180,509.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is the trade between Canada and Australia developing?


William Stevens Fielding: There is some increase, not very rapid,, but there is an increase.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the trade now?


William Stevens Fielding: The total i3 about $3,000,000, both imports and exports. I have not the figures at hand, but the deputy assures me there is a moderate increase, though not very rapid.
Ocean and mail service between Canada and Great Britain, $600,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any one to answer for the Minister of Agriculture? It seems to me that some information would be very desirable with regard to the cold storage on the steamships, and the rate3 charged for transportation. It seems to me that the company are making a high charge for transportation and that the cold

storage, while improved, is not altogether the best.


William Stevens Fielding: I will see that the attention of the deputy minister is called to the hon. gentleman's remarks.
Steam services between Canada and Mexico on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, $125,000.


George Taylor: Explain the increase of $25,000.


William Stevens Fielding: It is due to the fact that the Mexican government abandoned their subsidy, and we were likely to Jose the service.
Steam service between Halifax and Newfoundland by Cape Breton ports, $1,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are a number of small subsidies here. Can the hon. minister tell us in a general way whether there is any substantial trade kept up, for which we are paying this money, or are these boats doing merely a (toasting service, whether there is much trade or not?


William Stevens Fielding: The report of the department contains all the information the hon. gentleman desires. In most cases it will he found that these small services are valuable in establishing communication between points which are distant from a railway, and the most convenient station, thus extending the benefits of railway communication to points which would otherwise be without any communication at all.
Steam service between Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland, Liverpool, $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How often are the trips made?


William Stevens Fielding: Once in every seventeen days.
Steam service between Prince Rupert, B.C and Queen Charlotte islands, $7,600.


George Taylor: There is an increase of $2,600.


William Stevens Fielding: This is a service performed by a steamer called the ' Bruno, ', owned by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; during November, December, January, February and March, not less than two trips each month; the remaining seven months of the year, not less than four round trips each month; subsidy $200 a trip.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it carry any mail?	y y


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. These boats are subsidized to carry the mails without any extra pay.
Winter steam service between Riviere du Loup, Tadoussao and other St. Lawrence ports, $2,500.


George Taylor: This is a new service.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Taylor: Have you made a contract?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, a contract was recently entered into for the amount of $8,000.


George Taylor: It has not been laid on the table.


William Stevens Fielding: No. It would come within the next annual report in the usual way.
Steam service between Canada and Cuba, $25,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On a monthly service this is a little over $2,000 a trip. Does there seem to be a prospect of reasonable trade springing up from that place?


William Stevens Fielding: This subsidy, while it is designed to cover any traffic that might offer, was provided with special reference to the development of the potato trade between New Brunswick and Cuba. There is a considerable market, and this is to handle the trade in that article to a very large degree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So this is for the benefit of the Irish.
Trade and Commerce, Chinese Immigration Act, $7,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does there seem to be an increasing number of the Chinese coming in of late compared with last year?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the number is increasing. When the tax was first imposed it was almost prohibitive; quite a number seem to be able to gather up the money and pay the tax and come in. The number is not alarming, but it has shown some considerable increase.
Trade commissioners and commercial agencies, $95,000.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a gradual increase in that service as additional appointments are made. I think it is rather desirable we should make additional appointments in different portions of the world, and the expenditure will increase from time to time to that end.


Mr. JAMESON.: What new appointments have been made in the past year?


William Stevens Fielding: An additional appointment has just been made to Germany; that is the only new one recently.


George Taylor: Has a successor to Mr. Larke been appointed?


William Stevens Fielding: One of the officers in the British service has been transferred



to Germany, and that place will have to be filled. Mr. Larke's position is also vacant. Arrangements are being made to fill these now.
Administering Old Age Annuities Act, $35,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What accounts for the increase of $10,000?


William Stevens Fielding: The system is comparatively new, and as it extends its operations we must expect an increase from time to time.


George Taylor: Are you paying the postmasters who are acting as agents?


William Stevens Fielding: The postmasters receive a small commission on any business they bring to the department.
Steam service, Atlantic ports and Australia and New Zealand, $120,000.


George Taylor: This is a new service?


William Stevens Fielding: This is to provide for an Atlantic service to Australia.
Hitherto our service with Australia has been on the Pacific. This is to give us an Atlantic service. It is almost impossible to carry expensive freight across the continent and ship it by Vancouver.


George Taylor: With whom was this contract made?


William Stevens Fielding: The New Zealand Shipping Co.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Where does it go from on the Atlantic coast?


William Stevens Fielding: From Montreal in the summer, and from St. John or Halifax in the winter.
Civil government-departments generally -contingencies-care and cleaning of departmental buildings, including an amount of $50 each to E. Snowden and W. H. Jeffrey, for firing noon gun, $54,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This is for the cleaning service of the various departments, and, as additional offices are rented, or additional buildings constructed, there must be additional employees in the cleaning service.


George Taylor: This is a vote for departments generally. My hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) wishes to say a few words on the subject of fisheries.


Oliver James Wilcox: I appreciate fully the kindness of the House in affording me an opportunity at this time to make a statement on the subject of great importance to the people I represent. I had intended to speak at some length on the question of the international regulations for the preservation of food fishes in international waters, but, last Mr. FIELDING.
week, I was very suddenly called home on what proved to be a very sad errand, and during my absence the Bill was brought down. These regulations affect the fisheries in the riding of N. Essex, and affect them very unjustly. They are said to be uniform regulations. In Essex there are twenty fish stations, and 150 men on the south side of the Detroit river engaged in the fishing business. They and their forefathers have been engaged in fishing for a hundred years. But under these regulations they will he absolutely deprived of this means of livelihood. On the American side of the Detroit river, there are no fishing stations and no fishing carried on. Consequently, the application of these regulations will deprive 150 men on the Canadian side of the opportunity to carry on their occupation, and there will be absolutely no giving up on the other side. Permit me to read from the address delivered by Mr. Wm. McGregor who represented N. Essex in 1895 upon this very question. He said:-
We have petitioned parliament and the government through the county councils of the counties in which we reside; we have petitioned through the town councils of the different towns along the borders; and we have petitioned this House through the townships. We have also had individual petitions asking for a change of policy in reference to the fishing regulations, but, Sir, we have had no answer to any one of them. We feel thait this is a great grievance. We feel that our people having invested a very large amount of money in the purchase of land for fishing purposes and then being deprived of the fish, are obliged to suffer a great loss. They have not only invested in the lands, but they have cleared the rivers for the purpose of fishing, and the fact that they have not been able to utilize their means of livelihood has left many of them in debt. They have lost their boats, and their docks and many other investments they have made.
He says further:-
We feel that to be a great grievance. Talk about the Czar of Russia and his severity to Russian Jews. Sir, no Czar of Russia ever treated the Russian Jews as the people of Essex have been treated by these fishery laws.
There has been some relaxation of the laws since 1884, but under the regulations now proposed these fishermen will be deprived of the right of carrying on their operations. I will not detain the House at length, but I merely wish to put on record some petitions and letters in this case. The first is a resolution on this subject of the township of Sandwich East as follows:-
Sandwich, East, March 5, 1910.
Moved by Deputy Reeve Peter E. Du-charme, seconded by Councillor Israel Sou-illiere. That the council of the township of Sandwich, East, approve the requisition made

by the Canadian Fishermen 's Association, and that they also ask the honourable members for the north and south ridings of Essex to join their efforts in order to obtain the amendments asked for in said requisition. Carried unanimously.
I, John Dugal, clerk of the township of Sandwich, East, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution passed by ^the said council on the 5th day of March,
Dated at Sandwich, East, this 10th day of March, 1910
JOHN DHGAL, Clerk of Sandwich, East.
I have also received the following letter from the Essex county branch of the Canadian Fishermen's Association, as follows
Tecumseh, North Essex,
O, J. Wilcox, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Ontario, March 7, 1910.
Dear Sir,-The Essex County Branch of the Canadian Fishermen's Association wish to call your attention to the manner in which the interests of the fishermen of your riding have been lost sight of by the framers of the International Fisheries Regulations, which it is proposed to enforce beginning next season and to request that you endeavour to have the regulations altered, even to the point of bringing.the subject up in parliament if necessary.
The Americans, as usual in all international arrangements they have made with Canada, have secured all the advantage.
In Lake Erie where they fish 2,268 miles of gill nets (eleven strings stretching from the mouth of Detroit river to Buffalo) as against 290 miles fished by Canadians and 2,150 pound and hoop nets as against 272 pounds nets fished by Canadians, they have succeeded in having all close seasons done away with entirely; the same is true of Lake Huron and Superior.
In all these areas where the Americans catch many times as many fish as the Canadians, there will be no close seasons enforced, but on the Detroit river, where there are no commercial fisheries on the American side, they insist on the waters being close to fishing altogether because only the Canadians will suffer in consequence.
It happens that even though all this advantage has been secured by the Americans, still because the Saginaw bay fishermen find the mesh regulations will work to their disadvantage, they have demanded that the regulations shall be changed by the Senate before being adopted by that body, and they are to be changed accordingly. Now the new regulations contain two changes which are an absolute hardship to the Essex County fishermen, and we trust you will have the regulations changed in the same way the Saginaw bay fishermen can vet them changed, one is to strike out the dose season fbr sturgeon for Lake St. Clair, and the other the prohibition for net fishing in the Detroit river.
If the Americans can demand changes, surely the Canadians can insist on such changes as they desire before consenting to the American proposals. After all the Canadians have been hood-winked by the Americans in the whole matter.
The federal government has no jurisdiction or authority to regulate the fisheries which aie State property, and Canada is agreeing to a set of international regulations which will never be enforced on the American side of the line.
The Ainercians have contended that close seasons are unnecessary; if close seasons are unnecessary, if the lakes are provided with sufficient hatcheries and the international regulations are based on that contention, we therefore wish to recommend strongly that our Canadian hatcheries must at once be greatly increased in capacity and whitefish alone be propagated, and we would also point out that the only way to secure a proper supply of eggs for hatchery purposes is to allow net fishing in the Detroit river where the eggs can be secured from the fishermen in large numbers and in prime condition.
Yours truly,
ARSAS DROUTLLARD, President.
H. C. LAFOREST, Vice-President,
ARCHIE LABUTE, Secretary.
These documents set forth the condition of affairs in relation to these fishery regulations. I will not detain the House further but it does seem to me that it would be reasonable for the government, before these regulations are brought into operation- and. I may say, they are brought into operation by proclamation of the Governor in council-to send an officer of the department to the Detroit river and investigate the conditions in order that justice may be done to the fishermen on the Canadian side of the Detroit river.
Public buildings-Quebec-Rigaud, $7,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to know what the population of that place is?


William Pugsley: I think it is about
2,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not protest against the expenditure of this money, but I desire to point out to the minister the unfairness of the way in which the public buildings are distributed. At the beginning of this session, on December 3, I drew the attention of the government for the fourth ot fifth time to the need of a public building in the very up-to-date and prosperous village of Grimsby, in my county. Grimsby is the centre of the most flourishing part of the well-known fruit growing and garden district of the Niagara peninsula, a place of about the same population as Rigaud, and a place that is absolutely starving for the need of a new post office building. The postal revenue is $4,500, the postmaster is allowed a rental of $225, and a salary of $1,518. Rigaud has only a revenue of $1,177, the salary paid to the postmaster is $524 and he is allowed $50 for rent. Grimsby has just about four times the postal revenue of Rigaud, it is patronized by a very progressive agricultural population, who do an enormous amount of post office business, as well as

other business. Away back in 1904 the people were complaining of the need of a post office building, and the then Postmaster General saw the force of their complaints. If the hon. gentleman will look at pages 5585 to 5697 of ' Hansard ' of that year, he will see that the then Postmaster General promised that before next spring a proper building would be furnished. These people are patient as well as progressive. They have constantly asked for this building. The Minister of Public Works will find that at the beginning of the present session I asked him a question about this post office, on page 967 of the ' Hansard,' and in his answer he said that if the place would be satisfied with a building worth $4,000 or $5,000 he would certainly take the matter into his favourable consideration with a view of complying with the request. Now, as the session is closing, I will be expected to report to these people what our authorities are doing. Look at the situation. The owner of the store who was also postmaster receives $220 a year rent for the post office. If the minister could spare the time to go up there I would like to take him into that post office; we could not both get in at the same time unless we went in in Indian file allowing him to go ahead.


William Pugsley: We are both a good size.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We are both a good size, and we would be expected to be good sized men if we lived or associated long with the people of Grimsby. They expect to have men of some size both mentally and physically. The post office is carried on in a space three and a half or four feet wide and about thirty feet long. That is all the room there is, and the people have to enter in single file and turn around and come out into the street like a lot of penitentiary convicts. If there are more than ten or fifteen people there the remainder have to stay out. in the rain or snow at night because they cannot get inside. They get their mails three times a day, from one direction and twice from another direction. The postmaster is getting $220 rent while if you spent six or seven thousand dollars on a new building you would not only have room for the post office, but you would have accommodation upstairs for the Customs an'd Inland Revenue, and the interest on the cost of the building would not be more than you are paying in rent. The people are contributing three times as much to the revenue of the country as the post office is costing. The salary of the postmaster is $1,500, and the revenue is $4,573 ; 300 per cent profit is going to the country from the business that these people are doing at this post office. A $5,000 or $6,000 building would satisfy the people of Grimsby. I Mr. LANCASTER.
am satisfied that the Postmaster General is doing what he can to get us these post office facilities, but as he tells me, the matter is in the hands of the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works said that he would look into it and he certainly told us that he was going to give these people some accommodation. They are contributing a lot of money to the revenue. These people are producing thousands and thousands of dollars on every square mile of territory every year. They are an earning people, and they are a spending people. They highly educate their children, they live well, they earn a lot of money and they spend a lot of money. They are doing a great deal to contribute to the prosperity of this country and they are certainly entitled to have a building erected for the accommodation of the post office. I am not saying that Rigaud should not have a building. It certainly should have it if it requires it. But the hon. gentleman will see that that village which is getting a $7,000 building is contributing $1,100 to the revenue, while the post office at Grimsby is contributing $4,573, or four times as much, and is practically without a building, because you cannot call it a building that they have there now. The Minister of Public Works in 1904 undertook to see that proper accommodation was furnished in the next year; yet the people are in the same starved condition as they were in 1904. I trust the minister will supplement his general promise and meet the desire of the people of Grimsby for a public building.


William Pugsley: I will take occasion to look up the ' Hansard ' containing the statement of my predecessor. If he made the positive statement that my hon. friend refers to I shall feel it to be my duty to bring the matter before my colleauges. In so far as I am concerned, I stated that 1 would give the matter my careful consideration. I believe that my hon. friend has made out a strong case for a building at Grimsby. But I wish that he were Minister of Public Works for five minutes and had to deal with all the applications which come from all parts of the country, from hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, as well as hon. gentlemen on the other side. I am sure he would, realize how many applications I am obliged to refuse because of not having money to meet them all. The country is growing rapidly, and the demands are very great. I will give the matter further consideration during recess.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Pine Brook-wharf on St. Patrick's channel, $1,000.


William Pugsley: I beg to move that that I be struck out, because that is sufficiently

provided for by the Gillis Point appropriation. Then npon page 11 strike out ' Port Joli West, or Herring Rocks extension of wharf We have an amount in the main estimates which, my information is, will be sufficient.


Clarence Jameson: I wish to ask the minister a question in regard to the breakwaters at Centreville, New Edinburgh and White's cove, for the necessity of which 1 have called his attention some time ago, and for which I see he has made appro-, priations. Will this work be done by tender or by day work, and will it be undertaken during the present summer or not?


William Pugsley: The intention is to proceed with these three works during the present summer, but I cannot tell my hon. friend just at the moment whether they will be done by public tender or by day work. Centreville breakwater would be entirely repair work, and possibly it would be better done by day work. As to the New Edinburgh wharf, I would, as advised at present, suppose that that would be done by public tender, and I would think White's cove wharf extension would be better done by public tender, but I am not quite sure at the moment as my deputy is not present.


Clarence Jameson: I hope the minister has made a note of Church point.


William Pugsley: I have that in mind.


Clarence Jameson: While this item is under discussion will the minister say what will be the distribution of the amount for dredging in the maritime provinces? He said he was going to give the committee that information.


William Pugsley: I am sorry I have not that before me. I will send for my deputy, and we will come to an item for dredging when perhaps I will be able to give my hon. friend that information.


Mr. TURGEON.: I see an item of $25,000 for dredging a ship channel at Bathurst. I would like to thank the minister for doing this work. I suppose the minister is aware of the immense interests which are there depending upon this work being completed. May I ask him'if he intends to have contracts for dredging outside of that $25,000?


William Pugsley: I have not yet decided whether that work will be done by contract or by a government dredge. If I can succeed in getting a government dredge available for the purpose. I would very much prefer that mode of doing the work. I think it is work that might better be done by a government dredge, but I am not able to give my hon. friend the information to-night. All I can say to
him is that the work will be undertaken during the present season.
Public Works-Ontario,	Harbours and
Rivers, $140,350.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these all works that are under way?


William Pugsley: No, not all under way; there are some new works. For instance, French river-Lake Nipissing regulating works at outlets, will be a new work; the Hamilton harbour improvements will be a new work, although it is a continuation of work that has been done; Huntsville, extension of wharf is a new work; Harwood, extension and repairs is the same; Lake Nipigon, improvement of navigable channel, and Lakefield, extension of wharf are new works, and Peterborough and several others.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is Whitby a new work?


William Pugsley: It is a new work in this sense, that we have made repairs at Whitby, but this vote is for further improvements, and also to acquire the water rights of the company at Whitby harbour.


Mr. BLAIN.: My hen. friend the minister was to produce a list of newspapers in which there were certain advertisements.


William Pugsley: Yes, I will get it in a moment. Let me say to my hon: friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) that my deputy says he does not remember the information that my hon friend w^ants as to the apportionment of dredging in the maritime provinces. He has not the information with' him, but would my hon. friend _ be good enough to write to the deputy minister, and he will give him the information?


Clarence Jameson: Perhaps you could ask him if any provision has been made for dredging at Digby during the present year?


William Pugsley: No, I do not think there is any dredging urgently required at Digby at present, but we are constructing a very -fine pier there, as the hon. gentleman knows.
Post office, outside	service-addition!:]
amount, required, $6,400.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is for the extension of the service in the west.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have a letter from the owner of ' Cotton's Weekly,' who contradicts very flatly some of the Postmaster General's answers given to me a few weeks ago. On page 6032 of 'Hansard,' the Postmaster General, replying to my questions, said :
The case of Mr. Cotton is radically different. In the first place he has no subscribers, but. he sends his papers to friends who dip tribute it.
I asked the question: how does it happen that papers like the Toronto 'World,'


'8319 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
or 'Mail,' or 'Globe,' or 'News' can send extra numbers to news agents who have no subscription lists, but who sell them out over the counter? The reply of the Postmaster General was that they had a regular subscription list, but this paper had no subscription list. This man says that he is prepared to make an affidavit that he has a subscription list of over 6,000-that he has a list over 37 feet long of subscribers' names, and that whenever additional papers are sent out they are paid for before they are sent out from the office, and he is adding to his subscription list all the time as the result of canvassing. He says his paper stands in the front rank in the Dominion of Canada in the matter of subscription lists. If this is so, the Postmaster General has been misinformed, and is doing * a great injustice to this man's paper.
Rodolphe Lemieux: If the case were as my hon. friend has stated, certainly the publisher would have a real grievance against the department. I may tell my hon. friend that I ask nothing better than to investigate the facts at once, and if they aTe as stated, the publisher will be given all the mailing privileges granted to others. But we had a very serious investigation since this agitation took place, and we found that that was not the case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He says:
I have before me a mailing list of Cotton's for Ontario, which, when put together, is 37 feet long, and hundreds have been added since I received this list from the publisher.
, I have personally taken and received payment for and sent in over 50 now.
He is operating in Berlin, Ontario, and he says he is prepared to make a solemn affidavit to the correctness of this statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If he does that and proves his statement, he is entitled to the regular mailing privileges granted to other papers. But the information of the department at the beginning of the agitation was that they were not really mailing subscribers. *
St. Andrew's Rapid lock and dam, Red River, Man., $10,000.


William Pugsley: I have a somewhat pleasing announcement to make to the House, and I am sure it will be interesting to hon. members, particularly those from the province of Manitoba. It is a telegram from the resident engineer, dated yesterday, received to-day, and reads as follows:
Government steamer ' Victoria ' locked through St. Andrew's canal to-day. Everything successful. The canal now open to navigation.	*
Hudson Bay railway-construction, $500,000


Mr. LAKE.: I would like a statement from the Minister of Railways in regard Mr. SPROULE.
to that. What specific work of construction is it proposed to do, where is it proposed to start the work, and what is going to be the prairie terminus of the railway?


George Perry Graham: The work as proposed will start at Le Pas on the south side of the river. We propose utilizing this vote or a portion of it immediately to ask for tenders for the construction of a bridge across the river at that point. We intend to do that specific construction at once. It is a little difficult to say what will_ be the terminus of the line, but for 160 miles the line will be common, whether Churchill or Nelson is selected. In the Marine and Fisheries estimates there is an amount for sending a steamer around the straits this year for the purpose of obtaining more information in regard to the two ports. I think it fair to say that from the railway standpoint the route to Nelson would he the shorter one and would afford the easier construction. There is some difference of opinion as to which is the better harbour. The engineers report that Nelson has the foundation for a safe harbour and a larger harbour, while on the other hand, Churchill has a harbour already made, but not so large.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is all this vote to be taken for the construction of the bridge?


George Perry Graham: The bridge proper will cost between $300,000 and $400,000, that is for a railway bridge. A question has arisen whether it would not be well to also include a roadway over it, and I have put in an extra amount so that if we want to include a highway as well as the railway on the bridge we can do so.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is the Canadian Northern railway in actual operation as far as the Pas Mission?


George Perry Graham: I canno-t tell my hon. friend that. It was brought to my attention once and I took it up with the Canadian Northern. I understood they had inaugurated a service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As a matter of fact this is for the construction of a bridge, not for the construction of a railway, although it may be part of a railway.


George Perry Graham: This bridge is primarily for the use of the railroad.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it seriously intended to "go on with the grading and construction of the road beyond that point this season?


George Perry Graham: I would hardly like to say that to my hon. friend. Circumstances may arise making it advisable to grade a short distance on both sides in order to get the approaches to the bridge and the amount for the bridge proper would not cover that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So it is only built as a bridge for the convenience of those _ who want to cross the river and the railway may not be built beyond that point.


George Perry Graham: It will be.
Quebec bridge-construction, $500,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have not yet had anything like a definite statement as to what the Quebec bridge is expected to cost us when erected. The government must have some estimate of their own engineers or p&ome idea of what it will cost. Whenever we ask for it there is a kind of indefinite putting off that seems to imply that the government have been indifferent as to the necessity of getting information or do not wish to give it. It makes it embarrassing because that is information we ought to have.


George Perry Graham: Neither of these is the condition. The committee are familiar with the arrangement approved by the House by which the construction of the bridge lias been entrusted to a board of engineers. These engineers have got to the point where the contract for the substructure has been let and the contractor is now at work. The superstructure, which is a vast undertaking having a span of 1,758 feet, has cost considerable money in plans, tests, and what the engineers call studies. Experiments have been carried on in the old country, in the United States and here. Compression tests are now being made in the United States under the supervision of one of the professors of McGill University. So careful are the board that they make full tests before taking any step, and no person who has not been in close touch with the work can have any conception of its magnitude and difficulties. We have arrived at the point where the board of engineers are prepared to advertise for tenders for the superstructure. They have not given me an estimate of the cost, and I do not suppose they will do so at present. I was asked in the committee some time ago if the cost would be $10,000,000. I said it would be at least that and possibly more, but I have been given no estimate.
Port Colborne-improvements, $113,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you doing at PoTt Colborne?


George Perry Graham: This woTk is under construction and partially completed. A small amount is yet to be done in the removal of a certain ledge of rock from the channel to make it a few feet wider.
Welland canal-surveys and borings for proposed new or enlarged canal, $25,000.


William Cameron Edwards: Are we to take this $25,000 as an evidence that the government has definitely decided either to enlarge the
present Welland canal or to construct a new one?


George Perry Graham: The policy of the government has been announced by the government once or twice, that when the finances of the country would warrant he hoped to see this work done. In the meantime we are taking practical steps to get a fair estimate what the work will cost. For the lasit two or three years surveying has been going on, but I thought it wise to put in an amount to clean it up and so be able to tell the country fairly accurately what the work will cost. I have three or four educated guesses as to the cost but they are not based on a completed survey.


William Cameron Edwards: You expect to have sufficient information before the next session to be able to give the House a definite idea as to the cost of the new canal or of enlarging the canal.


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Contribution of the government railways to the faculty of Polytechnic School, Montreal, for the advancement of learning in connection with railway engineering and transportation in general, provided that the railway companies contribute an equal amount, $2,500.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I am bound as a governor of the Polytechnic school of Montreal, to say a few words in explanation of this vote. I see from this item there is a proviso reading: ' Provided that the railway companies contribute an equal amount.'
The school was first organized, on the 20th of November, 1873, when its curriculum was agreed to between the Minister of Public Instruction of the province of Quebec, Hon. Gedeon Ouimet-for the province of Quebec had such a luxury as a Minister of Public Instruction for a few months-under the Act 31 Vic., c. 10, 1868, repealed by the Act, 39 Vic., c. 15, 1875-and the Catholic School Commissioners of Montreal, for the establishment of a scientific and industrial school, called the ' Polytechnic School,' under the control of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
That arrangement was afterwards confirmed by the Act 40 Victoria, chap. 22, sections 44 to 51.
Year after year amending Acts have been passed, the school has been made a corporation; and finally affiliated with Laval university.	_
The first professors who were appointed were Col. Emile Balete, who had been made a general on the battlefield, in 1870, a most learned scholar in mathematics, and a former graduate from the Polytechnic School of Paris, and Mr. C. A. Pfister, a French chemist of very great repute. General Balete left for America because he would not submit to a reduction of rank.

Both have lately died after giving the school 35 years of their life for its final success. Over 350 graduates from this school have made for themselves and for the country very good reputations. To-day, the teaching staff of the school is composed of very brilliant scientists under the remarkably able directorship of Mr. A. Fyen, who succeeded Mr. Balhte.
The personnel includes now such men as Dr. Duval, Mr. A. Andre, Mr. Charles E. Leluau, a brother of the Chief Engineer of the Ghemin de fer du Nord of France, Belgium and Germany; Mr. Poivert, a graduate of the Ecole des Beaux Arts of Paris, Mr. Emile Dulieux, a graduate from the Ecole des Mines of Paris, Mr. Flahault, a graduate from the University of Lille, Mr. F. C. Laberge, Mr. Haynes, Mr. Queva, Mr. Manseau, Mr. Beaupre, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Frigon, Mr. McConville, Mr. Busquet, E. Dyounet, A. Beaulne, Raoul Lacroix, E. Desaulniers, A. Beaugrand-Champagne.
To the course of civil engineering, which was for over 30 years exclusively taught, those of mining enginering, of chemical engineering, of electrical engineering and of architecture have been lately added. About $500,000 have been expended in constructing new school buildings and laboratories and in equipping both. One finds to-day in the Polytechnic School 240 students, studying those five branches of engineering. But the Board of Governors have some other little ambition of their own. They wish to extend, enlarge and complete the courses of study on railway construction and railway management both technically and financially.
New buildings must be put up, new professors must be engaged, more money must be expended, to reach that goal. Hence, the move started about five years ago by the governors to secure the necessary funds.
The princely gifts made to the school by Senator Villeneuve, Mrs. Beaudry-Lehmann and Mr. J. E. Vanier, the first graduate ol the school, as well as the continuous protection of that good and public spirited citizen, Mr. Treffle Bastien, have proved insufficient to crystalize the plan of the school for the extension of its teaching of the Arts and Science of Railway construction and management.
For the second time in this House this session, I feel bound to recall the fact that Sir Lomer Gouin has done marvellous things for the school. To-day it is receiving a subsidy of $20,000 from the Provincial Exchequer; for it is Sir Lomer's plan to make the Polytechnic School of Montreal the best equipped of the now well-established special school system, composed of two technical schools, one higher commercial school, one forestry school, one agricultural school, one veter-


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: inary school and our Polytechnical School, side by side with the 17 classical colleges and the two universities of the province of Quebec. That, I think, is the pedagogic formula of to-day, that, in any country, a system of, public instruction worthy of the name, must include a group of classical schools as well as such a group of special schools.
Every one to-day admits that, while it is fair that the four or five ideas or ideals which have been pursued by humanity for a great number of centuries, should have had and should continue to have their followers, their friends, their schools and their temples; it is also quite proper that the ideals of wealth and happiness coming out of chemistry and physics, the many applications of which have brought about the construction of railways, should have at the same time their own followers, their own students and schools, and their own temples. The Corporation of the Polytechnic school therefore wishes to erect a department where the Science and Art of Railways will be thoroughly taught.
This item of the Budget is to enable out school to go on with its new work. Mr. Speaker, I may say, that the new railway curriculum framed by Mr. Lebuau was corrected and approved of by railway expert men amongst others, Mr. R. S. Logan, Vice-President of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
But let me quote by way of conclusion of my remarks, one letter and one telegram which are worth reading:
Montreal, April 15, 1910.
Dear Mr. Gervais,-Naturally, as a Governor of Laval University, I am pleased with any movement calculated to strengthen the university as one of our great educational institutions, and I am particularly interested in the adoption in the course of applied science of such technical training as will give the students by the time they graduate the requisite technical knowledge of the works [DOT] in which they are to engage as to make them immediately valuable to their employers.
It would be very gratifying if a greater number of the young men who graduate from Laval took up the technical branches of railway work, and if, as I gathered from our conversation, you receive from the government the co-operation that you anticipate toward the establishment of a technical branch, we shall see what assistance we can give, although at the moment I am unable to make you anything in the nature of a specific promise.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) T. G. SHAUGHNESSY,
President.
Montreal, Que., April 20, 1910.
(Telegram.)
Honors Gervais,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Referring to your favour of April 19 in re subsidy to Montreal Polytechnic School. You

are at liberty to state that we regard very highly the work of the institute and consider it worthy of the same measure of government and municipal support as any other institution of a similar character, and should such support he given I should be disposed to recommend that we should join the other railways in assisting the school to such extent as is practicable.


CHAS. M. HAYS,
[Stage Direction]
*	President.
Mr. Speaker, here you find two transcontinental railway companies not only endorsing the action of the government, but paying over their own money to the Polytechnic School of Montreal, while Sir Lomer Gouin will give the school an increase of subsidy, equal to that secured by the school from the Parliament of Canada, the Canadian Pacific Kailway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
For, Sir Lomer Gouin, at a public banquet. of the students of the Polytechnic School of Montreal, and afterwards, in several letters written to the school, has declared that the government of the province of Quebec, will give to the Polytechnic school of Montreal an increase of subsidy equal to one dollar for every dollar the school can get from the government of Canada and our two great transcontinental railway companies.
Mr. Speaker, in the name of the school, though I should have liked better to receive a subscription of $5,000, as was their request which should have been granted in full- I must offer my sincere thanks to the House of Commons, to Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessey, Mr. Charles M. Hays, and also to Sir Lomer Gouin, for joining in such a laudable effort to promote public instruction.
That move must be noted as a turning point in the history of public instruction and education in Canada. Such a combination of public authorities friendly to education as the one I have just referred to, will go far towards giving the public the whole benefit of the natural resources of Canada, and make this century that of Canada.
William Pugsley: I desire to submit a list of the newspapers in which the Leamington, Ont., the Welland, Ont., the Whitby, Ont., and the Dauphin, Man., public buildings were advertised, as follows:
Leamington, Ont., Public Building.
Ottawa, Ont., ' Danebrog '	$	4 50
Amherstburg, Ont., ' Echo '	 6 75
Brantford, Ont.. * Expositor '	 9 0ft
Ottawa, Ont., ' Le Temps '	 18 00
Chatham, Ont., ' Le Canadien ' .. ..	7 80
Chatham, Ont., ' News '	 9 00
Leamington, Ont., ' News '	 4 50
Belleville, Ont., ' Ontario '	 9 00
Blenheim, Ont., ' News '	 5 85
Comber, Ont., ' Herald '	 6 75
Dresden, Ont., * Times	$	6 75
Essex, Ont., ' Free Press '	 6 75
Highgate, Ont., ' Monitor '	 6 75
Ridgetown, Ont., ' Plaindealer ' .. ..	6 75
Kingston, Ont., ' Whig '	 13 95
Brockville, Ont., ' Recorder '	 8 10
Guelph, Ont., ' Mercury '	 9 00
Peterborough, Ont., ' Times '	 6 24
Hamilton, Ont., ' Times '	,. ..	18 20
Kingston, Ont., 'Freeman'		9 00
Hamilton, Ont., ' Herald '	 15 60
London, Ont., ' Echo '	
9	00London, Out., ' Advertiser '	
15	60Ottawa, Ont., ' Free Press '	
19	50Toronto, Ont., ' Congregationalist ' ..	5	20Toronto, Ont., ' Globe '	
23	40Toronto, Ont., * Star '	
23	40Toronto, Ont., ' Truth '	
5	20Sarnia, Ont., ' Observer '	
9	00Stratford, Ont., ' Beacon '	
9 00Thamesville, Ont., ' Herald '	
6 75Tilbury, Ont., ' Times '	
6 75Wallaceburg, Ont., ' Herald '	
6 75Wheatley, Ont., ' Journal '	
6 75Windsor, Ont., 'Record'	
9 00Woodstock, Ont., 'Sentinel Review'.. 9 00 Peterborough, Ont., ' Examiner * .. ..	10 40

Welland, Ont., Public Building.
Kingston, Out., ' Freeman '	
9	00Peterborough, Ont., ' Times '	
6	00Peterborough, Ont., ' Examiner ' ______ 10	00St. Thomas, Ont., 'Journal'	
9	00Windsor, Ont., ' Record '	
9	00Woodstock, Ont., ' Sentinel-Review	'..	9	0t)Belleville, Ont., ' Ontario '	
9	00Beamsville, Ont., ' Express '	
5	40Brantford, Ont., ' Expositor '	
9	00Cayuga, Ont., ' Advocate '	
5	85Chatham, Ont., ' Le Canadien'	....	5	00Chatham, Ont., ' News '	
9	00Dunnville, Ont., ' Reform Press ' ..	..	4	50Hamilton, Ont., ' Herald '	
15	00Hamilton, Ont., ' Times '	
17	50Ingersoll, Ont., ' Chronicle '	
9	00Kingston, Ont., ' Whig '	
13	95London, Ont., ' Advertiser '	
15	00London, Ont., ' Echo '	
10	00Niagara Falls, Ont., ' Review '.... 6	75Niagara on the Lake, Ont., ' Times	'..	5	85Ottawa, Ont., ' Free Press '	
18	75Paris, O'nt., 'Star Transcript'.... 5	00Stratford, Ont., ' Beacon '	
9	00St. Catherines, Ont., 'Journal'	....	9	00
Toronto, Ont., ' Canadian Contract
Record '	
5	00Toronto, Ont., ' Globe '	
22	50Toronto, Ont., 'North Ender '	
5	00Toronto, Ont., ' Star '	
22	50Welland, Ont., 'Tribune'	
5	40Brockville, Ont., ' Recorder '	
8	10Caledonia, Ont., ' Haldimand Banner '	6	75Dundas, Ont., ' Banner '	
6	25Dunda.s, Ont., ' Wentworth Light '	..	6	75Guelph, Ont., ' Mercury '	
9	00Sarnia, Ont., ' Observed '	
9	00

Whitby Public Building-1908409.
Hamilton, Ont., ' Herald '	$	5 00
Kingston, Ont., ' Freeman '	 9 00
Kingston, Ont., 'Whig'	 13 95
Ottawa, Ont., ' Le Temps '	 17 40
Peterborough, Ont., ' Times '	 6 00

Ottawa, Ont., ' Danebrog '	$	4 50St. Thomas, Ont., ' Journal'	
9	00Belleville, Ont., ' Ontario '	
9	00Brantford, Ont., ' Expositor '	
9	00Brockville, Ont., ' Recorder '	
8	10Windsor, Out., 'Record'	
9	00Barrie, Ont., ' Gazette '	
6	75Bowmanville, Ont., ' Statesman '	
6	75Chatham, Ont., ' News '	
9	00Ingersoll, Oiit., ' Chronicle '	
4	50Lindsay, Ont., ' Post'	
9	00Millbrook, Ont., ' Mirror '	
6	50Oshawa, Ont., 'Ontario Reformer.. ..	6	75Pickering, Ont., ' News '	
6	75Port Perry, Ont., ' Star '	
6	75Guelph, Ont., ' Mercury '	
9	00Hamilton, Ont., 'Times'	
17	50London, Ont., ' Echo '	
9	00London, Out.,	'Advertiser'	
15	00Ottawa, Ont.,	' Eree Press '	
18	75Peterborough, Ont., ' Examiner '.. ..	10 00Toronto, Ont.,	' North Ender '	
5	00Toronto, Ont.,	'Globe'	
22	50Toronto, Ont.,	' Star '	
22	50Sarnia, Ont., ' Observer '	
9 00Stratford, Ont., ' Beacon '	
9 00Uxbridge, Ont., ' Journal '	
6 75Whitby, Ont.,	' Chronicle '	
6	75Whitby, Ont.,	'Gazette'	
6	75
Woodstock, Ont., 'Sentinel Review'.. 9 00
Barrie, Ont., ' Examiner '	 6 75
Port Hope, ' Guide '	 9 00

Dauphin, Man., Public Building.
Swan Lake, Man., ' Echo '	$	6 00Winnipeg, Man., ' Canada '	
9	40Winnipeg, Man., ' Commercial'..	..	10	80Winnipeg, Man., 'Canada Poster'..	..	4	00Brandon, Man., 'Sun'	
13	16Carberry, Man., ' News '	
9	40Dauphin, Man., ' Press '	
9	40Louis Bridge, Man., 'Elmwood Herald'	9 40Neepawa, Man., ' Press '	
9	40Gladstone, Man., ' Age '	
9	40Norwood, Man., ' Press and St. Boniface Echo '	9 40
Portage la Prairie, Man., ' Manitoba
Liberal'	
9	40Selkirk, Man., ' Expositor '	
9	40Stonewall, Man., ' Argus '	
9	40Treherne, Man., ' Times '	
9	40Winnipeg, Man., ' Central Catholic	'..	10	80Winnipeg, Man., 'Free Press'	
16	20Winnipeg, Man., ' Logberg '	
8	46Winnipeg, Man., * Nordwester '	
9	40Rapid City, Man., ' Reporter '	
9	40Russell, Man., ' Banner '	
9	40Winnipeg, Man., ' Town Topics '	
3	85MacGregor, Man., ' Herald '	
9	40Dauphin, Man., ' Press '	
5	80Dauphin, Man., ' Press '	
3	84Winnipeg, Man., ' Free Press	'	
6	60Winnipeg, Man., ' Free Press	'	
6	40


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I desire to take advantage of the presence of the Minister of Finance to call his attention to the fact that a year ago a flat increase of $150 a year was given to every officer of this House. Every officer of the House got that increase, except one, that one being the Mr. PUGSLEY.
clerk assistant, Mr. Laplante. I think that merely to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact will be sufficient to ensure the removal of this discrimination.
Some resolutions reported.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-BRANCH LINES.
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have the honour to inform the House that the following has been received from the Senate:
Resolved, that a message be sent to the House of Commons by one of the Masters in Chancery to communicate to that House the following reasons for their insisting upon their amendment to the Bill (17) from the House of Commons, intituled ' An Act to authorize the government to acquire by lease lines of railway connecting with the government railways.
The third clause of the Bill, as it passed the Commons, contained a proviso, intended to protect the public interests, to the effect that no such lease should have any force or effect until the Government Railways Managing Board and the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals should have approved the terms and conditions of such lease and until the parliament of Canada had first ratified such lease. The amendment made by the Senate proposed to further protect the public interest by enacting that certain further information necessary to enable parliament to form an intelligent opinion should be submitted to parliament before the ratification of any such lease.


George Perry Graham: I desire to move a motion in reference to that message. I move, seconded by Mr. Pugsley:
The honourable the Senate, having sent a message to this House, agreeing to the Bill (No. 17), entitled 'An Act to authorize the government of Canada to acquire by lease, lines of railway connecting with government railways, with an amendment, which is as follows:-
Page 2, line 3. After ' lease' insert the following as clause 4:-
4.	No such lease shall be ratified by parlia- * ment' unless a return has been laid before both Houses for at least one month showing:
(a)	The cost of the road proposed to be leased, together with the amount of stock subscribed and all moneys received from sale of bonds or by way of bonuses or otherwise;
(b)	present equipment of road, together with the average rate of freight and charges for passengers on the same, and a statement showing approximately how above rates compare with those charged on the Intercolonial railway;
(c)	present condition of the road and the estimated outlay required to put it in good running order;

(d)	total receipts and expenditures for tnree years last past;
(e)	list of shareholders and bondholders;
(f)	other creditors of the road;
(g)	estimates of future receipts and expenditures in the event of the road being leased by the Intercolonial railway.
Such return to be signed and certified to by the chief engineer and traffic manager of the Intercolonial railway and the deputy minister.
And this House, having taken the said amendment into consideration, it was resolved, that the said amendment be disagreed to, for the following reasons:	Because the
said amendment unnecessarily and ineffectually attempts to limit the power of future parliaments.
A message having been sent to.the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith, and the Senate having sent a further message to this House informing this House that their honours adhere to the said amendment.
And this House being of the opinion that if a conference is held between the two Houses, it is possible that an agreement may be arrived at, in respect to the said Bill, which result, it is, in the opinion of this House, desirable to attain, if possible.
Therefore, on motion of Mr. Graham, seconded by Mr. Pugsley,
It is resolved that a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with their honours, to consider the said Bill and any amendments which, at such conference, it may be considered desirable to make thereto.
Mr.. SPROULE. This seems to be a new departure for which I do not know that there is any rule


George Perry Graham: After a little conversation over this matter, and after fully going into the rules, I am advised that this is the orthodox manner to proceed; that the Senate, having returned a Bill disagreeing with the amendments, the Bill is now in the hands of this Chamber, and it becomes our duty to propose a conference, I believe this is what is known as a free conference, as outlined in this motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under what rule is this procedure taken?


William Pugsley: The rule -will be found on page 40:
84. (1) In cases in which the Senate disagree to any amendments made by the House of Commons, or to which the House of Commons has disagreed, the House of Commons is willing to receive the reasons of the Senate for their disagreeing or' insisting (as the ease may be) by message, without a conference unless at any time the Senate should desire to communicate the same at a conference.
(2)	Any conference between the two houses mav be a free conference.
(3)	When the House requests a conference with the Senate, the reasons to be given by this House at the same, shall be prepared and agreed to by the House before a message is sent therewith.
It is laid down in Bourinot that this conference may be held wherever the Senate amends a Bill which the House declines to agree to.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does this motion
name who is to be the committee of the House to take part in the conference?


William Pugsley: I think the Speaker names the committee; he must appoint three members of the House as managers to attend the conference.


George Perry Graham: That a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with their honours to consider said Bill, and any amendments which, at such conference, it may be considered desirable to make thereto.


William Stevens Fielding: There have been such conferences before, although the proceeding is unusual. I have myself been associated with a conference of that kind. It is entirely proper.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There was a conference in 1903 with regard to some amendments to the Railway Act, and the present iChief Justice of the Supreme Court was one of the conferees. But I think at the time, after the committee were appointed, the next day the Senate receded, as it was their duty to do.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the occasion to which my hon. friend refers, I was a member of the committee, and we met in the Senate. I think we are following on that procedure now that was followed on that occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING presented the fourth report of the special committee to which was referred Bill (No. 21) respecting hours of labour on public works.
The Clerk having read the Teport,
Mr. KING moved that the recommendations contained in the fourth report of said committee on Bill (No. 21) respecting the hours of labour on public works, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

William Stevens Fielding: There are several formal miotions jnecessary in connection with the Civil Service Act as applied to the House of Commons. We have already passed the items appropriating sums to be paid to the various officers of the House, but it ' is necessary that we should formally confirm certain recommendations that were 'made by the Speaker at an earlier date, and which are now upon the journals. I therefore beg to move:

That the recommendations of the hon. the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on the 24th November, 1909, relative to the yearly increase in salary to certain officers and clerks of the House pursuant to section 37 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, be approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motions by Mr. Fielding that the recommendation of the Hon. the Speaker of the second inst relative to the yearly increase in salaries to certain officials of the House and also of the 29th November, 1909, relative to the payment to the clerks of the joint distribution office of the House of Commons and Senate of the yearly increase in salary were also agreed to.

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) quoted a letter from Nova Scotia yesterday complaining of the treatment which some lighthouse keepers had received with regard to coal. It was said that they had been r ceiving coal and that it had been taken away from them. I have here a statement from the department explaining that the salaries of the lighthouse keepers were increased, and that an allowance for coal is no longer made. The statement is as follows :
Under date 24th September, 1908, an order in council issued approving of a classification of light-stations throughout the Dominion together with regulations covering such classification.
_ The various light-stations were grouped into classes according to duties required to be performed, aceessability, .opportunity for supplementing income by other work in the neighbourhood, &c. Before this classification came into effect, some lightkeepers were remunerated in part by salary, in part by other allowances such as for fuel, water, horse-keep, &c. Under the classification a salary was allowed sufficient in itself without other allowances. Under this classification, many lightkeepers received inreases in salary, certain other lightkeepers were found to be in receipt of salary above the maximum allowed by the classification, but the classification provided that in such cases the salary of keepers then in the service would not bd reduced and that such stations would come under the classification on the appointment of a new keeper. In many cases, the salary provided under the classification was equal j. mor,e than the aggregate allowances hitherto obtaining. In such cases, allowances such as for fuel, &e., were discontinued, the new salary covering such. In other cases the salary under the classification was greater than the previous salary but not as great as the aggregate of salary and allowances, and m such cases the part of the allowances covered by the new salary was discontinued, the remainder being allowed to the keepers.
In the case referred to by the leader of the opposition, the keeper, no doubt, received an Mr. FIELDING.
increase in salary which would cover former fuel allowance, and if the lightkeeper was offered coal for sale, he was in as good a position then as before the classification came into effect-that is, he received an increase in salary, which increase would at least pay for the coal and probably more.
With regard to the unfortunate drowning ot the Marie-Joseph lightkeeper and his son, this can scarcely be chargeable to the discontinuance of fuel 'allowances, particularly in so far as the department is aware fuel had T'.!')'ei.' been supplied to the Marie-Joseph lightkeeper by the department.



ADJOURNMENT -BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-THE LUMSDEN CHARGES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: May we expect anything to-morrow except concurrence?


William Stevens Fielding: I think the business of the session is virtually concluded except concurrence, and the passage of the Supply Bill. The conference with the Senate which was the subject of remark a few minutes ago will have to be considered in the morning, and the final stages of concurrence and of the Supply Bill will have to be taken.


George Taylor: At what time do we expect that prorogation will take place?


William Stevens Fielding: I see no reason why prorogation should not take place at three.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: With the permission of the House I beg to move the motion in regard to the payment of counsel employed in connection with the Lumsden charges, and which is recommended by the committee. The motion is:
That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the sixth report of the Special Committee re Lumsden inquiry, proper fees and expenses be paid to counsel appearing before the said committee, and the clerk of the House and the law clerk are hereby authorized to tax the said fees and expenses and to pay the same when so taxed, out of any moneys voted by parliament for the expenses of committees.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that was to stand until to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: It was brought to the attention of the House earlier in the day, and the leader of the opposition stated that he was not aware of any objection, but that he would prefer that the motion be_ not pressed at the moment. I have no objection to it standing till to-morrow if it is desired.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Carried.
Motion (Mr. Macdonald) agreed to.
Motion (Mr. Fielding) agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.


Wednesday, May 4, 1910.