1910-04-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MILLER moved that paragraph (a) of sub-section 3 of rule 88 and rules 102, 107 and 114 be suspended for the remainder 265

[Stage Direction]
of the session in so far as the same relate to private Bills from the Senate, in accordance with the recommendation made in the 13th report of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.
Mr. HENDERSON.: Is there any special reason for this-any special bill the hon. member has in view ?


Mr. MILLER.: There is no special bill. There are two coming from the Senate, and they can only go through if there is a suspension of these rules.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: As I understand, it is to avoid the usual delay in respect to bills coming down from the Senate ?


Henry Horton Miller: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: On behalf of the Minister of Finance I beg to move that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution, standing in his name:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that no bounties shall be payable in respect of rolled, round wire rods after the thirtieth day of June, 1911, under the provisions of section 1 (d) of chapter 24 of the Act of 1907, an Act to amend the Act respecting Bounties on Iron and Steel, except on such rods as may have been otherwise entitled to the payment of bounties under the provisions of said section and which were, on or before the said thirtieth day of June, 1911, sold to wire manufacturers for use or used in making wire by the makers of such rods in their own factories in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I rise on a matter of privilege. I have on very few occasions indeed felt any need to call the attention of the House to anything that may have been said in the newspapers with regard to myself; and although during the last few days some of the newspapers in Toronto have been devoting a good deal of their valuable space to matters of a more or less personal character so far I am concerned, I should not have taken up the time of the House to say one word with reference to those matters but for a statement which I find in the Toronto ' World ' of yesterday morning. The statement, which is at the end of several columns dealing with matters of the description to which I have alluded, is worded in this way :
A lawyer said that there was dissatisfaction imong legal men because the Minister of



EDITION.

[Stage Direction]
Justice has given so much work to G. I1'. Shepley, K.C., and the firm with which he himself was formerly connected.
With respect to Mr. Shepley I have nothing to say except that in regard' to any work which as Minister of Justice I have sent to him, I have been guided wholly and entirely by the identical business principles upon which I think any business man would have acted. Legal work of important character on behalf of the government has been sent to Mr. Shepley since I have been Minister of Justice, has been freely sent to him, because with a knowledge of Mr. Shepley extending now over more than 35 years, and with a considerable knowledge of the legal practitioners of Ontario, I have thought that that work would be better attended to by him than it would probably be by any other legal gentleman of the province within my acquaintance. With that portion of the statement which I have read I am not in any degree concerned. But with reference to the remainder of the statement, by which it is charged that since I have been Minister of Justice I have sent a large amount of work to the firm with which I myself was formerly connected, I want to say first that since I have been a member of this House and from the day I became a member of this House I have had no manner of financial interest in the earnings of that firin. I have a natural interest in the success of that firm certainly, not only on account of former associations during the whole period of my professional life, but also because my son is now and has been for a few years a member of that firm. But with reference to the principal matter contained in this newspaper statement, namely, that I have taken advantage of my position as Minister of Justice to send legal work to that firm, I wish to say that there is not one word of truth in it, and that, although prior to my becoming a member of this House, that firm, with which I was then connected, received a very considerable amount nearly every year for the doing of public business for the government, from the day when I became Minister of Justice not one dollar's worth of legal work has been sent to that firm by me or by any department of the government so far as I am aware.

Hon. FRANK OLIVER.: Mr. Speaker, last night the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) asked certain questions which I was not able to answer at the' time, regarding certain grievances, which I may mention as follows :	Over
classification of grades; the necessity for sufficient registration of terminal elevators; the necessity of preventing the eliminating of competition by terminal elevators and Mr. AYLESWORTH.
other elevators; the further elimination of competition by the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific railways leasing their terminal facilities to alien interests. He said :
The government purposes to apply some remedy in an indifferent way to one of these grievances. I would like to ask the members of the government who were present at that interview why it is that the application of a remedy to the other three grievances is being deferred by the government?
In reply, I beg to say that I was in the office of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when Messrs. McKenzie and Hen-ders, representing the Western Grain Growers Association, were there for the purpose of presenting their views regarding possible improvements in grain trade conditions. If I remember correctly the securing of amending .legislation was not the chief purpose of their representations. As I understood it was not so much to advise as to legislation as to suggest to the government the propriety of removing the lake front elevators from operation by persons or companies who were traders _ in grain; preferably to secure their operation by the government. The government has had the suggestion under careful consideration, but it was felt that the matter was one of such importance as to require more full and careful consideration than could be given it in order to reach a satisfactory decision before the close of the present session. The government has been keeping a careful scrutiny of the work of the elevators, with the result that action has recently been taken that may be expected to have a material effect in improving conditions.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. LEMIEUX.: Before the orders of the day are called I may say that I was asked by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. W. H. Sharpe) on different occasions to bring down a return moved by him in the course of the session. I caused inquiries to be made and found that the file had been lost, but this morning I am pleased to inform my hon. friend that it has been found and sent to the Secretary of State and will be laid on the table in a day or two.



PRIVATE BILLS.

Wilfrid Laurier: It has been represented to me that there are on the order paper several private Bills which stand for second reading and that unless these Bills are advanced a stage immediately they would have no chance of being brought .back to the House before prorogation which we hope will take place next week. In these circumstances I would beg to move that the order for private Bills be

now called so as to permit the Bills now standing for second reading to be read a second time and referred to the respective committees. This is not very regular and I cannot make this motion except with the unanimous consent .of the House. For my part I see no objection to this course being taken and I do not think that any interest can be prejudiced by it. If there be no objection I move accordingly.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I certainly object to that at this late stage of the session. There are several Bills that should have been brought in here long ago. To bring them on at this late hour I certainly object.



RULES OF THE HOUSE.

Wilfrid Laurier: On Monday last, as chairman of the special committee appointed to revise the rules of the House I laid on the table a report of that committee, and it was then agreed that this report should be taken into consideration this morning. I therefore beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider this report.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee.	.
On the first paragraph:
The committee have carefully considered the present rules of the House and have agreed to certain amendments and additions to the same, which they beg leave to 6ubmit herewith.
1.	That present rules Nos. 73, 74 and 75 be cancelled and the following substituted therefor :



PETITIONS.

[Stage Direction]
A petition to the House may be presented by a member at any time during the sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
Petitions presented before I p.m. on any day shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. Petitions presented after 4 p.m. are to be entered in the Votes and Proceedings of the next day.
Any member desiring to present a petition in his place in the House must do so during routine proceedings and before introduction of Bills.
On the presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed.
Members presenting petitions shall be answerable that they do not contain impertinent or improper matter.
Every member presenting a petition shall endorse his name thereon.
Petitions may be either written or printed; provided always that when there are three or more petitioners the signatures of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet containing the prayer of the petition.
On the next day following the presentation of a petition the Clerk of the House shall lay upon the table the report of the Clerk of 265J
1 etitions upon the petitions presented and such report shall be printed in the votes and proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and which, according to the rules or practice of this House, can be received, shall be deemed to be read and received.
No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the table, if required; or if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps I may explain what the change is. This new rule deals with the method of presenting petitions to this House. At the present time, the only way in which a petition can *be presented to the House is for the hon. member to present it here, on the floor of the House of Commons. It is the first thing that is done after the Speaker has taken the chair and the doors have been opened. It is suggested that we adopt in this respect the British practice, that is to say, that petitions can be presented to the House not only openly as is done at the present time, but also by filing them with the Clerk of the House.


Mr. LANCASTER.: It can be done either way.


Wilfrid Laurier: It can be done either way. If the member who presents a petition marks an asterisk upon it, it is sent to the. Clerk of the House and dealt with accordingly. But there may be some petitions to which members might attach some importance and to which they might desire to draw attention and therefore the old method is kept whereby they can be presented on the floor of the House. So the only change is that it is optional for a member either to.move or to file with the clerk. I think the rule can be adopted.


Mr. SPROULE.: The only observation I would make upon this, I am not objecting to the change, is that it might be misunderstood. It first says ' a petition to the House may be presented by a member at any time during the sitting of the House,' and then it says ' any member desiring to present a petition in his place in the House must do so during routine proceedings and before introduction of Bills.' The one part gives a whole day to a member to present a petition and the other says it must be done during the routine proceedings. I would be inclined to think that a good many members might misunderstand that. A member might be in his place in the House at any part of the day, whereas it means I take it, that he must present his petition by standing in his place during the routine proceedings.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly. The only alternative is that a member can hand his petition to the clerk. If he hands it in before 4 o'clock it will appear on the proceedings of the following day, if after 4 o'clock it will go over one day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see plainly enough what it means, but what I refer to is the fact that a great many members might misunderstand it. One part says you can present it at any time during the whole day and the other part says you must present it during routine proceedings.


David Henderson: Yes, but in the one instance the petition is presented to the clerk and in the other it is dealt with in the House by the member who presents it.
2.	Present Rule 36 to be amended to read as follows:



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
36. (1) Questions may be put to ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and to other members, relating to any Bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as they may be necessary to explain the same. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
(2)	(a) Any member who requires an oral answer to his question may distinguish it by an asterisk.
(b) If a member does not distinguish his question by an asterisk, the minister to whom the question is addressed hands the answer to the Clerk of the House who causes it to be printed in ' Hansard.'
(3)	If in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question on the order paper put to a minister of the Crown is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply, he may, upon the request of the government, direct the same to stand as a notice of motion, and to be transferred to its proper place as such upon the order paper, the Clerk of the House being authorized to amend the same as to matters of form.
(4)	If a question is of such a nature that in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply such reply should be in the form of a return, and the minister states that he' has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the House, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House, be deemed an order of the House to that effect and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.
Wilfrid Laurier: The next question refers to the item of questions. The present rule No. 36 is as follows :



[Stage Direction]
1. Questions may be put to ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and to other members relating to any Bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the busi-Mr. SPROULE.
ness of the House, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except in so far as may be necessary to explain the same. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
(2) If in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question on the order paper put to a minister of the Crown is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply, he may, upon the request of the government, direct the same to stand as a notice of motion, and to be transferred to its proper place as such upon the order paper, the Clerk of the House being authorized to amend the same as to matters of form.
The new rule is as follows: The first paragraph is maintained. Questions may be put to ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs and to other matters, there is no change. But a new provision is put in:
Any member who requires an oral answer to his question may distinguish it by an asterisk.	...	.
If a member does not distinguish his question by an asterisk, the minister to whom the question is addressed hands the answer to the Clerk of the House who causes it to be printed in ' Hansard.'
There are many questions which are asked simply for information, and if the member does not require an oral answer to such question, the minister hands the answer to the Clerk of the House, who causes it to be printed in the 'Hansard. There are some questions to which members may desire an oral answer, and he may continue to have it. There is no change as to the next paragraph. But there is a new provision which I think is an important one:
If a question is of such a nature that, id the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply such reply should be in the form of a return, and the minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the House, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House, be deemed an order of the House to that effect and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.
The House will understand the meaning of this rule if I remind them that very often a question is asked for information, and the minister will answer. There is no objection to that, but if it is too long to be answered, it will stand as a notice of mo* tion. Then the question is put as a notice of motion and it can be called as such. If, when a question is put asking for information and the minister says: There is no objection, but the answer would be too long to give verbally, but I will supply the information; the order of the House issues at once, and that question will stand as an order of the House.
['I have not the figures before me, but if the hon. member will refer to the last report on railways and canals, he will find them in the schedule that I had prepared by the statistician.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think an objection to the first part would be that most members of this House usually listen with a good deal of interest to the answers to these questions. It is one of the educative ways by which members keep themselves familiar with the work of the House going on from day to day. If this suggestion is followed out it will deprive them of that advantage. I know for mv own part I have often listened eagerly to answers that are given to questions in the House. Many members will ask questions, and by that means draw the attention of other members to them when otherwise the subject matter would escape the House entirely. But if, under the proposed rule, the answers are handed in without being read, the members may never take the trouble to look them up. The new rule seems to be following the customs which obtains in the United States Congress, where questions may be handed in and the answers to which are never brought to the attention of the House. It seems to be drifting towards the practice that obtains there and 'which I think is not quite as good as our own.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as answers to questions in this House are concerned, I am bound to say that I have never been able to understand the answers to ten per cent of them, I always have to look them up in ' Hansard ' the next day. Having questions answered by the method which is suggested in this amendment, is the rule which prevails in Great Britain, and it has been found to work very conveniently, and I am inclined to think it will work conveniently here. If a member should desire to see the answer before it appears in ' Hansard he could go to some officer of the House to whom the minister has entrusted the answer, and get it. But apart from that, he can star his question, and have it answered orally if he desires. Therefore any member of this House who desires to have a question answered orally may retain that right by simply making a mark upon it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is to be remembered that sometimes answers given by ministers are not correct, some portions are omitted, and then the member who puts the question calls attention to the omission. Under this new method there will be no opportunity of correcting the answer.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will understand that many questions which are put on the floor of the House have no interest except to the member himself who puts them. But if a member desires to have an oral answer, he has only to put an asterisk to his question and it will at once come before the House.
Amendment No. 3,


Wilfrid Laurier: The following new rule is to be added after Rule 36:
Notices of Motion for the production of papers which the member asking for intends to make without discussion should be marked by him with an asterisk and should be placed by the Clerk on the order paper above ' Notices of Motions,' under the heading ' Notices of Motions for the production of papers.' All such notices when called should be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion the government may desire a debate, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of Notices of Motions.
The object of this rule is obvious. Almost every day we have notices of motion which go through unopposed, and these may be marked by the member with an asterisk, and the motion may pass without any discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think this suggestion is a wise one and will result in economizing time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What would happen supposing an hon. gentleman puts a notice of motion in * the way indicated to show that he did not want to discuss it, while another hon. gentleman might want to discuss that very matter? I do not think any one hon. gentleman should have the right to prevent a matter being discussed iby simply indicating by an asterisk that he did not want it discussed; he has no right to control the opinion of the whole House on that matter. I appreciate what the Prime Minister is trying to do and I am with him; but it seems to me we are going further here than we intend to go. We do not want to have half a dozen different notices of motion on the same subject on the order paper. When a notice of motion is on the order paper it seems to me that the consent of the House ought to be obtained if that motion is not to be discussed; else we would be in the incongruous position that, because some matter was -of great importance and several hon. gentlemen thought it should be discussed, one of them would be able to say that it should not be discussed.


Wilfrid Laurier: I doubt that, in point of fact, that this is very likely to arise. If any hon. member on the other side puts a motion on the order paper asking for the production of papers and desires that the motion should be presented without discussion, I do not know that anybody on this side will object. The government may object, and, if they do, the motion is transferred to the notices to be debated.


Mr. CROCKET.: But suppose that a no-
[DOT] tice comes from the other side, and a discussion is desired on this side, it would seem that there is no provision for that. If the government have a right to transfer a motion to the orders by requiring discussion, there should be some provision by which members on this side should have

the same right with regard to notices from the other side.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think there is something in that. The difficulty could be obviated by providing not ' if on such motion the government may desire debate/ but ' if on such motion debate is desired.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is my point.


Mr. U. WILSON.: How would that affect it so far as the order paper is concerned? Would it go to the foot of the orders?


Wilfrid Laurier: It would go to notices of motion.


Uriah Wilson: But if it went low on the order paper it might not be reached again.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would take its place at the end of notices of motions of that day. The clerk will see to that.


Uriah Wilson: ' If there were many notices on the paper and it were put at the foot, it might never be reached again.


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly-it will take that chance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
['Possibly-it will take that chance.']
Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: While we are dealing with notices of motion, .something should be done to prevent the use of what are known technically here and in England, as ' blocking motions.' Our order paper of this session contains examples of tactics of this kind. Notices of motion are given in grandiloquent terms of legislation supposed to be for the benefit of the people, and these are allowed to stand day after day taking precedence of other motions. And, under our rules, so long as a motion stands on the order paper, the subject matter cannot be referred to in debate, except on that notice of motion. Here, for instance, on our order paper is a notice of motion that has stood there for five months and has blocked the debate of a subject which it is very desirable to have debated. This is a very old legislative trick and was first played by Mr. Gladstone and his friends to prevent the discussion of disagreeable subjects. They put notices on the paper covering these subjects, and then, when a member desired to refer to these subjects, whether on a motion for supply or in any other way, he was called to order, reminded that there was a notice on the paper covering that subject and told that it could not be discussed until such notice of motion was reached. And the notice of motion would be allowed to stand and never discussed. I referred to this once before in an attempt to prevent what is obviously a blocking motion. The difficulty could be overcome by providing that, if a notice of motion is .called twice and it is not proceeded with, Mr. CRD^NET.
it should go to the foot of the list, and, if called the third time, dropped altogether.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have such a rule now, but it is not acted upon. We have had no blocking motions in this House this session, nor has there been such a motion within my memory. I think the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie) has only to recall what has been going on this session to see that I am correct in that statement. No one has stood in the way of any one else. The rule we have is that, when a notice of motion is called, it must be gone on with or dropped, unless it is allowed to stand at the request of the government.


John Allister Currie: I am well aware that that is the rule. But, unfortunately, the government is interested and sometimes orders call for notices of motion to stand. I have a distinct recollection of instances of two hon. members being blocked in mentioning the agricultural item. This occurred in my hearing this session, the Speaker calling the attention of these members to the notice on the order paper in respect of this matter, and ruling that they were not free to discuss the subject. I think that is very unfair. I do not think the government should have the right arbitrarily to order a notice of motion to stand. The government and everybody concerned should go on with the motion, except by unanimous consent of the House. Anyone who knows the parliamentary history of England knows that these ' blocking motions ' have been adopted again and again to avoid the discussion of matters that were regarded bv some parties as unpleasant. I think we should have no more of that system, but, when a motion is called the second time and not preceded with it should go to the foot of the list, and when called the third time, it should be dropped.
Present rule 32 to be amended by striking out the words ' or Thursday ' in the second line from the top.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think I understand what the object of that is. I apprehend the point is that Thursday is a government day after the first four weeks of the session. But for the first four weeks of the session, certain matters, public Bills, for instance, have precedence, and if on one of these Thursdays, there is a long debate with the intention of talking out a public Bill, it had a perfect right to the floor of the House under the rules until the government took the responsibility of taking Thursday. At the time that change in the rule was made, some four or five years ago, I protested because I thought the government ought not to take Thursdays until they could give to the House some good reason for preventing any more discussion of public Bills. If we should adopt this amendment, it wrnuld be possible for a number of mem-

bers to kill any public Bill by talking on it until the proper hour of adjournment had arrived. Instead of striking out 'on Thursday' make it read 'and on Thursday after the first four weeks of the session.'


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think my hon. friend has any cause for such apprehension as he now expresses^ but if 'he thinks the proposed change will at all interfere with the privileges of hon. members opposite, I am quite willing to leave it as it is.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have had reason for apprehension, because in the last two or three sessions hon. gentlemen have had important public Bills, and the Prime Minister will remember that until four years ago public Bills had preeedence all session, prima facie, but the government undertook to arbitrarily take Thursday by the amendment in the rule. As the rules are to-day, public Bills have no precedence, and are not likely to be reached except in the first four weeks. The House generally meets on a Thursday 'and as that day is consumed in organization there are practically only three days available. Public Bills are sometimes very important. If the government wish to take Thursdays they should assume the responsibility for doing so bv a motion as in the case of Mondays and Wednesdays.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend is entirely in error, but if he thinks the privileges of the opposition are interfered with by this change I shall not press the matter. The existing rule is quite intelligible so far as Wednesday is concerned, because the House adjourns at 6 o'clock on Wednesdays. It is not so on Thursday. Years ago, at the time of confederation. notices of motion had precedence on Wednesday and Thursday up to 6 o'clock, and after 6 o'clock the House went into public Bills and orders. Then the rule was introduced for Wednesday and Thursday. There has since been a change; Thursday is now devoted to public Bills and orders after notices of motion all day from 3 o'clock and therefore there is no reason to make any provision for the business of the House on Thursday evening, because it is the same as on any other day. I do not think my hon. friend is justified in his fear, but I am quite willing to leave the rule as it is.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not add ' after the first four weeks of the session'?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think it would meet the case at ali.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As I said, if my suggestion is not acceded to hon. gentlemen could practically talk out a Bill, because when public Bills were next called another Bill would go on instead of it and it would lose its right.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as I understand the matter, the word ' Thursday ' was inserted in the new rules by the clerk or some one else two or three years ago under a misapprehension. Six o'clock on Thursday is just the same as 6 o'clock on any other day except Wednesday. Nothing happens, the business goes on at 8 o'clock just where it left off at 6 o'clock on Thursday, and therefore the insertion of Thursday in a rule regarding Wednesday for which there is special provision, is unnecessary and confusing, and for that reason it was thought best to drop it.


Wilfrid Laurier: By our present rule, for the first four weeks of the session, on Thursdays, we take public Bills and orders after motions at 3 o'clock, and they are to continue until the end of the sitting. It does not matter what is before the Chair at 6 o'clock, if a Bill is before us at 6 o'clock on Thursday it goes on again at 8 o'clock. The rule in 1867-78 for the order of business on Thursday was:
Until the hour of 6 o'clock p.m questions put by members, notices of motion, public Bills and orders; and after 7.30 o'clock p.m. public Bills and orders.
So if, at 6 o'clock, a notice of motion was under discussion, it dropped when the House met again at 8 o'clock and we went into public Bills and orders.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the Prime Minister mean that the reason Thursday is now in the rule is simply because it has been forgotten in the revision since 1867? And is the leader of the opposition quite sure that no harm of the kind I suggest is likely to result? I do not want to run counter to the opinion of both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition in this matter. They have been on the committee and I have not, and I would like to know from the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that he is quite certain there would be no danger to public Bills under this amendment to the rules.


Robert Laird Borden: I feel quite confident that there will not.
On clause 5,
That the present rule 13 be amended by adding the following:	Speeches in Committee
of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the English rule.


John Allister Currie: That looks very nice.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend object to this?


John Allister Currie: Well, 1 am relevant occasionally. There is no necessity for the application of a clause of that kind. I have



[Stage Direction]
been here for two sessions, and I know a little about the work of the House. I have never known of anything in the nature of what you call blocking the work of the House or trying to hold the rules of the House up to contempt. It is true that some Bills have been talked out, especially private Bills. We have a recollection of some private Bills here this session that had to be talked out, and with respect to others we had to talk until we got some amendments to them. I think that the application of a closure rule is not going to benefit the public. Any one who has followed the legislation this year must come to the conclusion that next year we will have more calls from corporations demanding blood and more strenuous efforts will be put forth for the purpose of getting something that is contrary to the interests of the public. Whatever merit the rule may have as applied to public business, certainly, when the House is in committee on private Bills it should not be applied. I have no recollection that the country has ever suffered one particle by these discussions or all night sessions. I have never heard of an all night session by which anybody was injured, but on the' contrary the all-night sitting, and the fight which took place this session ftas for the benefit of the public. The reason why the rules were restricted in the English House of Commons do not obtain here. There the Nationalists deliberately proceed to hold the rules of order up to contempt by.discussing every motion that was produced by the Speaker, even such a simple motion as: ohall this Bill be read a week hence or tomorrow? We have had no trouble with obstruction of that kind in this House. This House has always had absolute freedom in debate and the members of the opposition have never taken advantage of the laxity of the rules to unduly harrass the government or hold up the business.
Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to think that this is the rule of the committee now, if the chairman of the committee sees fit to guide himself according to what should be the practice of the committee. I think it is merely placing in the written code of this House, in respect to its work in committee, that which at the present time is and ought to be in the unwritten code.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I be permitted to observe that my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that this was a standing rule of the House of Commons in England long before the Nationalists were heard of, and I think moreover that it is a rule which is in line with common sense. This is a deliberative body and the discussions ought to be confined to the question which at the moment is before the House. My hon. friend says there may be occasions Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
when the opposition should fight strenuously a proposition put before it and he instanced the all-night sitting which took place during the present session. There have been all night sittings almost every session of this parliament since I have been in this House, and that runs back for more than thirty years. But the all-night sitting which took place during the present session was an exception to all the all-night sittings that I have ever heard of. It was not my good fortune or misfortune to be present, but I read the debate carefully and, I was surprised at the high character of the discussion which took place. It was not at all confined to one side of the House. All-night sittings for the purpose of obstruction are generally confined to one side of the House, the other side taking no part, but on the occasion of that all-night sitting both sides of the House discussed and discussed strenuously the proposition which was before the House. There was no irrelevant discussion as far as I could see in the debate. The discussion was of a very high character and under the circumstances I do not think the chairman would have been justified in imposing such a rule because there was no occasion to do it. I have also his word for it that he was impressed with the high character of the debate. But, if the debate goes on in a rambling manner, without any purpose, I think it is. only right that the dignity of the House should be preserved by having such a rule as they have in Great Britain. We are only following the provision of the British House of Commons and I must say that I am shocked that my hon. friend, who is a Britisher, should even interpose an objection.


John Allister Currie: My right hon. friend knows and we all know that from the time that rules were first provided for parliamentary usage there has been a general rule that a speaker must speak to the question. In the Committee of the Whole the practice has arisen of allowing greater laxity in discussion than when we are speaking directly to a motion, and a member has only one chance of speaking. Of course,
I do not care-I am only one member of the opposition, but I feel that the House, by putting this rule in, is casting a reflection upon its past action. I do not feel like giving up any privilege or right in the way of obstruction than I have at the present time as a member of the opposition in any legislation which I consider not to be in the interest of the country is being forced through this House against my will.
I do not think the Speaker has ever had occasion, since I have been a member of the House, to bring us up very strongly: it is only occasionally that things"get a little hot and then he does it under the old rule. I do not see why there should

be any rule of this kind unless it is intended to do something that has not been done before.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: In every Bill there are certain formal clauses. Is this new rule going to confine us strictly to the formal clause that may be under discussion, or will it be allowed under such a clause to discuss the merits of the Bill? If not, 1 think this will considerably restrict the discussion.


John Allister Currie: If this new rule is applied, a member cannot discuss a Bill in committee in a general way, or the chairman will immediately shut him off. If a certain clause is before the committee, it will not be allowable to refer incidently to its bearing on other clauses.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not regard the rule as going that far. In the discussion of one clause, it would, of course, be allowable to refer to its meaning taken in connection with other clauses.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: If I thought the rule did not permit that, I would not consent to it for one moment. Moreover, on a motion that the committee rise or that the committee rise and report progress, there is always room for wide discussion. It does not seem to me unreasonable to say that the discussion in committee shall be relevant, and that is all that the rule amounts to. If the discussion in committee or anywhere else is not to be relevant, it is, of course, impossible to have any business done in order.
On paragraph 6,
The following new rule to be added after rule 18:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repitition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the English rule copied word for word.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that we are making a new departure which may be of a more serious character than is intended. Hitherto members have always had the right to appeal from a ruling of the Chair to the House. In this case, I take it we have no right to appeal; the Speaker is to do just what he likes. I do not wish to insinuate that any Speaker would be partial in his ruling, but the Speaker of the English House of Commons continues to occupy that position no matter what party is in power, whereas the Speaker of this House is elected for every new parliament and is taken from the side <>f the House which for the time being is controlled by the ministers, so that if he gave a ruling that might be considered a partial one, there would be no redress. If it could be done without materially changing the rule, I think there should be an appeal to the House from the ruling of the Speaker.


John Allister Currie: Under this rule the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole could compel a member to cease speaking during the whole session of the committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it is simply on the question for the time being, certainly not for the whole sitting.


John Allister Currie: Does this mean that if a member speaking in committee persists in beng irrelevant, and the chairman stops him, he can speak again while the House is in Committee, not on the same clause, but on the same Bill?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As I understand, he could speak again so long as he did not sin again.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: In other words, the chairman could direct a member to discontinue his speech, but he could not direct him not to begin again.


Mr SPROULE.: I take it that the sense of the House is that there should be no appeal from this decision of the Speaker.
On paragraph 7,
The following new rule to be added after rule 78:
All members who are returned for two or more electoral districts shall make their election for which of the districts they will serve, within twenty days after it shall appear that there is no question upon the return of either district.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is this a suggestion of the Prime Minister?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that this clause is imported here without any justifiable reason. I think it should he embodied in the Election Act instead of being a rule of the House of Commons.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no objection to that, but we have followed the practice in England, where it is not a rule of the House, but a standing order.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What would he the result of a protest being entered against both seats?


Wilfrid Laurier: If a member is elected for two seats, and one of them is protested, he is not bound, to elect until the protest is disposed of.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If there is no petition filech and there is no return from either district,, what will happen? And the practice is, is it not, for a member to make his election in the House of Commons.


Wilfrid Laurier: At present the question which my hon. friend presents is disposed of by statute. The rule is simply to force them to elect within a certain time, and we have fixed the time at 20 days.


Robert Laird Borden: I think perhaps that the Prime Minister does not quite appreciate the force of the observation of the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket). Where tiiere is a petition against the return of any member we know by the records of the court that a question has arisen and the member in that case is not obliged to elect until the question is determined. The hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) asks as to cases where there is no petition against the return of a member either in the one district or in the other, how shall it appear? Well, I suppose it would have to appear just in the same way. That
is,	if one required technical and effective evidence, it would be necessary to go to the clerk or prothonotary of the court where the petition shall be filed, and procure from him a certificate that there was no petition. That is the only way I think
it.	could be done. I am not aware, although I am not sure about this, that there is any report from the Speaker of the House upon the filing of a petition. There is a report when the petition has been dismissed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But when there is no petition there is no return to this House at all.


Robert Laird Borden: And there is no return on the filing of the petition $o far as I am aware. So whether there is a question or not must be determined outside of any infomation which by law is in possession of the Speaker.
8.	The following new rule to be added after rule 28:


SENATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
originating in the Senate and sent to this House for concurrence shall be placed tor first reading on the order paper under the heading ' Routine Proceedings immediately after introduction of Bills.
9.	The following new rule to be added after rule 29:

[Stage Direction]
Public Bills returned to the House from the Senate with amendments shall be placed on the order paper for the consideration of such amendments on Monday immediately after private Bills.	.
Wilfrid Laurier: 10.	Present rule 25 to be amended by adding alter the words:	' Private Bills ' the words
' Senate amendments to private Bills.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Which part of 25? The words ' private Bills ' appear in several places in 25.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is simply to provide that on Monday after private Bills, there should be on the order paper another item for Bills coming from the Senate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the words ' private Bills ' appear in several places, one part relating to Mondays, another to Tuesdays, and a part to Fridays.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is moved that after the words ' private Bills ' there be inserted the words 'on Monday'.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and agreed to.


Wilfrid Laurier: I now move that these ruies come into force at the beginning of next session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: A moment ago I moved to have the item private Bills called for the purpose of giving second reading to several private Bills, and advancing them a stage. Objection was taken by my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid). But I have a note from him informing me that he agrees to withdraw his objection, and therefore I renew my motion.	. '


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. H.: CLARKE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 218) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This Bill is very objectionable and. it was doubtful whether it is likely to pass this session. I know there are _ several members who strongly object to it. Whether it would make any difference objecting to it at this stage I do not know.


Wilfrid Laurier: If there is any objection to the Bill there will be plenty of opportunities in the committee, and there will be the third reading, so that nobody's interest can be prejudiced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have this disadvantage that when a Bill comes from a committee it has the stamp of the committee upon it and it is urged as a reason in this House why the Bill should go through-as a matter of form. Now to my mind the principle of this Bill is a very dangerous one. It is absolute confiscation, there is

no doubt about it. We have never so far as I remember in my acquaintance with parliament adopted the principle that is embodied in this Bill of compelling a man to sell or hand over to another his property without fair and reasonable compensation, or by arbitration. We do give people the right to expropriate property, but this is under the rule of arbitration, and for the public good. But we have never adopted, so far as I know, the principle of compelling any man to give up his property to another without the individual who is sacrificing the property having some reasonable say in what he should receive by way of compensation. So we are adopting in this parliament a principle that has never been adopted in the history of the Canadian parliament to my knowledge, and I think it is a very bad one, and one which will undoubtedly be quoted in the future as a precedent. I think we should go slowly before adopting any such principle.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 219) to incorporate the Alberta, Peace River and Eastern Railway Company. -Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 220) to incorporate the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the province of Quebec.-Mr. Rivet.
Bill (No. 221) for the relief of James Alexander Hurst Forster.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 222) for the relief of Emily Maud Nicoll.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 223) for the relief of Edna Shibley De Mar.-Mr. Barker.
Bill (No. 224) for the relief of Clifford Buell Lillie.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill (No. 225) for the relief of Rowland James Botterill.-Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 209) to amend the Canada Temperance Act.-Mr. Murphy, was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. Paragraph (g) of section 2 of The Canada temperance Act, chapter 152 of the revised statutes, 1906, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
(g) As respects the province of British Columbia, ' county ' means every county into which the province of British Columbia is divided by the 'Counties Definition Act,' chapter 51 of the revised statutes of British Columbia, and amending Acts, or other Act of the legislature of British Columbia dividing the province into counties, and includes t'ery town, township, village and other division or municipality except a city municipality with the territorial limits of such county ; and ' city municipality ' means any city municipality or city as defined by the ' Municipal
Clauses Act/ chapter 32 of the statutes of British Columbia of 19U6 or any amendment thereof, or by any Act substituted therefor.
Mr. MURPHY.: The word ' municipality,' where it occurs in line 15 should be struck out. The definition in the British Columbia Act which it is proposed to insert in this Act is a definition of * city,' not ' city municipality.'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall the word ' municipality,' be struck out as proposed? Carried.
On section 2,
2. Subsection 2 of section 7 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
' 2. In the province of British Columbia, in any land registry office or in any sheriff's office in the county or in the city to which it relates.'


Charles Murphy: This amendment is inserted in order to make the Act conform to the additional electoral divisions in the province of British Columbia, over and above those that existed when the Act was framed.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 217) to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.-Mr. Ayleswortb, was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
"On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps there is no great advantage in reading these sections. If we had some explanation as to the amendments effected by the Bill, we might be able to dispense with the formality of reading all the sections.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The purpose of this legislation, as I very briefly explained in introducing the Bill, is to supplement legislation which has just been passed by the provincial legislature of Manitoba. In the Act of the provincial legislature, which was assented to on 16th March last, provision is made for the establishment of an industrial home within the province to which girls or women may be sentenced. Under the present Dominion statute with reference to prisons and reformatories, no provision is made for sentencing prisoners to such an institution, because none was in existence until the passing of the legislation to which I have just referred. Accordingly, this Bill proposes to repeal the four sections of the Prisons and Reformatories Act here named, which four sections apply to the province of Manitoba, and to substitute for these four sections the sections of the Bill. The only difference made

by these sections is that the Bill introduces the word ' industrial home.' In line 15 of the first section of the Bill, power is conferred upon the court to commit a prisoner to either some reformatory or industrial home for boys or girls in the province of Manitoba. Under the existing law, the power to sentence is simply to the provincial reformatory for boys. The same thing is true of sections 140, 141 and 143 of this Bill. Section 142 is entirely new and has been introduced at the suggestion of the deputy attorney general of the province, who tells me that he has been urged to secure it by Hon. Mr. Daly, police magistrate of Winnipeg, who is also judge of the juvenile court in Winnipeg, and who is of opinion that a short term of imprisonment for girls or women who have gone astray is often of very little use in the way of their reformation. Mr. Daly's experience suggests the advisability of an amendment to the Dominion law, such as this section 142 proposes, by which the court may, in its discretion, sentence such an offender to any term it thinks fit, not exceeding three years. The provisions of section i42 are new; the provisions of the other sections are mere amendments of the existing law in the way I describe.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the Bill, the whole of it has the approval of the Attorney General of the province of Manitoba?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The Bill is suggested by the Attorney General of Manitoba.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


MANITOBA AND QUEBEC JUDGES.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 207) to amend the Judges Act, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister give a brief explanation of the Bill? It may have been given before, but I cannot recall it.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This Bill is introduced to carry out the resolution passed by the House just previous to its introduction, whereby it was resolved to be expedient that provision should be made for the salaries of four additional judges to the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, and one additional judge to the King's Bench of Manitoba. The way in which that is carried out as a matter of legislation is simply to repeal the existing clause of the Judges' Act and to substitute the new one contained in this Bill. Under the existing clause there is provision made for the payment of a salary of $7,000 annually to each of 17 puisne judges of the Superior Court of


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: the province of Quebec, whose residences are fixed at Montreal or Quebec. The word ' seventeen ', by this Bill is changed to ' twenty-one.' In the same way the present law as to the province of Manitoba is for the payment of a salary of $6,000 per annum to three puisne judges of the Court of King's Bench, and this Bill proposes to substitute the word ' four ' for the word ' three.' The other provisions of the Bill are merely repetitions of the existing statute.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


ESCHEATS TO THE CROWN.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 206) respecting escheats, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I may explain briefly the purpose of this Bill. We have no provision upon our Dominion statute-book for the disposition which is to be made of property which may escheat to the Dominion Crown. The ordinary escheat of property within any of the older provinces of the Dominion goes to the provincial Crown, and with such escheats the Dominion has nothing to do. But in the case of the territories where there is no provincial representative of the Crown, the estate of any person who dies entirely without heirs, escheats to the Dominion. As a matter of fact, there is at the present time in the hands of the Receiver General as part of the consolidated fund of Canada, the proceeds of an estate of this character amounting to nearly $50,000. There is no statutory provision for the disposition which should be made of such estates, and while the bulk of any such estate would of course simply go to add to the resources of the country, it is thoueht that in many instances it is desirable that there should be power to do something out of the estate for people who have not a legal claim, but a moral and equitable claim, upon the property, or upon the individual who had, during his lifetime, owned the property. The case out of which the money I have spoken of has arisen, presents features of that character. A man owning a considerable amount of property in what, in his day, was the Northwest Territories, died, having made a will, but having no descendant or legal heir. The will does not dispose of the whole of his property, and there is this surplus of nearly $50,000 which falls to the government. Now, there are people who, while not legally related to him, are still of his own blood, kin of the half blood, chidren who I think were of the same mother. At all events, in a relation, naturally speaking, as distinguished from legally speaking, they are half _ brothers or half sisters This Bill provides that the Governor in Council may

make a grant out of property which becomes the property of His Majesty in circumstances such as I have described to
Any person, who in the opinion of the Governor in Council had a legal or moral claim upon the previous owner, or a just or natural right or claim to succeed to his property or to any part thereof.
The power is also sought by this legislation to the Governor in Council to carry into effect any disposition of the deceased owner's property which it is believed he may have intended. I do not know that that situation arises in the particular case I have been alluding to, but a case might arise in which a man had made a will which, as a matter of law, was defective, which might, for instance have been signed before only one witness or might otherwise be of such a character that the courts would have no power to carry it into effect. It would seem only right that in such circumstances, or if in any way a clear intention was demonstrated on the part of the owner of the property to make some disposition of it, there should be power in the Governor in Council to carry out, to the extent which may seem just, such clear intention. Finally, power is asked to devote some portion of an estate of the character I have mentioned, in the way of reward, to any person who may make discovery of such property to the Crown. These are, in outline, the provisions of the present Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that ' the Governor in Council' means the federal authority. It would not apply to the provincial authority?


Charles Murphy: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would this not bring on a conflict between the rights of the provinces and of the federal authority? The provinces believe and have acted upon the belief that it is their right to claim escheated property. Fot instance in the old Mercer escheats case, the estate was taken possession of by Sir Oliver Mowat, on behalf of the province, and both real and personal property disposed of by -the provincial government. Would this not be assuming to the federal government the same authority which is believed to be vested in the provincial government ? If it becomes law would it apply to personal property in the shape of money held by the banks and for which there was no owner ? We find many of these unclaimed balances in the reports made every five years. Suppose some person gave notice of an unclaimed balance in the bank to the credit of some one who had died intestate, and to which there were no heirs, would that individual be entitled to the remuneration which this Bill provides might be given to him and in both
cases would the property go to the provincial or federal government?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The Bill is drawn with the effort to make it impossible that there should be any conflict with the well-estaJblished provincial authority. It can have no application to a case of tan escheat in any of the older provinces of the Dominion. In the province of Ontario and also in the province of Quebec it has been authoritatively established by decisions of the courts that in case of escheats the property escheated goes to the province. The same law must, upon a like reasoning, apply to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and I suppose to British Columbia. I do not know that any case has ever arisen in these latter provinces in which the question has been discussed, but so far as I am aware there is no ground for supposing that escheated property in those provinces of the Dominion does not go to the province. I am not so clear as to the position of property which might escheat in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, because in those provinces the ungranted land of the Crown is the property of the Dominion, and the whole origin of the legal doctrine of escheat foT want of heirs, is a remnant of the feudal law of the land reverting to the hand which gave it. In those circumstances it may be that the courts would hold an escheat of propertv in the three provinces I have mentioned should fall to the Dominion and not to the province. That question, however, has not practically arisen. In the case to which I have alluded and which has produced this considerable sum of money in the hands of the Dominion government, the estate fell into the Crown before the provinces were created, while the property was still within the Northwest Territories of Canada, and to-day, if a man died without legal heirs, owner of property in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories, Keewatin, Mackenzie or Ungava, such property would necessarily fall to the Dominion government, because there would be no provincial government to which it could go. So this Bill, as hon. gentlemen will see, opens with the statement :
Where His Majesty the King, in his right of Canada, is entitled to land or other property, &c.
And the whole Bill is posited upon the case wherein right of the Dominion government, the Crown becomes entitled to a windfall such as this. In all other cases, of course, this Bill has no application; wherever it is His Majesty in right of a province or of any other jurisdiction than that of the Dominion, this Bill does not touch the matter.
With reference to the other point, the unclaimed balances which may remain in

banks, if there was any such unclaimed balance the property of a man who died without legal heirs, it would, like any other portion of his property, fall into the hands of the Crown but not otherwise. If the man who owned the unclaimed balance left legal personal representatives, children or other heirs, that unclaimed balance would go, like any other property which the deceased had owmed, to such legal, personal representatives and the Crown would have nothing whatever to do with it, so that this Bill does not profess to deal with unclaimed balances in banks except to the possible extent I have indicated where such unclaimed balance or any part of it was the property of a man who died without heirs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to money, and there was such a case, an unclaimed balance of a considerable amount remained in the hands of a bank in Ontario, and an effort was being made to escheat that, would it go to the province the same as Teal estate or to the federal authority under this Bill?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In a case such as my hon. friend describes, if the unclaimed balance escheated at all in Ontario it would escheat to the province and not to the Dominion.


Mr. PORTER.: I notice in the wording of the Bill that the Governor in Council may grant 'out of the moneys or out of the escheat'. Are the words broad enough to enable the Governor in Council to grant the whole escheat or should the words 'the whole or any part' be inserted there?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think the words in the third section are quite wide enough to authorize the disposition of the whole *property-may grant 'any land or other real or personal property or any part thereof'.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I quite understand this legislation is intended to apply and would apply only to cases where property was escheated to the Crown in the right of Canada, but I would like to ask whether this legislation does not affect the provinces to this extent that a question might arise as to whether a particular estate should escheat to the Dominion or the province as in the case of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, with regard to which provinces the minister said there might be some 'question as to which Crown the right would be vested in. Would1 not this legislation affect these provinces to this extent that it would confer upon the Exchequer Court the exclusive jurisdiction of determining the question of right as between the Crown in the right of Canada and the Crown in the Tight of the province?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think the only


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: answer it would be possible to make to the question which my hon. friend has propounded would >be to say that if the property escheated to the Dominion government then certainly jurisdiction would be conferred on the Exchequer Court only, but, on the contrary, if the property did not, as a matter of law, fall to the Dominion government, this Bill would not touch it at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite understand that if it were once decided, but I am asuming a case where the escheat takes *place in a province, where, as the minister says the question is not absolutely decided whether the escheated property would fall to the Dominion of Canada or fall to the province. I am assuming the case that Canada claims that the escheat is to her. Then, under this Act, would not she be entitled, as against the province that might be claiming the right, to proceed before the Exchequer Court as this Act provides and to that extent are you not affecting the position of the provinces to the extent that you are compelling them or putting them in a position where they can be compelled, to submit the question of their right to the escheat to the determination of a Dominion court? You are putting them in a different position from an individual having a right to enforce or defend in regard to a property within the province when you are compelling them to meet the claim of the Dominion of Canada before the Exchequer Court. I am not prepared to say that perhaps it is not proper to do it, but I only want to make it .clear. It seems to me that you are, in this instance, affecting the position of the provinces.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


OCEAN CABLE COMPANIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 104) to control the rates and facilities of Ocean Cable Companies, and to amend the Railway Act with respect to Telegraphs and Telephones and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. He said: It -was enacted in the Bill as presented to the House that it should come into force upon a proclamation of the Governor General in Council. As it will not come into force unless there is concurrent legislation in the imperial parliament or provision of a similar nature made by the British government, the Senate has amended the Bill to insert on page 2, line 5, after the word 'force,' the words 'upon similar provision being made by the proper authority in the United Kingdom.'

Motion agreed to, and amendment read the first and the second time, and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 105) to amend the Telegraphs Act. He said: This Bill should be read with Bill (No. 105). The amendments are the following: On page 1, line 8, after 'direct1 add 'and at such rates as may be determined from time to time by the said board for the different classes of messages, or hours of the day or night during which such messages are transmitted, without discrimination within each class.'
The explanation of this amendment is that it will give a better understanding of the section. When I introduced this Bill to the House I explained that the object was to give the three classes of messages, urgent messages, deferred messages and press messages. Now there is a section in the Telegraph Act which forces under a penalty the companies to transmit messages as they receive them. If there is a differentiation between the classes of messages the companies according to this amendment and according to the Act which was introduced, the amendment making it clearer, will be under the same penalty obliged to transmit them as received. That is the first amendment. Then, another amendment leaves out section 4 of the Bill in order not to confiscate any rights which have been acquired by the cable companies. The next amendment is in the last section, line 19:
After ' Council ' insert ' and simultaneously with the coming into force of the Act of the present session, intituled:	' An Act to
control the rates and facilities of Ocean Cable Companies, and to amend the Railway Act with respect to Telegraph and Telephones and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.'
That is to say if we do not obtain from Great Britain the necessary provision to put into operation this legislation, then that amendment in the Telegraphs Act shall not come into force. The one is dependent on the other.
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the first and second time, and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved that the House go into committee to further consider Bill (No. 163) to amend the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: The hon. minister received a lot of suggestions the other night. Perhaps he might just explain which, if any of them, he has accepted.


Frank Oliver: The other night the Bill stood over in order that I might have an opportunity to consider a number of suggestions that were made. I have them before me, and will refer to them in detail. Before doing so, however, I may say that after giving them the most careful consideration I have not been able to agree that it would be well to add them to the Bill or to adopt them in the Bill. Taking them in the order in which they came up in the debate, there was the; amendment suggested by my Ron. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turiff). He suggested as an amendment to section 4:
That section 4 of the Volunteer Act, 1908, chapter 66, be amended by adding to it the following words: ' Every such grantee or his substitute may within six months after the date of entry, abandon the land so entered and may thereafter, within the time limited for selection and entry by subsection 1 of this section, or within six months after such date, make a second entry; provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorize or entitle any grantee or his substitute to make any further entry in place of the land abandoned as aforesaid.'
My view with regard to that is that volunteer scrip cannot in fairness to the administration be treated differently from other scrip, that is half-breed scrip, and everybody agrees that it would be entirely improper to allow a location of scrip to-day and to allow it to be exchanged to-morrow. Besides that, the amendment would practically give an additional six months, that is to say that instead of the time limit terminating at the time set by the statute it would be extended by the operation of this provision for six months longer in the cases of those who desired to speculate in this scrip. To put the matter shortly, it would he an undesirable addition to the speculative element which necessarily enters into the dealing with this scrip. Moreover, I do not think it} would be fair to the ordinary settlers that these scrip holders should be allowed to take part in a rush for entry, thereby tending to displace the ordinary homesteader, and afterwards to. have the right to exchange their location. Another suggestion was made by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) in the fallowing words :
That section 4 be amended by inserting in the second line, after the word ' Act,' the following words:
Or any bounty certificate that has been, prior to the passage of this Act, sold or transferred to any person acquiring the same for purposes of speculation or resale.
That amendment is intended to meet the view that has been expressed by a number of members that it would be desirable while giving an extension of time to the present holders of their own scrip

not to give it to the men who had 'bought scrip. In regard to that I would observe that the fundamental principle of the Act as it was first passed was to put the substitute or buyer on an equal footing with the original holder, the view being that by doing so the original holder who did not wish to locate would get a higher value. The purchasers bought in the belief that this principle having been affirmed by parliament would be adhered to. Volunteers who have sold have had the benefit of this belief on the ipart of the purchaser. This belief was further warranted by the action of parliament in dealing with the scrip of 1885 in regard to which extensions were given. On that point I might mention that there have been a number of previous issues of scrip. There were issues to the veterans of the first Red river expeditions between 1870 and 1873, of 1,559 military bounty warrants for 160 acres of land without settlement duty. There was no limitation of time as to the location of those warrants, and to-day we are advertising in the newspapers hundreds of those warrants, giving notice to the public that there are such and such warrants that have not been located which are just as good to-day as they were when they were issued nearly 40 years ago.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Because there was no limit, I suppose?


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. LAKE.: I am very sorry that this Act has been introduced at all by the Minister of the Interior. Even now there are still some eight months within which persons who have received this bounty will have time to locate their land. It is very much against the washes of the farming community throughout the Northwest that there should be any extension of time. However, the minister seems determined to force this Bill through the House. That being the case, I think it would have been wise on his part to accept some of the suggestions which have been made on this side of the House, and especially that suggestion which was made by the hon. member for St. Anne, Montreal, namely, that the extension of time should be made applicable only to the veterans themselves, those who intend personally to locate their scrip. I regret that that suggestion has not been accepted by the minister. I would urge him especially to accept one other suggestion which has been made by the hon. member for Macleod. I hope the minister will think that over again, and that he will change his mind. The principle is generally recognized everywhere, I think, in regard to giving war medals, that the man who sets as far as the seat of war becomes entitled to a war medal, even though he never saw a single shot fired in anger. That principle is certainly recognized in the mother country, and it should be equally applicable to those men who volunteered from Canada to serve the empire in South Africa. They started in on their duty, but either through illness or through accident, they were not able to reach the seat of war in South Africa, and they or their legal representatives, in cases where they have died, are now going



to be deprived of the benefits which I think they are Tightly entitled to. I am sorry the minister has not come to the conclusion to accept the principle that those men who enlisted and started on their way, but through illness contracted owing to their service, or through accidents which have happened to them during that service, were unable to reach South Africa, should receive the benefits of the Act.


Frank Oliver: The question as to who should receive the benefit of this bounty was discussed very fully at the time the Bill was passed. For good or bad reasons, parliament came to a certain conclusion. It was not my wish, in introducing this Bill, to raise any question of that character whatever. It seemed to me that if you raised the question, you opened a door that it would be difficult to close. There was a request made to us by certain representative volunteers for an extension of time, and they seemed to give good reasons for that. We agreed to give them only a part of what they wanted, thinking it would not be unreasonable, and would not do any great harm to any one, and might do good. But I did not wish, in bringing that position before the House, to raise any other question, nor do I desire to do so at the present time. There is no doubt that a good case can be made out for certain men whose circumstances have been brought before the Houise by different members. But I ask the House to consider the position. You have to put a limit somewhere, you have to put a limit some time, and where-ever you fix that limit, there is somebody going to be just outside of it, and somebody else going to be just inside of it. It is as if you drew a circle: somebody is going to be just inside that circle, and somebody is going to be just outside it; and the man who is just outside of it feels that he has a grievance, and his friends feel that way also. You proceed to enlarge the circle and take in a few more. Do you reach a conclusion by that means? No; the more you enlarge the circle, the more you increase its circumference, the more people you find are beyond, on the outside of that circle. You have satisfied those who are included in this enlarged circle, but you have created dissatisfaction in the minds of the larger number of people who are still outside the larger circle. I quite appreciate the feelings of my hon. friends, and I quite appreciate their arguments. But 1 want to assure them, and I ask them to realize the fact, that there is no way a line can be drawn that won't leave people just outside of it who have nearly as good a right to be inside as the people who are inside. Now, in order not to raise the question at all. I would think it advisable in everybody's interest not to open the Bill. There Mr. LAKE.
is one particular class that appeals to me very strongly, and that is those who died on the way to South Africa; but even in that case, if the House should see fit at a later date to do something for them, it would be better to do it by way of a money grant than to open the question of an increased grant of land scrip. There is no doubt that the sentiment of the country is against any further grant of land scrip for any reason whatever. That being the case, I think it would be well for us not to put ourselves in the way of increasing the number who would become liable for land grants under this.	,


Richard Stuart Lake: Would the minister be personally in favour of such a measure as he suggests might be introduced in the future, if such a measure were introduced next year, that is to make a money grant for those who died from injuries received on the way to South Africa?


Frank Oliver: If I could dissociate my personality from my responsibility I would say yes, the case appears to me so strong; but I do not think it would be wise in the interests of these people, to change the present limitations of this Bill.


John Allister Currie: I know that in my district the rule was absolute that no young man who was married or had parents or others dependent on him was permitted to go to South Africa. In my own corps there were two or three hundred volunteers for South Africa, but they were weeded out if they were married or had any one depending on them. It seems hardly in keeping that after such care in the selection of men claims should be put forward on behalf of their heirs.


Richard Stuart Lake: There are one or two cases in which scrip for the 1885 volunteers has not yet been located. Could not the minister under this Act provide for an extension of this scrip in cases where the volunteers are still anxious to locate?


Frank Oliver: I do not think it would be wise to bring that under this Act. I read a list of the extensions given to the 1885 scrip. It was extended up to 1908, and it was supposed that would bring everything in. If there are any outstanding scrips of 1885, I would prefer to propose a special Act to cover them. It is not our wish to cut out any man from the reward to which he was considered to be entitled.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: I know of one of these 1885 scrips that has not been located. The party was not aware that these'extensions had been made, and he is bntStled to every consideration. I shall draw his attention to this matter. In listening to the debate so far I think the minister is not

very far wrong. I know the west fairly well, and I think he has the interest of the west pretty well at heart in the way he is trying to administer this scrip. My sympathies are considerably with the minister in the way he is handling this subject.
On section 3, extension of time.


David Henderson: The minister referred to the case presented by the hon. member for Hamilton the other night, although he does not appear willing to accede to the request of the hon. member (Mr. Barker). I thought that was a case of extreme hardship, and that the minister would do something in that particular case. Is there no way, say by order in council, in which a special case of that kind could be" dealt with? The government seems to do a great many things by order in council, and to my mind a case of that kind, which appeared to be one of extreme hardship, might well be treated in that manner.


Frank Oliver: There is no provision whereby the privilege asked for could be granted even by order in council, and if my hon. friend will remember when the Bill was up for consideration in the session of 1908 that question was raised, and it was decided by the House at that time that the privilege which we gave in the case of the man who sold his scrip would have to be the consideration that he would get, that is to say, we gave liberal consideration in regard to the sale of scrip so that the man who could not himself, in his own bodily person, go into residence on the land, would be able to realize as much as his scrip was worth from the man who would actually go on the land. That was the position at that time, and I do not think it would be well to revise it. The principle of the homesteader being on his own land is the very foundation of our whole system in the settlement of the west, and I do not think it would be well to deviate from it.


David Henderson: I am sorry the minister could not meet that case. Of all the cases cited I thought that was the one where the greatest hardship came to the volunteer. What settlement duties has a man holding South African scrip to perform in order to get his land?


Frank Oliver: He has to live on it personally for six months in each of three years, and has to get under cultivation in that three years a total of thirty acres. He has to have upon the land, at the end of three years, a house of the value of $300.


David Henderson: Does that apply to the substitute as well as to the original scrip holder?
266J


Frank Oliver: Yes.


David Henderson: The same terms apply to them both?


Frank Oliver: Yes; the foundation principle of the Bill, in dealing with it in the House, was that we should put the substitute in exactly the same position as the grantee.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: In the case of the '85 scrip, was it possible to speculate in it the same as you can in the South Africa scrip?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Henry Sharpe: Was it transferr-able?


Frank Oliver: It was transferred at any rate. It was dealt in just the same as this scrip is dealt in. In our Act we have made provision that the scrip shall not be trafficked in butt our Act-


William Henry Sharpe: You left it wide open.


Frank Oliver: -is not effective in that.. We did our best, but we were not able to prevent it. The same attempt may have been made in regard to the '85 scrip, but it has not prevented trafficking in it just the same as in this.
Mr.	HENDERSON.	How	much	landwould	it take to satisfy all the scrip	of all
kinds that is now outstanding-half-breed scrip, '85 scrip, South African scrip and scrip of all other kinds?


Frank Oliver: I could not, off-hand, give my hon. friend any idea on that subject.
Mr.	HENDERSON.	Can	the minister
give any opinion or some idea? I think it is-


Mr. GRAHAM.: Highly desirable.
Mr.	HENDERSON.	Yes,	highly	desirable. My impression is that the time has come when we must stop this scrip business. In the interest of the west it should have been stopped sooner. Information of that kind would be a guide to the House as to what action should be taken in dealing with the matters. I am afraid that it would absorb an enormous amount of the Northwest, probably half of one of these new provinces, or even more.


Frank Oliver: I think the amount outstanding is hardly as much as that, but I quite appreciate. that it is -a very interesting matter. It is too late to do anything this session, but I think that possibly I may be able to give my hon. friend the information at another session if we are both here.
On section 4, time for location under certificates in schedule.


C0MM0N3
Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: Will the minister state why no extension is given in respect to these cases?


Frank Oliver: Some of the scrip that has been issued has been lost. It is reported to us that the scrip has been lost and a claim is made for the land that the scrip would have called for. On satisfactory evidence to us that the scrip was lost we allow entry for the land that the scrip would call for, but we take from the person who was entitled to the scrip a guarantee bond to the amount of $3,000, which bond is forfeit if the scrip turns up. The carrying of this bond is a somewhat expensive affair, and under the terms of the Act as it stood when the bond was issued it would expire at the end of 1910 and the liability would expire. We have thought that when we propose to extend the life of the valid scrip for another year it is not fair that we should require these people to carry that guarantee for an additional year. Therefore we provide that that specific scrip under the Act shall not be extended beyond 1910


Frederick William Borden: As a matter of fact the bond would probably become void if you did not except this.


Frank Oliver: Possibly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is the section to which I had suggested an amendment to be dealt with by the minister. I am not prepared to say that I find that the reasons which he has given for refusing to accept it are quite conclusive, nor would I consider that they are satisfactory reasons for abandoning the amendment. There is perhaps a better reason why I should not press it and that is that reason of the stronger is always the better reason inasmuch as if I moved the (amendment the minister, being stronger than I am, would defeat it. Therefore, I do not think that any good purpose would be served by moving it now.
On the schedule:


Frank Oliver: I would like to move an amendment to the schedule in accordance with what I have already said. I therefore beg to move:
That there be added to the schedule the following names and numbers:	William
Patrick Bagley, 3057; George Henry Wise, 2200; Ernest Mostyn Hoops, 6417.
Schedule as amended agreed to.


Richard Blain: May I take the opportunity to ask the minister if the government has reached any conclusion in respect to the proposed land grant to those who took paTt in the Fenian Eaid of '66, and is it the intention to do anything this session.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: It certainly is not the intention to do anything this session. I am not able to answer farther than that.


Richard Blain: Under consideration yet, I suppose?


Frank Oliver: I could not answer that. Several deputations waited upon the premier. I was not present at these meetings, and I could not say what conclusion has been reached.


David Henderson: I was just on the point of rising to ask the same question which has been asked by my bon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) because I have myself sent in petitions on behalf of the volunteers of '66 and '70. I desire to say that in my remarks in reference to the issuing of any further scrip, I would not like to exclude the application of the volunteers of '66 and '70 which has been before the government for several years. I would be perfectly willing that scrip should be issued to those on whose behalf requisitions have been made, but otherwise I think the government should take a firm stand.


Mr. HEEEON.: I should like to ask the minister if representations have been made regarding the early settlers of Manitoba -those who settled before 1870, and if so has any action been taken on that request this session? May we expect that that will be taken into consideration?.


Frank Oliver: Requests have been received from the people mentioned by my bon. friend, but there is no intention of any action in regard to that matter this session any more than in regard to the Fenian Eaid veterans. I am not authorized to make any further statement in regard to either of these cases.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


IMMIGEATION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVEE moved concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 102), respecting Immigration. He said: There are two amendments of some importance. One is in subsection 7 of section 33, which relates to exclusion at ports of entry, and to the arrest of those whom it is desired to exclude. The Senate amendment was made at the suggestion of the department, as we believed the provision should be strengthened by the insertion after the word 'entry', of the following :
Or who at a port of entry eludes examination by an officer of the Board of Inquiry, or who enters Canada by force or misrepresentation or stealth or otherwise contrary to any provisions of this Act, or who escapes from custody of an officer or from an immigrant station when detained for any cause under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence
[Stage Direction]
s
(I
under this Act, and liable on conviction to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.
The Senate have also inserted in the second line of the same section, after the [DOT]word 'detained' the words 'without a warrant'. That is to say, if there is to be detention, it should be at the moment, as the officer has not time to go and get a warrant. Then, it is 'proposed to amend section 45 as follows:
Part 17, line 31.-Leave out from ' the ' to 'and' in line 34 and insert the following:-
' railway company or companies which brought him to the place in Canada where he is being detained for deportation to the ocean port where he was landed, or the nearest available winter ocean port, as may be directed by the Board of Inquiry, and thence he shall be conveyed free of charge by the transportation company which brought him to Canada to the place in the country whence he was brought or to the country of his birth or citizenship.'
This is an amendment dealing with deportation from interior points. As the Bill passed the House the provision was that the total expense of deportation from an interior point to the port of landing as well as to the original port of embarkation should be borne by the steamship 'Company. They object very strongly to this. They say that as the railway company gets the income from the fares from the port of landing to the interior point, they should pay the cost of transportation from the interior point to the port of landing. These representations made on behalf of the steamship companies were acceded to by the department, and the Senate has amended the Bill accordingly. I may say that the railway companies have not objected to the amendment. These are all the amendments.
Uriah Wilson: Can the minister tell us about how much money he spent in deporting immigrants last year?


Frank Oliver: I cannot tell at the moment. I may be able to do so during the discussion of the estimates, when I have the advantage of the presence of an officer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the first and second time, and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved concurrence in Senate amendments to Bill (No. 125) amending the Land Titles Act. He said: In this case the Senate has disagreed with our wording of the Bill, and they have substituted a wording of their own. to convey the same idea.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the difference between it and our Bill?


Frank Oliver: Our Bill is an addition to the last section and says ' provided that such place may be the city of Ottawa in the province of Ontario until a more convenient and suitable place ini the district can be selected. The Bill is to provide that in the Northwest Territories where there is not sufficient business to warrant an establishment of local registration of property, registration may be made in Ottawa until the district beccfmes of sufficient importance to warrant the establishment of registration.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was that not clearly expressed?


Frank Oliver: The Senate disagreed with the wording which I think expressed the same idea.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They wanted to do something, I suppose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendment read the first and second time, and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved concurrence in Senate amendment to Bill (No. 17) authorizing the government of Canada to acquire by lease the lines of railway connecting with the government railway.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know what the amendments are.


George Perry Graham: 
'8403 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Intercolonial railway and the deputy minister.
I am not sure as to the effect of these. Most of this information will be given to both Houses in some way. Whether it could be carried out in detail as this amendment asks I am at a loss to know.
Mr. EMMERSON.: 
George Perry Graham: Would it be possible for them to sign that information accurately?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I say it would be absolutely impossible. In many instances there' is certain information that could not be secured. I know one particular instance in the province of New Brunswick, where a certain railway was foreclosed; it was known as the Alberta railway, running from the town of Salisbury in Westmoreland county to Hopewell Corner in the county of Albert. That was away back in the 80's, and in the foreclosure proceedings, and just previously, there was a movement on the part of the government of the day to getholdof the bonds which were held against that, railway in order that the government might take some action in the way of securing that railway; and it was obsolutely impossible for the government of that day to find the bond-holders in Great Britain, and in the foreclosure suit and the Mr. GRAHAM.
proceedings for winding up the matter, these bonds were still outstanding, the holders not being known. Now it would be in many instances impossible to get this information. You can assume a case; there has been a proposed lease and agreement entered into for a lease on the part of the government, and that lease could not be *made effective under the provisions of section 3 until parliament had ratified that lease; and although it might be represented to parliament to be a business proposition in the interest of the Intercolonial, and of the country, important in every respect, yet parliament would be powerless to ratify such a lease until such time as the information which is set forth in this amendment was laid before parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has the hon. gentleman considered that possibly the Senate will be asleep when we are ratifying this?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know what was in the minds of the hon. gentlemen who moved in this matter. I would assume that it was discussed from a business standpoint, and not from any parjiy standpoint. I want to make no reflections upon them. But it does seem to me to be an absurd amendment, and one which I think no self-respecting-pardon the word-Minister of Railways would accept. It seems to me it is tantamount to saying to the government and to the Minister of Railways that he would blindly go into a matter of this kind without having all possible information to place before parliament. Further than that it assumes that the parliament of Canada, when such a matter was up, would not demand and secure this information if it were found to be desirable, or if there were reasons apparent why the lease should not be ratified. I certainly object to this amendment, as I think it only obstructs this movement. And_, Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that there is a supersensitiveness on the part of many members of parliament, whether in this House or in the Senate, with respect to any proposition that is made in regard to the Intercolonial. I do not propose to advance any arguments now in favour of the acquisition of branch lines. Parliament has approved of the idea, the principle has been adopted by the government, and the question now is: Shall we give effect to it, or shall we put every obstacle in the way? Every one will admit that if the Intercolonial were under the control of any of the great railway corporations of Canada every branch line would be acquired and absorbed. Every one will admit that that has been the history of railway corporations in Canada, in the United States, and in Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: With a view of saving discussion, might I be permitted to

point out to my hon. friend that the provision inserted by the Senate is practically inoperative? It cannot bind the action of parliament as set forth in this schedule, it cannot bind the future action of parliament, and if at another session such a thing .should be ratified by parliament this would simply be repealed. It .does not amount to very much.


George Perry Graham: It says that parliament cannot do certain things.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It certainly is not proper legislation. It seems to me that parliament should determine when such a matter is before it what it will do, the responsibility is upon parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Senate passed this resolution, thinking that the House of Commons will be abolished at that time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It seems to me an insult. to the House of Commons:
No such lease shall be ratified by parliament unless a return has been made before both Houses for at least one month.
If there is any business in that proposition, I would like to know it. It certainly is not in good form as legislation, ancl in my judgment it should not receive the concurrence of this House. It will always be within the right of parliament to determine what road shall be taken, if any. But I object that we shall be hedged about now, or that there should be any legisla-tionA however inoperative, as it must necessarily be, with respect to the future action of parliament. There should not be any such legislation placed upon the statute-book. I shall oppose concurrence in this amendment.


George Perry Graham: I think after the discussion, and after the particular point raised by the leader of the opposition, in addition, to the fact that I think it is not in conformity with the Bill as we passed it ourselves, I move that we disagree with the amendment of the Senate.
Mr, SPEAKER. Has the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw his motion for the second reading? Carried.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the House disagree with the amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 17), and that a message be sent to their honours informing them of that fact.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of Bill (No. 145) to amend the Railway Act. He said:	This Bill covers several amendments which I explained on the introduction of the measure. In addition, some Bills proposed by other hon. members, having been referred to the railway committee, were approved by that committee, and these I have embodied in the Bill as well as one or two other amendments of my own. These are now all in reprinted form in the hands of members of the House.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
George Perry Graham: You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that many of these sections have been renumbered. This is owing to the fact that section 1 in the reprint is a new section, taken from a Bill introduced 'by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). I would prefer that that hon. gentleman should explain this provision.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: At the beginning of the session I introduced a Bill to somewhat limit the appeals from the Board of Railway Commissioners to the Supreme Court. After a great deal of attention given to the subject 'by the subcommittee to which the Railway Committee referred the Bill, and after consultation between the subcommittee and the Board of Railway Commissioners-(because the object was to make a piece of legislation that the board, as administering the law, could work out- the matter was sent back to the Railway Committee and reported unanimously to the House. The effect of the section as here proposed is to eliminate subsection 3 of section 56 of the Railway Act and enact the following:
3.	An appeal shall also lie from the board to such court upon any question which in the opinion of the board is a question of law, upon leave therefor having been first obtained from the board within one month after the making of the order or decision sought to be appealed from, or within such further time as the board under special circumstances shall allow, and after notice to the opposite party stating the grounds of appeal; and the granting of such leave shall be in the discretion of the board.
3a. No appeal, after leave therefor has been obtained under subsection 2 or 3 of this section, shall lie unless it is entered in the said court within thirty days from the making of the order granting leave to appeal.
Until this session there was no time limit for the making of atpplication for leave to appeal. The board passed rules from time to time which, however, they found they could not enforce very well The latest rule made a limitation of 14 days, but they found that they could not always hold people to that. Besides, we all agreed that it was necessary to have a statute fixing the time. So, it was made as here proposed that application shall be made within one month and the appeal muslt be prosecuted wjitWin thirty days

after leave to appeal is granted. These limitations were thought reasonable so that an appeal cannot be kept for ever hanging over .either the railway company or any other party to a case before the board.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Is that the whole effect of this section?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, except that we make it clear-which was in doubt before that the board shall have discretion to allow an extension of time under special circumstances. The head of the Railway Commission, ex-Judge Mabee pointed out that cases might arise of delay through persons not knowing the actual result of the decisions given, or there might be other special circumstances in which they would desire to extend the time.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The proposal is that section 1 of the Bill as reprinted shall be section 1 of the Bill before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Perry Graham: Section 1 of the Bill as before the committee now becomes section 2 as shown in the reprint. The section is as follows:
The said Act is amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 59:-
59a. Whenever this Act requires or directs that before the doing of any work by the company the approval of the board must be first obtained, and whenever any such work
has been done before the	day
of	, one thousand nine hundred
and nine, without such approval, the board shall nevertheless have power to approve of the same and to impose any terms and conditions upon such company that may be thought proper in the premises.
It will be observed that there are two blanks in this section. The object of the section is to provide for cases of this kind. It has- been found that some railway companies have proceeded to locate their lines and do things which they should not have done without the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners. And, when the board has been appealed to, the chairman has held that the board has not power to deal with the road unless it begins at the beginning and practically starts with the rails torn up. All that this section is intended to do is to give the Board of Railway Commissioners power to deal with a situation of that kind. If they see fit to make the company put the road somewhere else, they can do it, or if they like, they can approve of what has been done. I propose that the blanks should be filled in so as to make it read 'before the 31st day of December, one thousand nine hundred and nine.' [DOT]


John Graham Haggart: The section will not have any post facto effect beyond that date?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


George Perry Graham: That is all. The chairman states that he has come across several cases of that kind and he really thinks he has not power to deal with them unless we give him that power.
On section 3, vice-presidents who are not directors.


George Perry Graham: This is introduced in response to a request from the railway companies that they be allowed to appoint officers who may not be members of their boards of directors. They want to have vice-presidents who are not on the board of directors. I think the Canadian Pacific railway has a special Act permitting this, and one of the other companies asked for a similar Act, but I said I would introduce a general Act and permit them all to do it. They argue that there are cases in which they wish to appoint an officer to give him a title and engage him, although he is not to be a member of the board of directors. It means nothing except to the board itself.


John Allister Currie: The idea apparently is to follow the American practice of making the working officials directors, not to have figureheads on the hoard of directors. That i3 a good practice. The English practice, of course, is the reverse, and all the directors are outside of the company, who know nothing about the affairs of the company, the officials being simply servants.


George Perry Graham: One thing I had in mind was, for instance, the case of a company with the majority of its directors living in the old country, so that it would be impossible to make a selection from these gentlemen to do some particular work requiring the man doing it to have some standing.
On section 4, orders of the board relating to crossings with telegraph and telephone companies, &c.


George Perry Graham: This clause is merely to expedite the crossing of electric or telegraph wires over a railway line where the two companies can agree and the work is done under a regulation of the board. Heretofore, they have had to get an order from the board in each case, and some small crossings have occupied a good deal of time and caused a good deal of trouble. The commissioners and the companies agree that where there is no dispute, these crossings can be made under regulations framed by the board, and both parties may agree.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) is interested in this clause. The idea prevailing was that the Railway Commission were to establish two or three standard forms of crossings and that blue prints would be supplied to parties who wished to make crossings, and if any one applied and put

in that standard form of crossing, underground or overhead, following the specifications" laid down by 'the board,_ therq could be no question about the right to cross by either company. As it- is now, the application must be made. The board has not made a standard form of specification.


George Perry Graham: Not yet.


John Allister Currie: Is it the intention of the board to make it? As it is now, every time a crossing is to be made, costing perhaps $5, there are expenses of _ $35 or $40 in connection with the application.


George Perry Graham: This section really provides for the adoption of such a standard. In 90 cases out of 100 the companies will agree, and if they should not agree, it will be going too far to say that one company shall cross the line of the other without the board saying how it shall be done


Edward Arthur Lancaster: On general principles, if they do not agree, the board will decide.


John Allister Currie: I am informed that if they do not agree, that the railway company will send the telephone company to the board every time. I would strike out the words ' with the consent of the company.' Let the board establish a standard crossing, and if the people will follow that exactly, I do not think the railway company should have any kick at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose the railway company insisted that a certain point was not a proper place for a standard form of crossing, or take the case where they persist that the usual form ordered by the board was the one to use and the municipality thought it was not, and would not agree. Would my hon. friend say that it was right that the railway company should be allowed to force the use of the standard arrangement? Should they not be allowed to do, as I advised a municipality to do in such case, go to the board and secure an order to have the work done under a special regulation? It works two ways.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member's argument would be all right if there was a standard form, but the minister has said there is not one.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The very legislation we are dealing with presupposes that there is one, and I was referring to the customary form.


John Allister Currie: I think these clauses should be carefully guarded, that these telephone companies have certain rights, and I do not think they should have to spend $30 or $40 coming to the Railway Commission every time a railway manager says: You cannot cross that railway. In western Ontario, where there are many
farmers' telephones, they have to cross the railway at almost every concession, and a standard form of specification should be adopted. I do not think that these small companies should be put to the expense of securing an order if they want to make a crossing at a country road. The proper way would be to strike out the words ' with the consent of the company.' As it is, the whole matter is still left in the hands of the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No.


John Allister Currie: The section reads:
An order of the board shall not he required in the case in which telephone, telegraph or electric light wires are erected across the railway with the consent of the company


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the railway company.


John Allister Currie: -in acordance with any general regulations, plans or specifications adopted or approved by the board for such purposes.
It does not say which company it is; it may mean the telephone company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, it means the railway company by the interpretation clause.


John Allister Currie: There are lots of railway companies that are not half as big as the Bell Telephone company.


George Perry Graham: The interpretation clause of the Railway Act would cover that.


John Allister Currie: The clause would read just as well if that were struck out. Then it would mean that the standard specification of the board would govern unless they appealed to the board against it. If there were an appeal the Tailway company would have to appeal to the board. The grievance which exists is not righted by this Act. This clause is put in here to give a little soothing syrup to the country, but it is no good.
On section 6, section 254 amended by adding at the end of subsection 3 the word ' lands.'


George Perry Graham: This is a portion of the Bill of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), and I think if he would just explain his Bill it would apply to the different clauses as they come up.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Section 5 of the reprinted Bill is a portion of the original Bill that I introduced. However, this amendment has really nothing to do with the main portion of the amendment that I introduced. Consequently I can simply refer to this now, and when we come to section 8 I shall take that up. Section 5 simply adds the word * lands,' to section 254 of the Railway Act. Section 254 com-

pels railway companies to fence their railways. The courts have held that it simply compels them to fence their railways. The courts have held that it simply compels them to fence their frails. A very serious miscarriage of justice has occurred by reason of that interpretation. Adding the word ' lands ' does nothing more than carry out what was originally intended that they should fence their own property.
On section 6, leave to carry traffic.


George Perry Graham: At the present time the Act reads that the Board of Railway Commissioners, to accommodate the public, may, on a road which is not completed, allow them to carry freight traffic. I am proposing to amend that by striking out the word ' freight,' so that, if the board see fit, they can ask the construction company to carry passengers as well as freight over a part of the line even if the whole line is not completed.
On section 7, warning of moving trains.


George Perry Graham: Brakesmen have been, and are compelled to stand on the rear of an engine that is running backwards. Cases do occur where light engines are sent twenty or thirty miles backwards.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why does the engine have to go backwards?


George Perry Graham: It may be that there is no place to turn, or the engine may be ordered to go back to assist a freight or to render assistance at a wreck, and she is sent back twenty or thirty miles. Cases have been brought to my attention where men have almost frozen to death while standing on the rear of the tender. The idea of a man riding on the back of a tender is to protect the public at crossings where they are shunting. This clause protects all that because, it requires the railway men to remain on the back of the tender when they are shunting, but if does relieve them from remaining on the back of the tender when they are on these long runs.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The object of the Act has always been that people will naturally suppose that an engine is going the way it is headed, and, therefore, when they see an engine facing east, they will go west to get behind it.
I do not want to oppose it if the minister thinks it is absolutely necessary to trust the board in this regard, but when an engine is headed west people will naturally suppose that it is going west when it may be going east. It' is natural for a man to assume that an engine is heading in the direction in which it is pointing, but when he drives up he may find that it is going the other way. I can understand that there may be exceptional Mr. MEIGHEN
cases, as where there is a wreck, and it is impossible to turn the engine around, and it must be run down the line twenty or thirty miles. If this provision is necessary, I will consent to it only with the understanding that the board see that the privilege is not extended or abused.
On section 8, damages caused to or by cattle on railway.


George Perry Graham: This is a.' portion of the amendment of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie.


Arthur Meighen: This section embodies the principal part of the amendment which was contained in my original Bill. Its purpose is to extend the liabilities of railway companies in the event of their own default. At the present time railway companies may default under any section of the Act. Section 427, in addition to imposing other liabilities, renders a railway company liable for any damage that may result by reason of its default under any section of the Railway Act, that is to say, if a company violates any section of the Act, and damage is caused thereby, under section 427 the railway company is ostensibly liable for that damage; but unfortunately it has been held, and held repeatedly, that notwithstanding the provisions of section 427, there are certain sections of the Act which the railway company may violate without being under the necessity of paying the damage apparently provided for by the wording of that section. The sections I refer to are 254 and 294, more particularly section 254. Reasoning back from these sections through their history in the older Acts, the courts have come to the conclusion that notwithstanding that a railway company may be in default under section 254, and may thus be liable for damage under section 294, the class of damage to which it is liable is not as general as that to which it is liable, for violating any other section. Section 254 provides that the railway company shall fence its railway, and maintain gate's and cattle guards. The limitation to which I call attention has the effect of restricting them in the event of their violation of these provisions to such damages as result in the killing or injury of cattle by the company's negligence or wilful act or omission. Under the old law that was the only liability, and the courts have held, notwithstanding the provisions of section 427, that the company is still limited, in the case of a violation of section 254, to the same liability as it was formerly under; that is to say, it is only liable if by reason of its default- animals are killed or injured through its negligence or wilful act or omission. A large class of damages may result and have resulted which do not 'come within that old

limitation-damages occasioned by animals which have got on the track through the default of the company in failing to maintain fences, gates or cattle guards-escapes and does damage to neighbours' crops or other damage which the company escapes. In a case with which I was connected animals got on the railway track through the absence of a fence, ran down the track and were injured so as to be useless by having their legs broken on a bridge, and the railway company was not liable because the damage was not caused by their trains or engines. Many other cases occur. For instance a company is bound to fence its right of way so as to keep all cattle out, and the term ' cattle,' includes sheep. This the companies have refused to do in certain cases, and as a consequence the farmer who owns sheep has either to go out of the sheep business or run grave risk of damage, because his sheep can get through the railway fences, and do injury to his neighbours' crops. Under the present amendment the railway company would be liable for all damage done by their default in these respects, the same as under any other provision of the Act. There is a provision added at the end of section 8 in the following words:
Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be taken or construed as overriding the provisions of section 407 of this Act.
Section 407 of the Act has the following language:
Every person whoexcept as authorized by this Acit, without the consent of the companies, rides, leads or drives any horse, or other animal, or suffers any such horse or animal to enter upon the railway, and within the fences and guards thereof;
shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of $20 for each offence, etc.
He is also liable for various other offences, such as leaving gates open, taking down part of a fence, or turning animals loose. When my original Bill was before the Railway Committee, just at the moment when it was accepted, this provision was placed before me for my approval:
' Provided however that nothing herein shall be taken or construed as overiding the provisions of section 407 of this Act.' At the time, I read it as carefully as I could, and I could see no objection to it. However, later on my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), who has had more to do with this class of legislation than I have, and doubtless knows better the difficulties that have arisen under that class of legislation, drew my attention to a dangerous feature of the amendment. It would be quite possible under the proviso at the end of the section, in fact it would certainly be held that section 407 was the dominant section prevailing over subsection
8 of the reprinted Bill, and that wherever they were in conflict section 407 would prevail with the possible Tesult that the whole benefit of the amendment would be obviated, because if a man unconsciously allowed his animals to be on the track and, if the company then escapes liability for injuring then the real benefit of subsection 4 of section 294 would be lost. The subsection renders the company liable even if a man has suffered his animals to be on the track so long as that suffering is not due to any wilful act or neglect of his own. Consequently to the wording of the proviso of section 8 of the reprinted Bill, I cannot consent. I think, however, it could be amended so as to obviate the danger to which I have alluded. So, long as it is restricted to preserving the penalty I have no objection, but to the word ' override,' I cannot agree, because its effect would be too far reaching.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I agree in the main with what has been said by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). This matter was referred to a special committee. and I think it was the law clerk of the Railways and Canals Committee that suggested to the minister that those words should be added. They were not really considered by the committee, but the hon. member for Portage la Prairie at the time did not think they would do any harm, and the Bill was reported. The position is this, that previous to 1901, just because of the language of the section now replaced by 407 there was no liability for animals killed. It was because of the language of what is now section 407 that we had all the trouble for three years. We finally got section 294 as it is to-day. The object of that section was to protect the owners .of animals, who without any default of their own .allowed their animals to escape and get on the railway track. My hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) rightly enough in my opinion thinks that if the railway company is in default and the animals are not injured, but cause other damage, the railway company should be responsible. While he is attaining that, I think it is proper that we do not unconsciously deprive the owner of the animals of his right to recover, as we declared after all the contest which went on for three years, and which ended in 1903, that the railway company may be liable for the animals themselves. I suggest that instead of saying ' provided, 'however, that nothing herein shall be taken or construed as overriding the provisions of section 407 of this Act ' that we say * provided, however, that nothing herein shall be taken ot construed as relieving any person from the penalties imposed by section 407.' Section 407 is two-fold. It prevented civil liability which we determined after a great deal of trouble should exist, and it also im-

poses penalties. I think the penalties should stand. I think if one is within the penalty clause of section 407, he should be liable. If he is not within the penalties of the section, we should not attempt to bring section 407 in here.


George Perry Graham: That would be acceptable, and I move that amendment.


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEK@: It is moved that the words ' over-riding the provisions of section ' in the last line of section 8 be struck out and in lieu thereof the following added: ' relieving any person from the penalties as imposed by section.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 9.
Arthur Meighen: This is rendered necessary by section 8 of the reprinted Bill in order to work out the same effect. Section 295 is the excepting section, consequently it must be made to read in compliance with the new reading of section 294, which is the section imposing liability.
On section 10.


George Perry Graham: This was part of a private Bill which I am putting in here as a government Bill. Hon. members will remember that this is a Bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Papineau). It means this: Last year we passed an Act providing that, where damage is done to property by a railway company up to their limit of liability, that is, $5,000, and that the party injured received insurance, the railway was practically relieved from paying damages to the amount of that insurance. Damages often exceed the amount of the insurance. Consequently, this section is to provide that the railway company, even though no negligence is shown, and though the injured party has received $5,000 insurance, is liable for the damage done by the railway up to the limit of $5,000. A section designed to provide for this case was passed by the Railway Committee; but, as I said before, I am merely adopting these and have the right to-amend them. I submitted the matter to the Minister of Justice, who made a little alteration in the draft which I submitted also to the chairman of the Railway Committee. It seems to accomplish the object and reads a little more smoothly. I propose the words approved by the Minister of Justice instead of the words included in the Bill. The words of the Bill on this point, as will be seen, are as follows:
_ Provided further that where there is any insurance existing on the property damaged the company shall only be liable under this subsection for the amount of such damage over and above the amount accepted or recovered by the assured by way of insurance Mr. LANCASTER.
upon the property, but where the company has used modern and .efficient appliances and has not otherwise been guilty of any negligence such liability shall not exceed the said sum of five thousand dollars.
Instead of these, I propose that the section shall read in this respect as follows:
Provided also that if there is any insurance existing on the property destroyed or damaged, the total amount of damages sustained by any claimant in respect of the destruction or damage of such property shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be reduced by the amount accepted or recovered for the benefit of such claimant in respect of such insurance


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But will not this leave unprovided for the proviso of the section:
-but where the company has used modern and efficient appliances and has not otherwise been guilty of any negligence such liability shall not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars.	_
Unless we make it clear that $5,000 is^ to be over and above the insurance, I think the inference might be that the total amount must always be not more than $5,000, and that you deduct from the total amount the amount of insurance a man carries, so that his insurance is for the benefit of the railway company and not for himself.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think that this language, if examined, will be found to cover the case that has been put in illustration. Take the case of a man whose loss is $10,000 and who has $5,000 of insurance, and consider whether or not it is covered by this language. It provides that where insurance exists on the property destroyed or damaged, the damage sustained by the claimant shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be reduced by the amount recovered in respect of such insurance. That is to say, in the case that we have been putting 'the total amount of damages sustained' is $10,000, and this amount ' shall for the purposes of this subsection be reduced ' by what? ' By the amount accepted or recovered ' in regard to the insurance. That is, the insurance recovered is $5,000, the total damage is $10,000, and the claim for the purposes of this subsection will stand as to the remainder.


George Perry Graham: This is a point of legal construction. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) is clear in his opinion that the amount of the loss makes no difference as the clause has been drafted by him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Whit we did in the Railway Committee was to make it clear, and I cannot understand why our clear statement should be struck out and that of the Minister of Justice substituted. We say in the Railway Committee that this man insures for his own benefit. Now, if

he is going to be limited to $5,000 when he is damaged $20,000, the company should pay that $5,000. II he is insured for $5,000 he should get $10,000 in all. That is what we say in the printed Bill, but the Minister of Justice strikes out that and says that the liability should be limited to $5,000. We have two liabilities in the previous part of the section. If there was no liability but the one stated in the previous part of the section, I would agree with the Minister of Justice. But there are two liabilities: the one is the absolute liability if they do not use proper appliances; the other is that if they do use proper appliances, they are only liable to $5,000. So there are two liabilities that we are dealing with in this reprinted Bill. The Minister of Justice speaks of liability. Which liability? Judges would undoubtedly differ in the interpretation of the term. I think the positive statement put in by the Railway Committee is clear and distinct and bad better remain.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: The clause gave us considerable difficulty in the Railway Committee, and I think that the clause suggested bv the minister is much more clear than the one the Railway Committee put in. If I understand the amendment now proposed, it is that the amount of insurance shall be deducted from the total damage suffered; then, that the balance recoverable against the railway company shall be limited to $5,000, where the railway company have used proper appliances and have been guilty of no negligence, but unlimited where they have been negligent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think it says that the total damage is recoverable.


Hugh Guthrie: The total damage sustained; the insurance shall be deducted from that. If the company then has been guilty of no negligence, its loss is limited to $5,000; if it has been guilty of negligence or has not used proper appliances, there is no limit. I must say that the clause gave me some trouble, and when the amendment was first suggested, I did not agree with it; but after examining it I think it expresses our intention better than the clause drawn in the Railway Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Perry Graham: I may tell the committee now so as to save discussion later on, that the Government Railways Act as amended practically puts the government railways in the same position as other railways in regard to fires. I am giving notice of an amendment to be added in the Government Railways Act; so, while we are accepting the disabilities, we are also having advantages of the General Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: What good will it be if you do not give them the right to sue without a fiat?


George Perry Graham: We have passed an Act giving them the right to sue up to a certain amount in their own local court.


John Graham Haggart: It will be limited to that small amount, $200.
On section 11-free carriage and reduced rates may be given in certain cases.


George Perry Graham: This is another amendment, a portion of which is asked for by the railway employees. In brief this is to allow to former railway employees transportation if they wish; and also to allow Canadian companies to give the Interstate Commerce Commission reduced rates or free transportation if they desire.
On section 13-working agreements to be approved by board.


George Perry Graham: The real meaning of this is to include telegraphs in section 13. The original Act has only telephones, and I am putting telegraph companies in the same position.


John Allister Currie: Does this clause allow the government telegraph company to make an exclusive agreement with another telegraph company?


George Perry Graham: This is to provide that all these agreements, agreements of telegraph companies as well as telephone companies, must be subject to the approval of the board. Heretofore, telegraph companies were not included in that section.


John Graham Haggart: Does it apply to government telegraph companies?


George Perry Graham: I imagine not.
On section 14-safety at highway crossings.


George Perry Graham: In passing the Act of 1909 we had a provision making it incumbent on railways to make protection to level crossings, constructed hereafter, at their own expense. In framing that Act, we used the words ' at the passing of this Act.' That means the passing of the original Act, as I am informed; and to make it clear that that clause was to be operative from the passing of the Act of last session, I am asking the committee to change the words to read ' 19th day of May, 1909.'
On section 15, rate of speed at certain crossings.


George Perry Graham: This is a section which I wish to submit to the House with an explanation. My (hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) introduced an amendment really to place the control of level crossings, as it was before, in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


John Allister Currie: Yes.
COMMONis


George Perry Graham: I have had representations from men in charge of fast trains, engineers, conductors and firemen, concerning the clause which we placed in the Act last year saying that no train could run over a level crossing where an accident had occurred during the preceding ten years, at a speed exceeding 10 miles an hour. That was considered very drastic. The object as I explained to the House was that there would be no difficulty in finding where the work of reducing level crossings should begin because where an accident had occurred there was a iprima facie case that it was a dangerous crossing. In its operation that is- found to be very drastic. The railway companies have instructed their employees to comply with this provision of the Act. That means that the fast trains cannot begin to make their time. I have had some experience of the fast trains on the Grand Trunk railway, and I have found that the Act works -out as contended by these men. Then I took the position with .the railways: Hurry up and fix your crossings. They pointed out that it was impossible to do that with sufficient rapidity to comply with the law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They have had five years under the Act.


George Perry Graham: The Act passed last year was very drastic and it was impossible to live up to it. The railway companies said:	Suppose you reduce that
irom 10 years to 5 years, tnen we will proceed with all rapidity to protect the crossings where accidents have occurred in the past^ 5 years, and then we will have to continue until all dangerous crossings are Trotected; in the meantime it will not work a hardship on us and will allow us to keep within the spirit as well >as of the letter of the Act, and at the same time hot disarrange all the traffic in relation to making time. The clause I submit to the committee reduces the time to five years so that trains can pass these crossings at a greater speed than 10 miles an hour if protected, leaving the other 5 years to he dealt with later. The proposition did not seem to me to be unreasonable, and I submit it to the House for consideration.


Mr. RUSSELL.: How much difference would it make in the running time of a train from Montreal to Toronto?


George Perry Graham: I would have to have a list of crossings. Take the International Limited, it would have to slow down to 10 miles; at every crossing where an accident had occurred within ten years. Slowing down scuh a train and getting up the momentum perhaps two or three times within 10 or 15 miles, consumes a good deal of time, and yet perhaps only one accident has ever occurred at a particular Mr. CURRIE.
crossing. Yet they have to stop or be criminally liable if anything should occur. It .places the employees in a very awkward position. They are expected to make time, and if they disobey orders and an accident occurs they will be criminally liable because the company has given them orders to comply with the Act. There is a difficulty 'both with the employees and with the company, and it struck me that it would be reasonable to reduce that period to 5 years, the company to pay attention immediately to as large a number of crossings as require. attention.


John Allister Currie: There is another aspect of this case. Consideration, of course, has been extended to the foot passenger and the driver, and the man who wants to travel on a fast train, hut no_ consideration seems to be given to the shipper. I have no hesitation in saying as a shipper that the operation of that clause has cost the shippers of this country $1,000,000 in added interest on goods delayed in transit. Take goods shipped from Sydney to western Ontario, they had been delayed nearly two weeks longer than they would have 'been under ordinary circumstances and when you ask the railway companies for an explanation they say that a freight train has to come to an absolute stop at each of these crossings, not to slow up to 10 miles as a fast passenger train does. When I came to analyse the question I found that 25 per cent of the accidents that have occurred at these crossings have occurred on crossings that would not be called dangerous crossings, most of the accidents have occurred through carelessness of the people themselves driving on the track where they could see the train openly for miles. There are carried on the railways of Canada each year 67,000,000 tons of freight, and when you stop the carriage of these goods for two or three weeks in a year the mere banking charge for carrying these goods for that time means a lot -of money. In shipping there is the haulage by the railway, there is the traffic charge, but there is a larger and more deadly charge 'because it goes on day and night, that is the interest that the banks or some one must be paying on the money value of these goods, and whilst this Bill may have benefited a few careless people, and perhaps have saved the lives of one or two innocent people I do not see why the business interests of the country should be held up on account of a section of this kind. If the section is amended so that the Railway Commission may order the train to stop at any crossing which they consider dangerous-and they have examined them all by this time I understand -and shall order that the train shall slow down to ten miles an hour until the

crossing is made right, we would have a more satisfactory condition and there would not he so much difficulty. The Railway Commission are really violating their oath of office every day. It is well known that in some cases they have given the railways (permission to cross where there has (been no protection put up, a few trees may have been cut out and the trains go on at the same speed. Some amendment is necessary. The present legislation involves a danger to the railway companies and to the men-because the man on a locomotive is as much afraid of an accident as the man driving a team on the road, because his life is in danger a man might drive a team of horses on a crossing, ditch the locomotive and kill the fireman and engineer just as easily as the locomotive might run down the team.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They never do it.


John Allister Currie: I remember a case fifteen years ago in which a horse got on the track, and upon a bridge and was struck by a locomotive, the result being that the engineer and fireman were killed. In delaying 65.000.000 tons of freight for three or four weeks in the year by this legislation it seems to me that you are taking a pretty bold, drastic stand. I am quite in sympathy with any legislation to protect what are considered dangerous crossings and to compel the railways to make the necessary arrangements to protect those crossings as quickly as possible. But why treat the subject in a blanket clause like that? There are crossings where men have been killed accidentally but where under ordinary _ circumstances, there can be no chance in the world of people being killed. They can see the train two miles away, but in some cases people try to beat the train. It is a very grave thing to stop all the traffic on these railwavs the way it is done now. A freight train has to come to a stop. It cannot slow down to ten miles an hour because the air will not apply on one of those long trains, and the train will break in two. If you have a train of fifty cars and apply the air you can stop the train, but you cannot slow it down, because if you try to, the train will part. I think the [DOT] government should consider this matter, and I believe that they would meet the case by inserting the words: ' if so ordered by the board '.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The effect is practically the same to-day as that contended for by mv hon. friend from North Simcoe. These trains cannot pass over any highway crossing at rail level at a greater speed than ten miles an hour if at such crossing an accident has happened, unless the crossing is protected to the satisfaction of the board. The board can order any protection
and in doing so it may say to the company: You do not need to do anything but clear away this embankment with which you are obstructing the view, or widening your track. We have had cases of that kind in the Niagara district. It does not cost the company more than a nitre bagatelle. By putting in their plans and showing their elevations the company mav be permitted to run without any special protection. The board have full power under this section to absolve them from any responsibility of this section under such circumstances as they see fit.


John Allister Currie: Where?'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: By the very language of this section which I have just read. Trains are run as fast as they were ever run over crossings protected to the satisfaction of the board. The power of the board is nothing more nor less than the power to say what is absolutely necessary in order to protect the interests of the country.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock PRIVATE BILLS


RETAIL MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 210) to incorporate the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada.-Mr. Gervais.
On section 1,
William Henry Sharpe: The parties who are asking for this incorporation are a very important class of people; I think they represent the largest amount of capital of any class in Canada. I understand that they do not intend to go into business a3 an association; but if we allow this Bill to go through and give them incorporation,' it will combine all the retail merchants throughout this country, and they will be able to control prices, the number of stores, and everything of that kind in every town in Canada. They will be able also to control the wholesale people. Suppose there are five or six stores in a town, and a man wants to start another store. These people will have such power that they will be able to go to the wholesale men and say: We do not want you to sell goods to this store; if you do, the retail dealers throughout the country will not buy goods from you. In that way they will be able to control the retail business from one end of this country to the other. The great excuse they are giving for wishing to have this Bill passed at the present time is that the retail merchants will be able to compete v ith the great departmental stores of the coun-

try. It is true, the great departmental stores, such as Eaton's and Simpson's, are doing a great injury to the retail trade; but I maintain that this is not the proper way to deal with them. The retail dealers should go to the various provincial legislatures and get them to pass laws whereby each municipality could put a tax on all goods coming into the municipality from these departmental stores. I wish to protest against this Bill going through.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I fail to see the point our good friend is trying to make. Why should not the Retail Grocers' Association be entitled to the same rights and privileges as the Wholesale Grocers' Association or the Manufacturers' Asso?iation or the Shipping Federation, for which I had the honour of putting a Bill through this House, and it went through unanimously? If any of these associations could be said to represent a monopoly, as my hon. friend suggests, surely it "would be the Manufacturers' Association. I hope this Bill will go through, and with the unanimous assent of this House; there is no reason why it should not. Do not let us do injustice to the Retailers' Association, because there may be some little feeling against them. I do not think this House will stoop to that.


William Henry Sharpe: I wish to say, in reply to the hon. gentleman, that the people in western Canada know how much the Manufacturers' Association has hurt them. That association is taking undue toll from the people there to-day. Because we have put through other Bills, and allowed other combinations to work hardships on the producers of this country, is no reason why we should continue to do the same in this case.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: When this Bill was before the House two or three days ago, I put myself on record as being opposed to it, and I want to do the same now. My hon. friend wants to know how it would be unreasonable to pass legislation in this House in favour of the Retail Grocers' Association when the Wholesale Grocers' Association has had Dominion legislation. Well, it seems to me that there is a good deal more necessity for wholesale business to receive Dominion legislation than retail business. Retail business is local, distributed all over this country; but wholesale business has necessarily to have its inteT-provincial connections in order to operate and to provide and distribute its supplies all over thi3 country. It does seem to me that this is purely provincial local legislation. I would like to call the attention of the committee to this institution which is asking for incorporation. In the last few days, a convention has been held in the Mr. W. H. SHARPE.
city of Toronto by the manufacturers of food products in this country, combined with the Wholesale Grocers' Exchange, at which representatives from the Retail Grocers' Association were present and dis->
cussed the food-supplying trade of this country; and what happened at that convention? This very association, which today is asking for powers from this parliament, entered into discussion and came to conclusions with the other parties _ represented, to arrange and maintain prices of food products in this country, and went further than that-intimidated the manufacturers who refused to enter into what they called the contract-selling system. All this happened in the last few days, and has been reported in the daily press. Now, my opinion is that what this institution wants is power from this parliament to combine with these other Dominion bodies for the purpose of fixing and maintaining high prices.at the cost of the consumers of this country. I think the evidence of the convention which has just been held, if the members of the committee have read the correspondence, will convince them that this is a very dangerous power to place in the hands of an association which, aftefi all, is simply a local institution doing business all over this country under local con-* ditions. There is not expressed on the face; of the Bill any necessity for Dominion legislation for the purpose of carrying on that business. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I -want to put myself on record,) for those reasons, as being entirely opposed to the Bill.


Mr. ROCHE.: I desire to reiterate my objections to the Bill. I took exception to it the other evening, and I have seen no reason to change my opinion. It is true that the promoter of the legislation claimed the other night that this was a purely benevolent institution which did not mean to go into any trade or business whatever. If that is the case I think they are coming to the wrong shop. I do not see why they should not secure their legislation from the provincial legislatures and the suspicion in my mind is that these gentlemen under the guise of this Bill are seeking powers that they feel confident they could not secure from the provincial legislatures. That is the reason they are coming to the Dominion parliament. It was pointed out by a former provincial secretary the other evening, one who ought to be conversant with the legislation of the province of Ontario, that all the powers necessary for this company could be secured under the Ontario Company Act. The only objection offered to that is that they wish to spread their business beyond the confines of the province of Ontario. What is there to prevent them doing exactly what the insurance companies or other companies do, and

registering, taking out a license in the other provinces. There is no reason whatever why they should not do that, and we may view with suspicion an association coming to the Dominion House to seek such wide powers as we find in the various clauses of this Bill, when the proper sphere to secure that legislation from, is the provincial legislature. Now the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Ralph Smith) has referred to the danger there is of those gentlemen associating together for the purpose of combining and raising prices. We are pointed to the fact that there is a combines Bill which has been amended and passed through this House. But, I think that Bill will not be of very much service to those who may invoke its aid, and I do not think it is at all necessary to impose upon the people of this country the burden of calling into requisition a combines Bill in order to strike at a possible combination of retailers. The hon. member from the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) said why should we object to incorporating the retail groceries association any more than the wholesale grocers. Yes, and why should we object to incorporating the consumers of this country, such as members of this House did the other day. The very association which is now seeking incorporation were the principal objectors. They might not have been the cause of the defeat of the Bill, but they were represented there by their counsel to oppose it and they would have opposed it if that counsel had been heard. If they had shown a less selfish spirit and allowed the consumers to be incorporated to do business with their neighbours, their case might have been treated a little more leniently at the hands of the members of this House to-night. I think the retailers have no more reason for seeking incorporation here than the consumers, who were simply asking for poweT to do business among themselves. That was denied because the promoter of this Bill says it was detrimental to the public interest. Fancy the consuming population of this country, the masses, enacting legislation on their own behalf that would be injurious to themselves. It is a preposterous proposition and I take the position taken by some hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this subject that the legislation necessary should be sought at the hands of the provincial legislature and not here.


Robert Bickerdike: May I point out that this is a Dominion association and that it is a Dominion Act, an Act to incorporate the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada. Now, I ask, can such an association go to the province? It is said that because the promoter of this Bill, or some other gentleman appeared before this committee and asked that the Co-operation Bill be 267
thrown out, that this Bill should be thrown out. Surely we are not going to prosecute the retail grocers of Canada simply to have revenge on the member for St. James division (Mr. Gervais). Surely that is not the intention of this House.


William Roche: That is not the idea.


Mr. M. CLARK.: I find myself on this subject in hearty agreement with my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike). I can see no harm whatsoever in the principle of this measure. I greatly enjoyed the other day the banter which my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) addressed to the promoter of .this Bill on his inconsistency, but I fail to see that because the promoter of this Bill was inconsistent, my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) does not suffer a little the same way. Because, if he says that a member is inconsistent who opposed co-operation a little while ago and supports a similar principle now, I think inconsistency can be traced equally to him who supported co-operation a little while ago and opposes it now. I think there is a fallacy lying at the root of all that has been said by those who are opposing this measure. It is assumed that the retailers are asking for powers which they intend to exercise against the consumer. Now, that is not at all a safe conclusion. The wholesalers are now organized. May it not be that the retailers are seeking the powers in order to arm themselves against the wholesalers and in the interests of the consumers. But the elementary proposition is the one which was pointed out by my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) that every class of the community in the British empire has the right of combination. My hon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Roche) is a member of the medical profession, a profession to which I have the honour to bejong, myself, and we have both in this country and the old country our medical associations, whereby medical men combine for the protection of their legitimate interests. In my few remarks on the Combines Bill the other day, 1 pointed out that one of the struggles of the Liberal party in the last century in Britain, was for the right of workmen, and my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) knows it well, to combine in their trades unions. Legal gentleman have their combinations, employers have their combinations, in fact all men are to have their combinations except these retail grocers. I do not think that is a position which will be seriously taken up and maintained by any one in this House. I think it the more easy to support this measure because of the Act that was passed by parliament the other day. I pointed out at that time that there was no harm in combination, that combination was only harmful when it



acted in restraint of trade and in the raising of prices. But, all that is now perfectly safe in the hands of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, and if this retail association shows that it is endangering for one moment the rights and interests of the consumers, we can safely leave it to be dealt with by the piece of legislation which went on the statute-books a few days ago.


Mr. BOYCE.: Can my hon. friend point out to the committee any benefit that would accrue to the community by this Bill being passed?


Michael Clark: Suppose the wholesalers are charging the retailers too much, will the retailers not have a better chance of buying well from the wholesalers if they are combined in a union. We all know that union is strength. I should think my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) sees that that is_ a perfect answer to his question. And if they buy better, they will sell cheaper to the consumers.


Mr. NEELY.: It is somewhat of a surprise to me to see that this Bill, which was considered some days ago, and the first section of which was defeated by the committee, is before the committee once again. When the promoter of the Bill asked that the vote on clause 1 be reconsidered, I understood that he wished merely an opportunity to withdraw gracefully when he found that the committee was not in a mood to sanction the passing of the Bill. Otherwise, as one who voted against clause 1 of the Bill, I certainly would not have given my consent-and I think others who voted as I did would not have given their consent-to the reconsideration of that vote. I thought the promoter of the Bill understood the action of the committee according to its true intent.
My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) thinks that those who are opposing this Bill are arguing from false premises. I do not agree with him on that point. In the first place, he draws a parallel between the trades unions of this country and the Retail Merchants' Association, and argues that because combination does good in one case it will do good in the other. There is no objection on my part, nor, I think, on the part of the committee, to the retail merchants of Canada having a voluntary association such as they have at the present time for the advancement of any interest that they may think it their duty to advance. But I would call the attention of my hon. friend from Red Deer to the fact tliat, as far as I know, not a labour or trades union in Canada is incorporated by an Act of this parliament or any other.


Mr. GERVAIS.: They are all incorporat-" ed by the general law.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) says they are all incorporated


Michael Clark: 


Robert Bickerdike: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Neely) was in the House when I introduced the Bill incorporating the Shipping Federation. If he was not, he should have been here.


David Bradley Neely: I think not. But I still fail to see why this committee ought to assent to the incorporation by Act of this parliament of an association of the retail merchants of Canada. They have their association to-day, and they have the privilege of going to the various provinces and being incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Acts of the provinces. I should think that they could secure all the powers they require in that manner. So far as I can see, all the names given in this clause 1 are names of people from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Robert Bickerdike: What objection is there to that.


David Bradley Neely: I do not find the names of any from any other provinces of the Dominion. Yet these gentlemen must be incorporated by Act of the parliament of Canada. Now, it is true that the medical men of the various provinces of Canada have their associations, but not under Dominion Act, their powers are obtained from the provincial legislatures. And I want to say to my hon. friend from Red Deer that, so far as the medical profession at least is concerned, there is no parallel between that case and the case of the retail grocers of Canada in this respect.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Will the hon. member (Mr. Neely) allow a question for information? With regard to the medical men, is it not true that a large number of them have been anxious to get Dominion incorporation, but cannot agree among themselves as to the terms?


Ralph Smith: This House has refused it.


William Pugsley: I thought they were unable to agree.


David Bradley Neely: I have always understood that they have never been able to secure such incorporation. But, in any case, there is this difference between the case of the medical profession and that of the retail grocers, that, whatever protection is furnished by law of the provinces to the medical profession is furnished with the primary object of protecting the public from quacks and quackism. and not for the protection of the profession.


Robert Bickerdike: That is the object of our Bill exactly.


David Bradley Neely: So far as the consumers, the public, are concerned, the incorporation by Act of this parliament of this association is certainly not intended primar-

ily for their benefit. That is the great and essential difference between this and the case of the medical profession-in one case, the statute is for the protection of the public, while in this case, if there is any benefit, it is purely and solely for those who are interested in having this incorporation brought about. I say, as I said when this Bill was before the committee on a former occasion, that very many possible evils lurk in this legislation should it come into effect. We should be giving to these gentlemen the prestige of an association incorporated by Act of the parliament of Canada. That would enable them in many ways to bring about a certain measure of coercion in so far as securing membership is concerned. They would be able to bring pressure to bear on the men engaged in the retail trade who are opposed


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


David Bradley Neely: One momenG-who are opposed to the


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


David Bradley Neely: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gervais) will not let me finish the sentence, I will give him the opportunity to ask the question.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) to point out to the committee any word in the Bill to support his contention that the Retail Merchants' Association is seeking for power to establish a combine which will produce any of the many evils of which he speaks, but which he has not stated definitely. Let him mention one woTd in the Bill in support of his contention.


David Bradley Neely: No matter what the ulterior object of the promoters of this Bill might be, we certainly do not expect them to state on the face of the Bill any such object. Most assuredly the Bill is drafted so as to appear on the face of it as innocent as possible. But 1 am simply stating the fact, that we are placing in the hands of these gentlemen, if we incorporate them by Act of this parliament, certain powers which they might very easily use to the disadvantage of the consumer, and the public. I have said that we give them the prestige of incorporation by Act of this parliament. By the aid of this prestige they would have great influence in coercing into their membership many of those in the retail trade who might not be willing to enter. Here is one way in which that might be accomplished. This association, let us say, is incorporated; it has its president, its executive and its secretary. Its representatives the towns and cities of this country, and we will suppose that they 267i
secure a large proportion of the retail tradesmen as members of the association. But there were some independent tradesmen who did not see it to their advantage to join this association. They see no need of it, they are getting along very well as it is without paying tribute to this association. Sir, this association in a very short time will be strong enough to go to the wholesalers of this country in a certain city or a certain town, and say to them: There are certain tradesmen who will not join our union, who will not come in as members of the Retail Grocers' Association. Now we say to you that you must not do business with these men. We have a right to protection the same as other trades unions, we have a right to have our association recognized by men who are occupied in that particular trade, and we say to you wholesale men that you must not sell those tradesmen unless they consent to become members of the Retail Grocers' Association. I am nqt saying that that appears in the Bill, of course it does not, but that is a power we will be putting into the hands of this association if we incorporate them by this Bill. There are other ways by which men might be coerced to become members of the association. It is a very simple matter, when a man is in business difficulties and finds himself hard pressed, for rumours to be circulated that he is getting into deep water, that he is not in the best financial circumstances, and it is an easy matter to undermine his credit. If a man is obstinate and refuses to join this association, I say there is another method by which his financial standing and his credit with the wholesalers, and with the public might be undermined.
Now, there is another consideration. I cannot for the life of me see why these retail grocers cannot have their local associations if they require them for the discussion of the betterment of trade conditions, and their own individual affairs, without incorporation by Act of parliament. When my hon. friend was introducing this Bill the other night he told us of many things that had already been done by the voluntary Retail Grocers' Association. Well, so far as the cities and towns of this country are concerned, I think they can very well look after their own interests by their organizations. For instance, there is hardly a little town in western Canada, and I understand it is so in the east, but has its board of trade, and I think the boards of trade in the cities and towns are quite capable of looking after the local commercial affairs of their respective centres. In the Bill that sets forth the objects of this association, nor in the remarks of the promoter of the Bill, have I found one single substantial reason giv.en why this Bill should be put through, why these

retail grocers associations should be incorporated. Let me call attention to another way in which the public of this country might be injured by this incorporation. Here is an association of a Dominion character having a membership in >every town and city in the Dominion of Canada. A certain individual in a certain town is unfortunate, he is in poor financial circumstances, he cannot pay his grocer's bill. What happens? That grocer refuses to give him credit. Is that all? I conceive the possibility that a man in straitened circumstances might seek to benefit himself by moving to another part of Canada, and by reason of this Dominion-wide association that man might be black-listed by every retail grocer from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I say that is a possibility. Does my hon. friend deny that that is one of the objects? Of course it is not so stated in the Bill, but does he deny that that is one of the objects? Of course he will deny it, he will sav that the obiect is to secure protection from poor creditors. But it may be protection in the way of a black-list against men who are unfortunate, and who cannot pay their grocer's Bill. I conceive that that will be one of the primary features in the incorporation of this association. Of course mv hon. friend will say that that is not in the Bill, and I am willing to agree with him.


Mr. DANIEL.: But it is, in subsection 2, clause 2.


David Bradley Neely: Whether it is or not, to my mind there is not a doubt but what the association would benefit its members in the way I have indicated. I hone I need not say anything more. I do not think that the sentiment of this committee has changed much from the last time the Bill was before us, when the first section was defeated. I do not want to block the Bill in any way, I am perfectly willing it should go to a vote.


Richard Blain: Did my hon. friend say that the Medical Association of Canada was not incorporated?
Mr.. NEELY. No, I said that the medical nrofession had provincial protection. There is no Dominion law dealing with the medical profession.


Richard Blain: I only wanted to direct my hon. friend to a slight inconsistency in his position. Let me remind him that he sat in the House last session and assisted in the incorporation of the Medical Association of Canada.


David Bradley Neely: That was purely pro forma.


Richard Blain: I have under my hand the clause of that Act which empowers the Medical Association to hold exactly the Mr. NEELY.
same value of property, $50,000, that is to be found in the Act under discussion.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The intention of the medical profession in applying to this parliament for incorporation, as alluded to by the Minister of Public Works, was to allow a professional man who had passed his examination to practise in any province in Canada. It was not to create an association for any purpose other than that.


Richard Blain: That is not the Bill to which the Minister of Public Works referred.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister spoke of the application which it was the intention to make to this parliament this session, but which was not made. I was here the other night when the Bill now before the House was under discussion, it was put to a vote and voted down almost unanimously.


William Pugsley: Then it was reconsidered.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not know how, in the face of the vote of the other night, there can toe a sufficient number of members present to-night to make a majority in favour of this Bill without any reason being advanced in the meantime to induce them to change their minds. If any one reads over the objects of this association he cannot "but come to the conclusion that it is a combination for purely commercial reasons, in so far as the retail merchants themselves are concerned, and must result in a combination to raise prices in Canada. We as a parliament have hitherto been rather favouring the interests of the corporations as opposed to the general public, and it is now time that the general public had some little show in the legislation passed by this House. It is time that the ordinary consumer comprising the great mass of the people, had some one to stand up for their interests as opposed to the corporations. I have seen no reason, I have heard no argument offered, to induce me to change my mind from what appeared to be the general opinion of this committee when this Bill was up before.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN.: T have listened to the discussion on this Bill, and have come to the conclusion that the only reason the Bill is being opposed is that the retail merchants came down here in a large body and opposed the principle of co-operation.


Ralph Smith: Oh, no.


William Melville Martin: My hon friend says no, but I heard my hon friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) the other night use that as his main argument, and I heard the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) to-night, use practically the same argument.


William Roche: No, you did not.


William Melville Martin: I was present in the Committee on Banking and -Commerce when the question of co-operation was discussed. There were no retail merchants there. A vote was taken and I voted for the principle of co-operation myself, because I am not opposed to it; if it will assist the people to buy more cheaply, I.am in favour of it. The Bill was defeated on a vote of 10 to 8. I supported the measure, because I wanted to hear it discussed in the House of Commons, as I am not unfavourable to that principle. The objects of the proposed Bill seemed to me to be very harmless. It: has been argued by various members that the association should ask incorporation from the various provinces. If I understand the principle of granting incorporation to various organizations, prima facie, where a body of men are carrying on business in various provinces, this is the proper place for them To come, and it is only* a question for us to consider what rights we shall give. I fail to see anything very harmful in the objects of this Bill. It has been argued that they will create a combine. If that is the case,'they can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. The great majority of the arguments against the proposed measure seem to me, to be very hazy, and to depend on something that may occur in the future, so that they do not constitute any objection to the Bill at all. Clause 2 of the Bill says:
The objects of the association shall be the promotion of the industrial and commercial interests of the retail merchants of Canada, the collection and publication of information and statistics, &c.
So with the rest of the section^ there is nothing with respect to the carrying on of business. This association is being formed for the purpose of obtaining information which will be beneficial to its members, and if I understand the proposition, it is similar to a Bill which we passed the other day respecting the Dominion Millers' Association.


William Henry Sharpe: If the object of this Bill is not to form a combination and to affect prices, what object would a merchant in the province of Quebec have in common with a retail merchant in Saskatchewan in joining the association?


William Melville Martin: I can only refer to clause 2 of the Bill and say that the object in joining the association would be to get information. I cannot see any argument in stating that this association is going to increase prices. No information has been placed before the House as to that. It does not say so in reciting the objects of the association. My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) says it would not say so in any
case. But we must find within the four corners of the Act the object for which an association is incorporated, and I fail to see anything that would lead me to oppose the Bill. I have heard clause 8 discussed, which says they may accept, endorse and become parties to promissory notes and bills of exchange. That might lead us to think they intended to carry on commercial operations, but I find that this is to be for the purposes of the association, and in clause 2 I fail to see anything which will lead me to believe that they are going to carry on a large retail business ot attempt to enhance prices.


David Henderson: After an experience of 25 years in the retail business, I am satisfied that you cannot get that harmony and unanimity amongst retail men that will bring about an enhancement of prices. I do not fear at all that any such combination can be brought about amongst retail men even if this Bill is adopted. I would support this Bill if it were nothing more than one clause-clause (d), section 2. I think it is a good clause:
The procuring and furnishing to its members information as to the solvency of persons who deal with any of its members.
To my mind that clause is worth all that is in it.	i


Mr. TUBEIFF.: The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Henderson) thinks that there would not be unanimity enough to enable them to accomplish any of the objects of a combination, but if my hon. friend had read the proceedings of the meeting of the Wholesale and Eetail Grocers' Association in Toronto during this week he would have found that they have a great deal of power to do that very thing. They are proposing now that the manufacturers should make a price at which any particular article should be sold to the consumer, that neither wholesaler nor retailer shall be able to compete one with another. That is what they are trying to bring about. I am opposed to this legislation for the reason that we have had a little taste of just such legislation, or just such efforts in the west. A few years ago we had the Eetail Lumbermen's Association, and it can be said about the Eetail Lumbermen's Association just w'hat has been said here to-night, that they did not propose to do any large business themselves. The Eetail Lumbermen's Association as an association did not go into the handling of lumber. They did not >
open lumber yards or sell lumber to the farmer or the builder. They had a far deeper object in view and they accomplished that object. What they did was this:	They
stifled competition from one end of the west to the other. For years and years there was no competition in the lumber business, and the retailers were making

anywhere from $6 to $11 a thousand feet B.M. That association accomplished that in this way: They went to the mills cutting lumber for the market and said: There is our list of retail merchants in the different towns. We propose that there shall be only one lumber merchant in a certain town, that there shall be only two lumber merchants in a certain other town, and if you sell to anybody outside of this one merchant or outside of these two merchants, as the case may be, not one single member of the Retail Lumbermen's Association will buy a carload of lumber from you. That went on year after year, and if this legislation were passed what is there to prevent the retail merchants from doing the same thing? You give them the opportunity. Why should we in this Dominion parliament usurp the powers of the provincial legislatures and pass legislation of this kind that would be a benefit to the retail and wholesale merchants, but which would certainly not be in the interest of the consumer? We might as well stand by the consumer instead of standing by the merchant. We had a very unfortunate experience in the west in connection with lumber, and it became so bad that we were forced-	,


An hon. MEMBER.: Time is up.


John Gillanders Turriff: No, time is not up yet for a minute.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I will answer the hon. gentleman later on.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question, question.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not understand the question of the hon. gentleman; therefore I am unable to answer it. I hope the House will take warning by the experience we had in the west and not think of passing legislation of this kind. This is the wrong kind of legislation and even if it is-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Nine o'clock.


WATER AND WATER-POWER IN RAILWAY BELT, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired, House again went into committee on Bill (No. 187) to confirm and declare the rights of the Crown with respect to water and water-power, and relating to the diversion, acquisition and use of water in the railway belt in British Coliumbia.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 2-interpretation.
Mr. BRADBURY.: I would like to have some explanation of what that means.


Frank Oliver: There was an explanation given before the Bill was read the second time; however, I will give another explanation if it is considered desirable. ' Mr. TURRIFF


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to know if this Bill takes the control of these water-powers from the local government and transfers it to the Dominion government.


Frank Oliver: What is called the railway belt of British Columbia is a strip 20 miles wide on each side of the Canadian Pacific railway from the eastern boundary of the province to nearly its western boundary. This is land that became the property of the Dominion by reason of the agreement made with the province of British Columbia in regard to the construction of a Pacific railway. The ownership of the land is vested in the Dominion. Until comparatively recently the administration of water rights within the railway belt was carried on by the provincial government. The provincial government administered the water rights in the railway belt as well as in the other parts of the province. There was always 'Some question as to whether the right of administration of water in the railway belt properly rested in the province or in the Dominion. However, the province was exercising the right and the Dominion was not contesting it, but it was so uncertain that the right was in the province that on several occasions, where large works were being carried forward, the parties who were interested in the -water rights in connection with these works, having received authorization from the provincial government, came to the Dominion government for a confirmation of their rights. In certain cases where large amounts of money were involved, the parties who secured the water-rights from the British Columbia government, in order to make themselves secure in their title, came to the Dominion and got a quit claim from the Dominion. ' I point this out to show that the question of title was always in doubt. At last, the issue was raised. A case was entered in the Exchequer Court, and that court gave a decision to the effect that the right to water in the railway belt was vested in the Dominion and not in the province. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has given a decision confirming that of the Exchequer Court. The case is again being appealed to the Privy Council, and until the Privy Council has decided, the question is not settled.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did that decision go to the length of holding that after the land was alienated, the Crown by virtue of the Dominion would still control?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that question. I am merely stating the facts as I understand them. As soon as the decision of the Exchequer Court was given the province ceased granting water rights within the railway belt. They took for granted, whether wisely or unwisely, that that decision set aside their Jurisdiction

for the time being. The result of that decision is that the water rights which were granted by the province within the railway belt have no standing in law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Do I understand the minister to say that the judgment is now in appeal before the Privy Council?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then the question is still open?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the minister to say that the judgment of the Exchequer Court had the effect of settling it?


Frank Oliver: For the moment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the case is still pending, I cannot see how anything is settled. Who appealed it?


Frank Oliver: The province. The judgment of the Exchequer Court is the law until it is reversed on appeal, and under that condition of facts, the water rights granted by the province in the railway belt have no legal status.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But does not the hon. gentleman see that if we interfere now by legislation we shall be rendering the judgment of the further court nugatory, even if on the merits it reverses the decision which we act upon. We would be interfering with the ultimate decision of the courts, and we certainly should not do that until we get the decision. Our legislation might be used to prejudice the decision.


Frank Oliver: Our legislation cannot affect the decision of the Privy Council.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the Privy Council reverses the judgment, our legislation will be nugatory.


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does it strike the minister to be a wise thing to legislate in that state of affairs, with the question of our authority being liable to disappear as a possible effect of the judgment of the Privy Council?


Frank Oliver: That is what I am trying to convince the House of. Let me repeat that, as I am advised, from the decision of the Exchequer Court the rights granted by the province within the railway belt have no legal status, and will not have any unless and until that decision is reversed by the decision of the Privy Council. That means that rights of serious importance 'within the railway belt, which should be maintained in legai status, have not that legal status. There is a chaotic condition, then, in regard to water rights
within the water belt. That is a very undesirable condition, and what we want to do by means of this Bill is to say that these rights, which have been invalidated by the decision of the Exchequer Court, shall be, under the conditions set out in the Bill, re-established by the authority of this parliament, so far as this parliament has authority to do that.


Mr. BURRELL.: I am informed that there is a possibility of the Privy Council taking up this case next fall. Has the minister any information as to that?


Frank Oliver: I understand that leave has just been granted for the hearing of the case by the Privy Council. I cannot say how soon a decision will be reached; no person can say that. There is good hope that it will not be interminably delayed. But it makes no difference whether it is one month or six months or six years, during the interval these important rights have not that legal status to which they are properly entitled, and I conceive it to be the duty of this parliament not to allow that condition of affairs to continue. So long as this parliament has jurisdiction, it is its business to re-establish those rights. That is one proposal of the Bill. The other proposal is this: There are large investments of capital at present and in prospect. There is the work of irrigation, which is necessary throughout a large part of the railway belt, and neither tlm investments of capital nor the work of irrigation should be hampered if it can be avoided. The Bill, then, in another part assumes that the decision of the Exchequer Court will be upheld, and authorizes the Governor in Council to grant licenses for water rights within the railway belt.
It may be said that it is not wise for parliament to take or give that power when the power may shortly be taken away by a reversal of the decision of the Exchequer Court. But on the other hand it does not seem to me to be wise that the development of (power or the work of irrigation in the railway belt should for any reason be delayed, certainly not because of any lack of legal right in the matter. Now, so long as the legal right was assumed to rest with the provincial government, the provincial government granted 'all rights that were required, and when 'the parties got those rights they came to thisi government andi got a quitclaim. The British Columbia government not now being in a position as I am advised to grant rights, this parliament may assume to itself the power to grant rights. And persons coming to this government under the proposed legislation and getting rights may go to the province of British Columbia or to the provincial government of British Columbia and get a quitclaim

of the provincial rights., just as under the former conditions an applicant went to the .provincial government and came to us_ and got a quitclaim. The abject of this Bill is to validate existing rights, and to provide for continuous development of the water privileges in the railway belt. Notwithstanding the litigation that is now in progress, that is the whole purpose of the Bill. That is all we have in view. We consider it [DOT]absolutely necessary in the line of good government and for the safety of capital, and for the continuous development of the railway belt. For that reason we ask the House to agree to it.


Hugh Guthrie: If what has just been described by the minister in his last few sentences were the scope of the Bill I do not think it would be open to very much objection. But unfortunately the Bill goes very much further than that. I have had occasion to look into it with more care than I would usually bestow upon a matter affecting rights in British Columbia, by reason of the fact that I happen to be acting as solicitor and counsel in a rather heavy case, now pending before the Exchequer Court of Canada in regard to certain water rights in British Columbia. On account of the case no doubt my attention has been drawn particularly to the various clauses of this Bill. I think the object of the minister is a most laudable and proper one in seeking to. give definite confirmation to rights which may be more or less in jeopardy owing to the uncertainty of the matter as it now stands, as between the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia and of the Dominion of Canada. But I would point out to my hon. friend the minister that the decision of the Exchequer Court was given in the month of May, 1909, just a year ago. The case went to the Supreme Court, was decided in the Supreme Court last December, the judgment of the Exchequer Court being upheld, and it has now gone to the Privy Council. Leave to appeal was granted the_ day before yesterday, and in all probability the matter will be argued and probably decided by the Privy Council at its sittings in mid-summer, probably in one or two or, at most, .three months. I should think under the circumstances it would ibe reasonable for the minister to allow this measure to stand over until the next session of this House, some time next fall. By that time 1 nave no doubt we will have the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and we will know just what the rights of the respective governments are in regard to the waters in the railway belt of British Columbia. I think if the only object of the minister is to confirm existing rights that can be done in a single clause and capital Mr. OLIVER.
will not be left in uncertainty or jeopardy. A single clause will be all that is necessary by way of confirmation of rights granted by British Columbia or of rights granted by the Dominion of Canada. But my hon. friend the minister has. gone much further than that in his Bill. He has sought to wipe out common law rights, the rights of riparian owners in British Columbia, a matter which I should say this parliament has nothing to do with. He has sought also to introduce a licensing system to be carried on under regulations which are not laid down in the Act, and which are to foe hereafter prescribed by orders in council. He has given other rights in regard to expropriation which particularly affect the case in which I am interested in the Exchequer Court.
Now, if these matters are to be legislated on in this Bill, I can only say to my hon. friend the minister that at this late hour of the session, he has stirred up about as contentious a measure as we have had before us this parliament, and certainly one of the most intricate measures. The interests involved are almost innumerable. In the first place there are those people who own land in the railway belt, who acquired their land before confederation. I know of the case of one man who is now a suppliant in the Exchequer Court, and who got his land from the old Crown colony before British Columbia entered confederation. He claims common law rights as a riparian proprietor which this Bill seeks to take away from him. There is another class of persons who obtained their land from British Columbia after confederation, _ but before the conveyance in 1880 from British Columbia to the Dominion of Canada. They have rights to be protected. There is a third class who obtained their land after the transfer from British Columbia to the Dominion of Canada, by patent from the Dominion government. That land has been alienated by the Dominion government. And then there is a balance of land remaining now, so far as proprietary ownership goes, in the Dominion of Canada. These various rights have to be safe-guarded in this Bill. Then there are other interests to be looked after. There are persons who have obtained water rights in the province of British Columbia and unconfirmed by the Dominion government. There are others who have obtained water rights which have been confirmed by the Dominion government by way of a quitclaim deed as my hon. friend the minister has announced. And there are others such as my clients, the city of New Westminster, who have both land and water rights in the railway belt granted to them by order in council, not by a quitclaim deed, but by an order in council.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: By which government?


Hugh Guthrie: This government, and it is now the subject of litigation in the Exchequer Court. I understand from a conversation with my hon. friend, the minister that he is quite willing to put a clause in this Bill protecting the rights of litigating parties. That is usually done and I am content with that. But, there is another clause in the Bill which might wipe out the effect of any judgment which the Exchequer Court might give. I mention this case because it is a case of a good deal of prominence, and of a great deal of consequence in the province of British Columbia. It is a case in which the city of New Westminster acquired by an order in council, a grant of 18,000 acres of land and the water on the land, as we maintain, in the railway belt. The water was procured for a special purpose and the land was granted for the protection of the lake where the water came from. That was done by an order in council by this government in 1902. After the decision had been given by the Exchequer Court last summer, the Vancouver Power Company came to Ottawa and made application for rights in that same water and upon that same land. The order in council of seven years ago was cancelled and a new order in council issued granting the rights that formerly belonged, as the city contends, to the city ot New Westminster to the Vancouver Power Company. It is upon that question that the city have on a flat obtained from the government entered a petition in the Exchequer Court.	But the point is this. If
the action succeeds, if it be declared that the city of New Westminster is entitled to hold its land and is entitled to the waters which it obtained, any power company having a license from this government under the present legislation can immediately expropriate New Westminster of all its lands and all its water.
That is my own particular interest in regard to this pending legislation. But I also look to the broader question, and I submit that the broader question is one of too great intricacy to be dealt with in the closing hours of the session; there are too many interests to be looked into, too many interests to be safeguarded and very large interests too. I am told that some of the power companies of that province have investments of $20,000,000 and others have large though not so large, amounts. It may be that the title of all these com-.panies is more or less uncertain under the "decision of the Exchequer Court. I agree that some confirmation might well be given, but let it be by some simple enactment without attaching a licensing qualification which this Bill seeks to attach, without interfering with riparian and private rights, as this seeks to do, and with- [DOT] out prescribing regulations by order in council, which no one knows anything about as is proposed under this Bill. These are all proper matters for legislation, I admit, but I do not think that this is the time for that legislation. If the excuse is to confirm doubtful or uncertain rights, I say, by all means confirm them, but do not go further pending a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If that decision upholds that of the Supreme Court and I am bound to sav that I believe it will-there is no doubt that this government has power to regulate the waters in the railway belt of British Columbia. I think a comprehensive measure should then be brought forward and passed, proper regulations framed, licenses issued, and the government should take control of rates and tolls; but to do all that for the purpose of holding it for three or four months until a decision can be reached is, ,1 think, absurd. I would urge the minister to pass, in one clause, the confirmation he speaks of, and allow the matter of his Bill to rest until the Judicial Committee has decided this question. Next session we shall have the. decision one way or the other, and when that decision is reached, we can legislate with some intelligence on the subject. For, I am free to say, that I do not know when a more difficult question has come before this House. Far greater lawyers than I am, or can ever hope to be are very much puzzled as to the respective rights in these matters. The province of British Columbia conveyed a large block of land to the Dominion of Canada, there is no doubt. The Dominion of Canada obtained proprietary rights in that land. Did it obtain legislative rights? I doubt it very much. Could the Dominion, for instance, establish a municipal institution there? I say they could not; such matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You say the Dominion became land-owners?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, they have pro-priatory as distinct from legislative rights. But the decision of the Exchequer Court is that, on the Dominion's own land, at all events, they have the right to regulate the waters flowing therein. I know a case where a stream rises outside the railway belt, flows through a portion of it and then on into private property. Can it be said that the government has the right to pass legislation affecting the flow of that water, and the use of it though only a small portion of its flow is within the railway belt? These are some of the questions that come up. I would urge upon the minister, for the sake of peace, and for the sake of this legislation and do justice to

all concerned, that he should, as he proposes by the statement he has made introduce some legislation by way of confirmation, and nothing more. It would be only a provisional Bill in any case. It may be upset in a few months. I understood the confirmation was to last for two years. But I think the minister is on dangerous ground if he goes further, and it is hardly a proper time to bring in legislation so intricate and comprehensive as the present Bill.


Martin Burrell: A large portion of this territory is in my own riding, so this. Bill is of great interest to me. I have a good deal of sympathy with the view put forward by my bon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and I think the minister, if he could see his way to it, would do better to put through a Bill with a simple clause validating existing rights and providing a modus vivendi until the matter is settled. In the dry belt of British Columbia, in which this land is largely situated, there would be many complications if this Bill is put through in its present form. Many of these difficulties have been pointed out by the hon. member for South Wellington. If we look forward even to the Privy Council confirming the decision of the Exchequer Court, there are many sections of the Bill which, to my mind, call for serious consideration. For instance, there is the validation of the records since 1880 and up to May, 1910. But, under this clause, they are validated only for two years, and, after that, practically all the provincial records, as I understand the Bill, would be wiped out, and the decision as to private record holders would be left to the Dominion government. From our point of view of the question of jurisdiction, it would be wiser to leave all these things to the province. The question arises.: Will they confirm the private records as they passed, or will they confirm them as we are doing now in the province, because we have recently passed a comprehensive Act in which we are going to alter the records and apportion the water in a fairer way, and give the users the benefit of the somewhat limited supply that exists in some districts. So far as irrigation is concerned, as the hon. minister knows, nearly every creek in the dry portion is recorded up to the full, that is as far as low water is concerned. Then, there is the question concerning water arising outside the railway belt, and a lot of similar questions that, it seems to me, would give rise to complications under this Bill. I confess, as I have said, that I think the suggestion of the hon. member for South Wellington, if the minister can see his way to accepting it, would be a happy solution of the difficulty-a simple Bill with a validating Mr. GUTHRIE.
clause, and providing a modus vivendi pending the settlement.


Mr. CONGDON.: I cannot see the clause which has the effect spoken of by the hon. member for South Wellington of taking away private or riparian rights.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 4.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: It certainly preserves them.


Hugh Guthrie: Read the last clause.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I have read it-it certainly preserves them. The last clause relating to riparian rights merely refers to riparian rights in Crown property, not in respect of property already granted by the Crown. And, in any case, the saving clause to which, as my hon. friend intimated, the minister has expressed his assent, that the Bill should not interfere with vested rights or pending litigation will cure any danger of that kind. It seems to me that it is necessary not merely that existing rights should be confirmed, but that there should not be a hold-up of all business in that belt by reason of the want of power in the Governor in Council of Canada to act. We must take it that at the present time, these rights are vested in the Governor in Council. Having considered the matter, I cannot see that, while the case is pending before the Privy Council any one would make a large investment under a grant made under regulations of tbfi Governor in Council. He certainly would make no large investment under such a grant without getting it confirmed by the province of British Columbia. It seems to me also that my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) is a little too sanguine when he expects a decision of the Privy Council in a week or two. I have had some experience with the Privy Council, and I know that it is not the custom of that body to give a decision within a month of two after leave to appeal has been given. If a decision comes within a year, it will exhibit the usual activity of the Privy Council in respect of such matters.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They hear these cases in July.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: Leave was only granted yesterday, and it would be impossible that that appeal should be brought on in July. With respect to the other question that has been raised as to water outside the belt, this legislation cannot interfere with that. With respect to the rights of the Dominion within the twenty mile belt as to streams passing through it, this Act does not increase in the slightest the rights of the Dominion, or take away from the rights of the province. The Dominion can only exercise those rights with due regard to

the rights outside, as an ordinary proprietor could. They can divert the water, but they must return it to the stream exactly as it was before. It seems to me it is essential that this Bill should apply not merely to the confirmation of existing rights, but to make sure that 'any one can act who receives something in the nature of a confirmatory grant from the province of British Columbia. There may be some objectionable features in some of the sections of the Bill; I do not know about that, but at all events, they can be dealt with as we reach them.


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon. friend has misapprehended the meaning of clause 4 in regard to riparian rights, which says:
Also saving the right of every riparian owner in the use of water for domestic purposes as that expression is defined in this Act.
But domestic purposes is not the only right of a riparian owner, that is one of the purposes that is saved to him, that is his common law right, and he can do what he pleases with the water provided he returns it to the stream and does not interfere with the man below him. But the only right preserved to him under this section is to use water for domestic purposes. He may run machinery, he may do what he pleases with it, so long as -he returns it, and allows the joint proprietor the natural flow of that water uncontaminated.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I do not understand that the Act intends to take away from any present riparian owner any of those rights which he now has; it merely provides that in grants of that land there shall be preserved to him in the ordinary manner the riparian rights as defined by this Act. This Act can never be interpreted as taking away any personal right which he has already. It can only be interpreted as limiting the rights which a riparian owner will have under the rights hereafter granted by the Dominion.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I would ask the minister whether, in his view, this Act goeS beyond the judgment of the Exchequer Court?


Frank Oliver: Our view is that it does not. Our view is that the decision of the Exchequer Court covered not only the proprietary rights, but the legislative authority. I think the British Columbia government has assumed the same thing. So we are merely acting as we understand the matter.


James Davis Taylor: I think the minister informed the committee a short time ago that the British Columbia government had ceased to exercise water rights within
the railway belt. I would like to ask him whether he speaks with authority in saying that?


Frank Oliver: I have been so informed, I believe it is correct.


James Davis Taylor: That is, that thAy are issuing no new licenses and collecting no further revenue from the present licensees?


Frank Oliver: I could not say about collecting revenue, but I understand they are not issuing new licenses.


James Davis Taylor: I may say for the information of the minister, that reading the daily press of the province, I continue to read notices of application from time to time for water privileges within the railway belt, addressed to the water commissioner of the provincial government.


William Pugsley: I can understand that' applicants might publish notices of their intention to apply, but it does not follow


James Davis Taylor: These notices are advertised by the water commissioner himself.


William Pugsley: Well, I w'ould be very much surprised to learn that after the Exchequer Court of Canada had decided that the British Columbia government has no property in, or right to deal with, water rights within the railwav belt, and after that decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, I would be surprised to learn that the British Columbia government was still continuing to act as if it owned the water rights, and as if such judgment had never been given. The law to-day, notwithstanding an appeal to the Judicial Committee, is that these water rights are vested in the Dominion government; that is the law, and until the judgment of the Supreme Court is reversed, all inferior courts are bound to take notice that this is the law'. If, on appeal to the Privy Council, the decision should be reversed, of course, then the law would be different from what we must all understand it to be to-day. While upon my feet, I desire to say that I feel that my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who has had occasion to give close attention to the rights of parties who might possibly be affected by this legislation, has approached the discussion of the subject in the fairest possible spirit. I do not think he and the minister are very far apart in their view of what is really the object to be aimed at. I understand that what the minister seeks by this Bill is to preserve the status quo so far as any'rights have been granted by the British Columbia government. He recognizes, and my hon. friend from South Wellington recognizes also, that an enormous amount of capital

has been invested, upon the idea that the British Columbia government had power to deal with these water rights. Now, the minister desires, and I am sure my hon. friend from South Wellington, and no doubt every hon. member of this House, would desire that those rights shall be preserved as far as possible, and that the capital wdiieh has been invested in these great undertakings should be protected to the fullest possible extent. I think all will agree with the Minister of the Interior upon that point. Now, the minister seeks, by section 6, to safeguard the interests of the capitalists; in that particular. The next question is as to whether all existing rights are preserved. It is desired, I think by all, I am sure it is desired by the minister, that no existing rights should be interfered with. As to that, I am bound to say that it is just possible that the new section 4 is not quite as broad as it should be. I am inclined to think myself that it would be only right and proper that the rights of every riparian owner, whatever they may be, not simply to the use of water for domestic purposes, but whatever those rights might be, should be preserved and not interfered with in any way by this Act. Then I understand the only other serious objection which myf hon. friend from South Wellington raises is that if the Governor in Council were to issue a license under section 9, the licensee might have power to expropriate land under the provisions of the Railway Act, and so in that way interfere with vested rights. I think myself the suggestion of my hon. friend is well worthy the consideration of the Minister of the Interior. I know he does not desire to have any provision in the statute which would at all imperil or jeopardize the rights which already exist in the city of New Westminster or in any other municipal or other body. It seems to me we might well enter upon the consideration of this Bill, and as we come to different sections suggestions might be made which I have no doubt will be carefully considered by the minister, and it may be that we could get together, knowing that we all have practically the same object in view, to protect the status quo, to protect capital, pending the final decision of the Judicial Committee, and also to safeguard existing rights. Having these objects in view, it should be possible in the different sections to so safeguard the Bill as to carry out the views which we all, I think, entertain.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I cannot agree that the ^matter is as free from doubt as the minister would make it. I see the force of what has been said by the hon. member from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) as to the wisdom of waiting until the ultimate Court o.f appeal gives a decision. I have Mr. PUGSLEY.
herfei the judgment of the Exchequer court. I do not read that judgment as declaring that this parliament has legislative .power. That would be like this Dominion declaring that because it owns the Welland canal which runs through the counties of Lincoln and Welland, it would have the right to legislate in those counties.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend suggest that in respect of Dominion lands, the Dominion government would have to go to a provincial legislature for legislation?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not want my hon. friend to make a foolish argument and put it in my mouth. He might wait until I advance my argument, and see if it is as foolish as he suggests. It would be a foolish argument

Mr. PUGSLEY'. I am inclined to think it would too.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He might pay me the compliment of believing that I would not advance such a foolish argument until 1 have stated my position. The court has not decided that the Dominion has sole jurisdiction to legislate for these lands. What has happened is that the government as owners of property, just as .they own the Welland canal, have a right to object to that property being interfered <with or confiscated. The judgment of the Exchequer Court is that a certain grant which the Dominion government was asking them to hold invalid is invalid and conveyed no interest to the defendant company. Why? As being an interference with property subject to the exclusive authority of the Dominion of Canada, that is property over which the Dominion government has a right to exercise rights of ownership. Second, 1 bev cause the diversion of water-power therein will be a serious interference with the navigation of the river and thirdly because it is not in accordance with the Water Concessions Consolidation Act of the province of British Columbia of 1897. This implies that if there was any legislation of British (Columbia which had undertaken to properly deal with this matter it would have had some force and effect in the opinion of the judge of the Exchequer Court because he says it is not authorized by a certain statute of British Columbia. The judgment continues. :
And this court does therefore order and adjudge that the beforementioned grant of the 7th of April, 1906, be cancelled.
It seems to me we are undertaking to assume that legislative authority has been given to us, but on that judgment that matter has never been decided. The judge merely gives to the Dominion of Canada,

as to any other owner of property, a right to object to interference or trespass or confiscation of that property and says that the province of British Columbia had not legislated to interfere with such ownership. Therefore, the person who claimed those rights had no standing for want of that legal authority from the statute of British Columbia and because the Dominion of Canada was the owner of property affected by it. As the hon. member for South Wellington has said, legislative power to control a title t-o lands is one thing, but the ownership of land, say the Intercolonial, does not give the Dominion government the right to legislate in New Brunswick in respect to matters not within the jurisdiction of the Dominion. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) that -this matter is full of very serious complications, and I do not think it is wise for the government at this stage of the session to press such a controversial matter as this, which will be very far-reaching in its effect from one end of Canada to the other. It will affect every province, and every interest of every province.


Frank Oliver: No doubt the question is complicated, but it is the duty of parliament to deal with questions, whether complicated or otherwise, if the public interest requires that they shall be dealt with. Our duty is to bring to bear the best intelligence we have, and the best methods we have of dealing with these difficult, 'complicated and) important questions. As to the legislative authority in regard 'to this matter, if there is any doubt about that the sooner that doubt is set at rest the better. Every one will agree on that point, and the way to set that question at rest is to exercise legislative authority and then the matter is brought to an issue forthwith. This question of water rights in the railway belt of British Columbia is, we all agree, of such great importance that we cannot afford to leave a particle of doubt in regard to the jurisdiction, either as to property rights or legislative jurisdiction. It is in the interest of every one that the question should be brought to an issue as quickly and plainly as possible. The question of legislative jurisdiction will certainly be raised by the passing of this Bill; I believe that the sooner it is raised the sooner it will be settled, and the sooner it is settled the better for British Columbia, and for everybody else. The Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia was here some time ago in consultation with the Department of Justice in regard to matters affecting the province and this question was under discussion between the Department of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia. The Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia and
the Department of Justice at Ottawa agreed that certain amendments would be right and proper. I shall read these amendments;
I	assume that the Attorney General was satisfied that they safeguarded the interests of the province, and I assume that the Department of Justice was satisfied that the interests of the Dominion were fully represented in them. The first amendment is to strike out section 3 as it stands at the present time and substitute the following:
This Act applies to all lands within the railway belt in the province of British Columbia as herein defined: Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any riparian rights or rights to water in or appurtenant to those lands described in section
II	of the terms of union between the Dominion of Canada and British Columbia as held under pre-emption right or by Crown grant, or to affect any riparian rights or rights to water in or appurtenant to lands which haying been heretofore granted by the Crown in the right of Canada are not now vested in the said Crown.
I think it will be agreed that this proposed change of section 3 covers a number of the important points raised by the hon. member for South Wellington. When we come to the consideration of the section I will move that this be substituted. It was agreed that section 6 should be amended by striking out the words between the word ' issued ' in the fifth line and the word * two ' in the eighth line, and substituting therefor th.e words ' prior to the passing of this Act '. The effect of this would be that all rights granted up to the passing of the Act would be confirmed, or would be eligible for confirmation, whereas, as the Act stands now, it is only rights granted up to the date of the decision of the Exchequer Court. Then, I woujd further propose as section 11:
That nothing in this Act contained shall affect any vested right or pending litigation.
With these amendments the Department of Justice of Ottawa and the Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia were both satisfied, and I would ask the committee to accept them when we come to their consideration.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Have they both agreed to section 5 as it stands?


Frank Oliver: I understand so.


James Davis Taylor: Is it the minister's intention to exercise the right he proposes to take there to confirm the rights heretofore granted?


Frank Oliver: Yes, that is the intention. That is the purpose of this provision.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that the amendment just proposed by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) with

regard to the question of riparian rights probably gets over the difficulty I referred to. I am quite satisfied that the difficulty did exist in that acute form under the Biil as drawn, and I am also quite satisfied that this will protect the rights and property of the riparian proprietors. But the other sections remain, to my mind, just as objectionable. The minister knows much better than I do what the view of the government and the Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia may be, but my information is that so late as the day before yesterday telegrams passed objecting to the Bill-I do not know with what department-but the objection came, as I am informed, from the British Columbia government, accompanied by the request that nothing be done pending the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, as to that my information may not be accurate. Clause 4 certainly is 'one of the most objectionable clauses in the Bill, and they do not seek to alter it. I have not been able very clearly to find out what the latter half of clause 4 really means. If it is intended by that language to establish all rights that have been granted by British Columbia or by the Dominion parliament heretofore, they 'have gone about it in a very clumsy fashion. The particular language that I refer to is this:
Unless, and until, and except only so far as some right therein, or to the use thereof, inconsistent with the right of the Crown, and which is not a public right or a right common to the public, is established.
These two last words certainly imply that the owner of a private right has to do something to prove and establish that right either before my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior or before some court. He may have his deed or order in council, but it is of no use to him until he takes some subsequent step to establish that right. I know of instances in British Columbia where parties have both orders in council from this government and from the British Columbia government and quit claim "deeds from this government. These rights are not established by that clause, but these parties must come to the Department of the Interior, submit their proofs and establish their rights if they can establish them. As the minister says that it is his intention to confirm rights, I ask for a substantive clause that such rights be and the same are hereby confirmed. Then, if the clause suggested by the minister is placed in the Bill I do not think the Bill can be very much objected to, particularly if the clauses with respect to regulations, licenses and defining the rights as to water he stricken out. That would limit the Bill, merely in the first place, to declaring the rights of the Dominion government, and, secondly to the confirmation of rights heretofore granted, and thus protect the rights of the riparian owners.


Hugh Guthrie: 


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have a good deal of difficulty in seeing what is the purpose of this Bill, by section 4, declaring that these things are vested in the Crown which I understand to be the Crown in the right of Canada. Is not that precisely the question that the Privy Council is going to decide one way or the other? Am I right in that?


Frank Oliver: Yes, that is correct.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then, what is the purpose of our declaring that these things are vested in the Crown in the right of Canada while we have a pending suit as to whether they are or are not? Upon this question at the present time we stand in the same position as any other litigant, and we are trying to make a title unto ourselves by declaring that these things are vested in the Dominion of Canada, a declaration which the Privy Council may make in a few months, or which the Privy Council may deny in a few months. I am at a loss to see what we gain by making a declaration of that kind when the question as to whether that declaration is true or not depends upon the interpretation to be put upon the effect of the agreement established by the statute, as I understand it, of British Columbia. This question will have to remain open until the Privy Council decides it. It may be that I do not grasu the effect of this legislation, but perhaps if I do not grasp it that is a reason why it may be inferred that there are other members of this House who do not quite grasp it. If this legislation cannot go over, as this has been our first opportunity of dealing with it, it might be well for the minister to give members of this House an opportunity of looking into it so as to place themselves in a position to deal with it intelligently. If the minister is not prepared to let the legislation absolutely go over, I would suggest that he at least let it stand for the time being until we can have an opportunity to look into it and get an understanding of it. I admit that it is only this evening that my attention has been called to this Bill, and in the examination that I have been able to give to it I have had difficulty to grasp its significance. I am unable to see the wisdom of passing legislation declaring that we have a title when the question whether we have one or not is pending before a court whose decision we can reasonably .expect to have in a few months. I think the minister might at least consider the advisability of letting the Bill stand over until to-morrow or the next sitting day so that we can look seriously into it.


Frank Oliver: Everybody will concede that there is nothing that comes up for legislation quite so complicated as the question of water rights, and it is no discredit to apy man that he fails to grasp the full

import of that question at first view. It is on good authority that in the United States in the irrigation states 90 per cent of the litigation is in regard to water rights. That does not relieve us from the necessity of dealing with the question when it is imnortant.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not suggesting that we should be relieved from dealing with it; but precisely because it is important. and because the minister admits that at first glance it is difficult to deal with,
I suggest that it should stand over for a day. He seems to think that it is difficult to grasp because it is a question of water rights. There are other reasons why it fs difficult to grasp. If the minister will afford the members of the House some time to examine the matter with a little more care than it has been possible to do since the Bill has been brought up this evening, we could deal with it more intelligently, and therefore we would perhaps get through with it more promptly than we can when we have difficulty in seizing the purpose and effect of its provisions.


Frank Oliver: The question has been raised why a declaration is made. The water rights, as I say, are important, they are of stupendous importance and if nobody owns them, as it may be held that nobody does own them to-day, then anybody may go in and take possession of them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They will not run away.


Frank Oliver: No, but possession being established when there is no law against taking possession, there may be some difficulty about dispossession arising afterwards.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there any real danger of that?


Frank Oliver: Yes, very real. In evidence of that I find that in the Irrigation Act there is a parallel clause, and for exactly that reason; and one reason why we have so little litigation in regard to water rights on our western prairies as compared with the prairie states, is because of this declaration of ownership on the part of the government in these water rights. As I understand the situation, the water rights of the railway belt in British Columbia are not in possession of either government at the present time, and what is wanted is a declaration by this government that so far as it is concerned, it has the right to these waters, and that any right acquired must be acquired from this government. That begins a title, and without such declaration there is a possibility of title being acquired by possession or occupation, or other means, which only tends
to litigation and to confusion. That is the reason for this section.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does not the hon. gentleman think that the very litigation which he wants to avoid will be multiplied by our acting now, pending the decision of the Privy Council? We will put the public entirely on their defence, so that they are bound to take some action in regard to.every one of these matters. The government of the Dominion butts in and says: We are going to force you to fight for your rights when perhaps after the decision of the Privy Council all cause for litigation will be avoided. It seems to me that you are passing a Bill to promote litigation, and for the benefit of the legal profession of British Columbia.


Frank Oliver: No, it is a Bill to avoid litigation. The only question is in regard to the assumption of possession by the Dominion and the granting of rights under that assumption. I maintain that it is just as necessary that the Dominion should make this declaration, and that means should be taken that Tights might be acquired under the authority of the Dominion, as that the rights now existing should be affirmed. Unless there is a foundation for the title which this section proposes to establish, a title may be acquired in the present condition of affairs by- mere occupation, by possession, by various means, which tend not only to litigation, but to hamper legitimate development.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Titles could not be obtained by possession against the Crown.


Frank Oliver: But the Crown in the right .of the province has been declared by the courts not to have title, and the Crown in the right of the Dominion has not declared itself to be in possession. If in the end the Crown in the right of the province is declared to be in possession, it is true no harm is done; but if in the end it is declared that the Crown in the right of the Dominion is in possession, then the man who has entered into occupation since the decision of the Exchequer Court, and before the Dominion takes the authority that will come to it, if it does come to it, by the decision of the Privy Council, has established a squatter's right to the water, has found an impediment in many cases to proper development, and has laid a foundation for litigation and for trouble that is absolutely desirable from every point of view that we should try to avoid. I speak not from lack of knowledge, but from actual knowledge in regard to the effect of this parallel provision in the irrigation law as it governs in the prairie provinces. What was necessary in that case is iust as necessarv in this, and what is to the benefit of these provinces in that re-

gard is just as necessary to the benefit of the railway belt of British Columbia in regard to its water rights.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it possible to obtain a squatter's right in the railway belt? I understood that that was specially provided against in the Act


Frank Oliver: In what Act?


Hugh Guthrie: In the Act conveying the land to the Dominion government.


Frank Oliver: I probably misused the word ' squatter ' when I spoke of occupation of water rights as a squatter's right. Probably a squatter's right is confined to a land right. What I meant to say is that the man who actually acquires the use of water, not contrary to law, who has invested his money in the use of that water, has acquired an equitable right, if not an actual legal right, that it would have to be so regarded and might be an impediment to proper development and a foundation for litigation. I am not speaking without authority. It is that condition of affairs existing in the irrigation states which has been a fruitful source of litigation in those states in regard to water rights, and it is because we have avoided that in the prairie provinces that we have been successful in avoiding litigation in the prairie provinces.


Hugh Guthrie: I only wish the minister had shown as much regard for the owners as for those who have an equitable right. If his regard had been as strong when the New Westminster application was before him, I think we would have established a very strong equitable right. However, on the question of declaration, I do not think any harm will come from that, I do not know that any good will come particularly from it either, and I do not think that the minister's fears are justified, if by the decision they obtain rights. If they do obtain rights, all the government will have to do is to remove them by force if necessary. But I think it would be quite reasonable to insert a clause declaring that the government claims to have such a right. It is true that in a few months the courts may say that the declaration is no good. If it does no good, it cannot do much harm. But the minister desires to go further than declaration and further than confirmation. He speaks now of granting future rights, and I do not think that is proper, having regard to the case before the Judicial Committee. I think that if he stopped with the declaration and the confirmation, and if he safeguards, as he proposes, the rights of riparian owners and the rights of litigants. the_ House would probably agree with the Bill. But the Bill goes much further than that. If the minister is content to reduce it to that, I think no great diffi-Mr. OLIVER.
culty would arise. But I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the suggestion of my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Doherty) that it is a pretty intricate question to pass upon such short notice at this hour of the night and before such a Blim House. I know that on this side of the House there are some members who are interested in this proposal and who are not present to-night, having had no notice that the Bill was coming up. I think there are some members opposite, particularly from British Columbia, who had intended to take part in this debate if they had known that the Bill was coming jip tonight. It cannot prejudice it very much to let it stand over until, say Monday, and see if in the meantime we cannot come to some conclusion or amendment that will perhaps meet the views of all parties. I am satisfied that if it is merely a declaration and confirmation we can, but the Bill goes much further than that in its present form.


Frank Oliver: I have no wish in the world to force this Bill on the House, or to have it discussed when members are not fully informed in regard to it. I must clear myself from the imputation that I was undertaking to do so. The Bill passed its second reading some weeks ago, and has since been before the members foT committee consideration, and of course it has only been brought up in due course. In fact, it was postponed on one or two occasions at the request, I think, of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). So, I must not be blamed for having delayed it until this late stage in the session, and I do not wish it to be thought that I am1 forcing such an important measure upon the House without the very fullest and most satisfactory consideration. If it id understood that the Bill will come up for consideration not later than Monday, I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


James Davis Taylor: Before the committee rises, I would like to call the minister's attention to a point which he has not yet discussed. First of all, I come from the railway belt in British Columbia and from New Westminster where they are seriously concerned with this Bill. They have sent me a very urgent protest against the provision in the last clause which I will not discuss just now, as I will have another opportunity. But, I would like to point this out, that so far from there being any confusion in British Columbia because of the existing conditions of the law, I as a resident in the railway belt know that there is no confusion at all. There is nothing to indicate there that the province of British Columbia is not in possession of the water-powers within the railway belt,

and is not exercising it the same as it has exercised it during the 39 years we have been in confederation, exercising it without any question on the part of this government up to this day. The case now on appeal to the Privy Council does not set out in plain terms that the Dominion government does possess the rights which we are asked to declare by section 4 that the Dominion does possess. I would like to point out to the minister that while he proposes to put all the holders of water rights upon their defence at once, to see that they have those rights, his authority in the premises is not nearly so extensive as is set out here, and as I will show by reference to the judgment of the Exchequer Court. That judgment states that whatever right he has disappears, with respect to any portions of the railway belt, so soon as he sells that portion to settlers. Now a large proportion of the railway belt has been alienated already, sections of the railway belt are being disposed of to settlers right along, so that day by day or year by year, whatever right this government has there is vanishing and in the course of a short time the rights of the Dominion will cease altogether. Now, I ask the minister in view of that condition whether it would not be much better to come to an arrangement with the province of British Columbia that that province should continue to exercise the right which for 40 years has been exercised, rather than to make all the confusion that will be created by the passing of this Bill. I have not heard the minister refer at all to the section of the judgment which says that his right disappears with the alienation of the property to settlers. It seems to me that he could not have given attention to that. In view of the vanishing of whatever right he has there, it is all the more neces-cary that we should not do anything so drastic as pass a Bill, the effect of which will be to put every water owner there on his defence.


Frank Oliver: The suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) that we come to some arrangement with the province has in my mind a very great deal of merit, but we cannot come to any arrangement until we know whether we have any standing or not. Of course the case that is now before the Privy Council will decide whether there is anything to arrange or not. We may be entirely out of it afteT that decision is given, and certainly the province is not going to come to any arrangement until it is satisfied that we have some standing.


James Davis Taylor: Will the case really decide it?


Frank Oliver: It may not, but it will be a step towards a decision at any rate. And, as I say, I think the province could scarcely be asked to come to an arrange-'268
ment with a party that, possibly, has no standing whatever. I think that matter would have to wait until some decision is arrived at.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not hold the legislation for the same reason?


Frank Oliver: For the reasons I have given which, I think, are not affected by what my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) has said. However, Mr. Chairman, if the committee will permit, I shall be glad to have sections 1 and 2 passed-that is, the title and the interpretation clause-because I would like to move, so as to get in its proper place in 'Hansard,' the amended clause 3 which, of course, is very different from clause 3 in the Bill. I desire to leave it for the consideration of hon. members in the interval.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Without passing it to-night?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why could not the government submit a stated case to the Supreme Court, and get a decision on the rights of the federal and provincial powers? To hear and give judgment in such cases that was one of the great reasons for establishing the Supreme Court.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) was not in when some of the discussion was going on. A certain side of the case has been settled by the Supreme Court and is on its way to the Privy Council.


John Allister Currie: I desire to make a suggestion to the minister (Mr. Oliver), which he can think over. Would it be possible to appoint a joint committee or commission, one member representing this government, one representing British Columbia, and they to appoint a third, this body to administer this matter pending a decision in the litigation now in progress? That would enable business to go on, for the minister is anxious to see water rights granted, and I fancy that the province is granting some too. Everybody would be satisfied with some arrangement for management in the meantime by a commission if a commission could be arranged. As the minister says, there is no body in possession. I merely throw out the suggestion for him to think over. Possibly if the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and all concerned were to take the matter into consideration, they would w'ork out a plan on that basis.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that suggestion would quite answer. It is not -a question of administration, but of law that is at issue.


John Allister Currie: The minister has two things under consideration, as it seems to me. One is the question of such pro



perty Tights as have been granted by the province, and by the Dominion. But there is another part of this Bill which proposes to give the Dominion government the right to grant rights pending the decision. It is just possible that the Dominion government, whilst in temporary possession, might grant rights which would not be recognized by British Columbia, so that further litigation would ensue. But if rights were granted by such a commission, both governments being interested would immediately confirm them, and there would he no difficulty in the title.


Frank Oliver: There is great merit in that suggestion, but we are not able to deal with it at the moment. It is necessary that we should have the position established.
On section 3,


Frank Oliver: I move that the following be substituted for section 3-
This .'of applies to all latuls within the railway belt of the province of British Columbia as herein defined:	Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any riparian rights or rights to water in or appurtenant to those lands described in section 11 of the terms of union between the Dominion of Canada and British Columbia as held under pre-emption right or by Crown grant, or to affect any riparian rights or rights to water in or appurtenant to lands which having been heretofore granted by the Crown in the right of Canada are now vested in the said Crown.
I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


THE INSURANCE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 166) an Act respecting insurance.-Mr. Fielding.
Mr. FIELDING.: There were several
clauses allowed to stand.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think No. 59 was the first of these.


William Stevens Fielding: Under paragraph 3 of subsection (b) of section 59, dealing with the investments of the companies, it is provided that a company may invest in:
The preferred stocks of any company which has paid regular dividends upon such stocks or upon its common stocks for not less than five years preceding the purchase of such preferred stocks, or the stocks of any company which are guaranteed by a company which has paid regular dividends upon its preferred or common stocks for not less than five years preceding the purchase of such guaranteed stocks.	*
The point was raised, I think by my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley), that a small company might guarantee a Mr. J. A. CURBIE.
large amount of bonds of another company, and that would defeat the intention of the clause. It was suggested that we should put a limit upon the amount to be guaranteed in that way. The point seemed well taken, and I propose to add to this paragraph 3 these words:
Provided that the amount of stocks so guaranteed is not in excess of 50 per cent of the amount of the ordinary or common stocks, as the case may be, of the guaranteeing company.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: I wish to call up again section 14.


Mr MILLER.: Section 14 provides that Canadian companies should make a deposit with the minister to the amount of $50,000, and that foreign companies should make a deposit of $100,000. There are some Canadian companies doing 'an insurance business in some states of the American union who say that this provision interferes with their business, they say that the state of California, for instance, is discriminating against them in California because we in Canada discriminate in this way against foreign companies; and they say that within the last few days they have received advices that the state of Kansas also threatens to discriminate against Canadian companies for the same reason. Therefore, these Canadian companies ask that section 14 be amended to the effect that Canadian and foreign companies should be asked to make the same deposit, and they, therefore, ask that the word 'Canadian' in the second line of subsection 1, and the whole of subsection 2, be struck out, which would have that effect.


William Stevens Fielding: How would it do to make them both $100,000 instead of $50,000?


Henry Horton Miller: I think that would answer the same purpose; there would be no discrimination.


William Stevens Fielding: It is only fair to say that the Canadian companies would probably complain of that. There is something in the argument that if we do discriminate in this way we provoke retaliation on the part of the United States companies. I think under the circumstances, however, I would prefer to make both $100,000. I do not feel like resisting strongly the view of my - hon. friend from Grey (Mr. MilleT), but I would ask the sense of the House upon it.


Henry Horton Miller: Perhaps the minister might compromise and make it $75,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Should not the deposit have some relation to the amount of business that they do? $50,000 would be a small deposit if they do a large business.


Henry Horton Miller: The department will see to it that they have to keep a reserve proportionate to the amount of business that they do.


Robert Bickerdike: I am in favour of the suggestion to make them all $50,000. If you discriminate against foreign companies you provoke retaliation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think if $50,000 is enough to make a Canadian insurance company safe towards its policy-holders, it ought to make it equally safe for the policy-holders in any company.


William Stevens Fielding: I am disposed to accept the amendment of my hon. friend from Grey.
Further consideration of section 59, subsection 3, other securities authorized by Treasury Board.


William Stevens Fielding: We provided that a company might purchase securities not strictly within the scope of this clause in exchange for other securities which they wished to get rid of it. But it was pointed out that if they should buy these securities or take them in exchange for others, some provision should apply as to disposing of them within a reasonable time. I think that is a fair suggestion, and I propose that the following words be added to subsection 3:
But the bonds, stocks or debentures and other acceptances so authorized shall he absolutely sold or disposed of within five years after the acquisition thereof, or within such further time not exceeding one year as the Governor in Council shall, on report of the minister, fix and determine.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 60, subsection 2, custody of securities abroad.
FIELDING. There is a provision there that m case it is necessary to exchange securities they may be entrusted to a responsible person residing out of Canada. The point was taken that this ought to be done by a bank or trust company, and while we do not want to discriminate to the extent of indicating the particular kind of companies, we propose to say that instead of being entrusted to a responsible	person,	they	may	be entrusted to 'a bank, trust company or other *corporation	carrying	on	business	outside
of Canada'.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be possible that they would be entrusted to a corporation	carrying	on	business	outside
of Canada, say in the United States, to which it would not be desirable to entrust them?


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Stevens Fielding: It was not thought that any change should be made in this section.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I am to suppose that the minister has not approved of the suggestion I made that this section is objectionable as being retroactive to this extent that it imposes on companies with regard to policies issued before this legislation was enacted, obligations which do not come from the contracts they entered into in accordance with the law in force at the time the contracts were made and creates a right or protection in favour of the insurer to which he was not entitled. That would be avoided if the section were not made applicable to policies issued before the passing of this legislation. As a general principle retroactive legislation is not looked upon with favour and unless substantial reasons are given, this-section seems to me to be open to those objections.	->


William Stevens Fielding: I understand this point was fully discussed in the Senate Committee and representations made concerning it. After full consideration the conclusion was reached that this was the better way of dealing with it. I understand that the companies generally are quite satisfied with the clause. One outside company objected, but after hearing representations from that company the committee agreed that this was a wise provision. It is sometimes unavoidable in .making a law that you have a retroactive clause, but it is necessary in order to carry out the general policy. For instance in this Bill we give the policy-holders the right to vote. Some companies had decided to give that and others had not, but we give them all that right, and in that sense it might be called retroactive legislation.
On section 95, subsection (b) incontestability after two years.


William Stevens Fielding: The point was in regard to military service. I find on inquiry that some companies already specify that the policy-holders may engage dn war for the defence of Canada without any extra charge, but if they leave Canada and go abroad to engage in war they have to pay an extra premium which could not be very well fixed by law as various circumstances may change the nature of the risk. I doubt if we could by legislation make any improvement on the provision.
On section 11, assessment life insurance companies.


William Stevens Fielding: I desire to say that all the sections under the head of assessment life insurance companies are repetitions of

the present law. We are not proposing any change in the law respecting these companies.
On section 123, notice of intention to maintain a reserve.


William Stevens Fielding: I desire to make a change in conformity with a change made elsewhere in the Bill. I, therefore, beg to move that in line 3 of the section the words ' office of the superintendent ' be struck out and the word ' department ' be inserted in lieu thereof.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 139, insurance in unlicensed companies.


Robert Bickerdike: I think there is a misprint in this section. There is evidently a contradiction of the previous clause. It was understood that no broker from the United States would come into Canada and do business here. It was provided in the amendment that any man in Canada might insure his own property, but he could not become a broker for that purpose. I suggest that we change that clause so as to provide that a man shall simply insure his own property. I therefore propose that the section be made to read:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained any owner of property situated in Canada may insure such property.


William Stevens Fielding: This is the clause as to which there was the most discussion when we had the Bill before us a year ago. and as to which there has been the most contention. I have already explained the change desired there. In substance it was decided by the Senate, which I am willing to accept, that these outside insurance companies might under certain circumstances be permitted to do business when the business was offered to them, but they could not send here to solicit business or employ agents. Roughly, that is the substance of it. I do not know whether the words suggested by my hon. friend will carry out that purpose or not. My hon. friend means to distinguish between the owner and the broker?


Robert Bickerdike: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would not that, if it were adopted, prevent a man who had an insurable interest, other than a broker, from insuring his property? Any person might as the principal to the contract insure his property, but when a broker insures, he acts only as the agent of the person having the insurable interest. He is not insuring the property, he is procuring insurance for the person who employs him.


Robert Bickerdike: That has been the objection all along, and I do not see how this got into the clause. It is not the in-Mr. FIELDING.
tention of the Senate. It was understood that no outsider should be allowed to come into Canada and do the business of insurance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No person can insure a property unless he has an insurable interest in it, and it appears to me that th^ words ' any person may insure any property ' should be followed by the words ' in which he has an insurable interest.' It is not to be supposed that this clause can bd interpreted as meaning that a broker may start out and insure property wholesale.


Robert Bickerdike: That is what we1 want to make clear, that no man can go around and insure other people's property.


William Stevens Fielding: If he made a business of it he would be liable to the penalties of the Act. But suppose my hon. friend want3 to take some outside insurance, and he has not time to attend to it, and asks his neighbour to do it for him. The neighbour in that case would be acting as his agent. Would there be any objection to that?


Robert Bickerdike: It would open the door, and I do not think that was the intention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How could any one insure except through an agent who would act for the company, and give the company's official receipt?


William Stevens Fielding: Any man who acted as agent for a company would violate the Act, but the case suggested by my hon. friend was the case of an agent acting, not for the company, but for the owner.


Robert Bickerdike: As the clause reads, it says: ' Any person may insure any property situated in Canada.' I am afraid that is a contradiction of what was originally intended. I think it might be worded in this way: ' Any owner of property situated in Canada may insure it.'


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is necessary to make a distinction between the owner of property and one who has an insurable interest in it. You permit the owner to insure his interest, but the hypothecary creditor has not the same advantage. Why not provide that any person may insure any property in which he has an insurable interest?


William Stevens Fielding: I think the words ' may insure his property or any property in which he has an insurable interest,' would meet my hon. friend's view.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When a creditor, say a bank, requires a certain amount of insurance as collateral security for an account, and the insurance must be obtained within a limited time, unless there is an agent of the company to give an official receipt that

would be accepted by the bank as evidence of the insurance, the account might be impaired.


Mr. NESBITT.: A company does not wait until the last moment to place insurance. If they are insuring outside of Canada, they will have an agent outside of Canada who can provide for any additional insurance at any time by telegraph.


Mr. ROBB.: The amendment suggested by the hon. member for fit. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) might interfere considerably with the grain business of the west. There is a large amount of insurance carried on the grain in the elevators at Fort William, and it is often carried by the elevator company or by the brokers to whom the farmers consign their grain. The Bill as it is now provides for that, whereas if the aimendment of the hon. member for St. Lawrence division is adopted, it will hamper the elevator companies in handling the insurance.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the words suggested to be added ' or any property in which he has an insurable interest ' will meet the objection of my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister kindly explain what effect the Bill has in relation to the canvassing for insurance by foreign or unlicensed companies by means of circulars or other literature?


William Stevens Fielding: My attention was called to that the other night. We in general terms (forbid} advertising, but the word ' circular,' is not used, and we propose to submit an amendment to include the circular as a form of advertising which should be forbidden.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: This is the clause regarding which I have received a great deal of correspondence from my constituents, and I would like to know what changes have really been made. I understand that outside companies have hitherto been allowed to come to this country, and get business, and that you are now preventing that.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the spirit of the insurance law in the past has been that these outside companies should not do business in Canada, otherwise there would be no excuse for having an insurance law. It would not seem to be reasonable that we should require all our Canadian companies, and all other companies that desire to do regular business, to take out licenses, to make returns, and submit to penalties, if outside companies could come in, and do business without putting up any deposit, without any license or without making any returns. I think the spirit of the law always was that these companies
should not do business in Canada. However, the law was found not to be strict enough, and they did business. When the Insurance Act was being revised that question received a great deal of attention. The conclusion we reached before the committee of the House of Commons was that it would not be wise to forbid the business altogether, even although the spirit of the law seemed to contemplate that, because it was held both as respects the volume and the cost of insurance that large owners of property ought to have some liberty beyond that of dealing with licensed companies. Sometimes the licensed companies could not furnish the volume of insurance required at short notice, and sometimes thought they might indicate their ability to furnish the volume of insurance required, they quoted rates so much in excess of the mutual companies rates that the large owners of property felt very much aggrieved. Therelore the conclusion reached by the Banking and Commerce Committee was that we would permit them to do their business, but that we would impose a tax upon them for doing it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What was the tax?


William Stevens Fielding: The tax was 15 per cent on the premiums collected, with the qualification that in certain cases it should not exceed a certain limit. We regarded that as a fairly good compromise. However, it was one of those compromises I regret to say which pleased nobody. The insurance companies complained because they said we should not allow those companies to come in at all, and the large property owners complained, because they said we were preventing them from obtaining the insurance they desired. The Senate Committee devoted a great deal of attention to it. They heard gentlemen both for and against it, and I understand the representations made were both full and effective. The end of it was that the gentlemen on the Senate Committee, man>
ot them insurance men, came to the conclusion that it would be fair and reasonable to permit what might be called overflow insurance, that is insurance that cannot be furnished or obtained at home except at excessive rates, that property owners might be allowed to go out and obtain insurance from the foreign companies, but that the foreign companies should not be allowed to come in and seek it. And so the Bill comes to1 us in that form. As it stands now, an owner of property who is not content with the arrangements at home can get his insurance in these mutual companies, taking his own risk, making his contract in the United States, and bringing his suit, if he has to bring a suit, under American law. But the foreign company cannot come into Canada, and seek the business

br solicit business in any form. They cannot send agents in, they cannot open an office, and they cannot advertise, and we will have it so that they cannot issue circulars. In other words I can go out, and take insurance if I care to take the risk, hut the company cannot come to Canada, and solicit business from me.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Did these unlicensed companies not pay anything before for a license or make a deposit?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Did the insurance men who appeared before the committee admit that they were unwilling or unable to^ take any amount of insurance that might be offered to them?


William Stevens Fielding: I think in some cases they did, though somewhat reluctantly, but there were some cases in which they stated that they were not able to supply the volume of insurance required at short notice.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They are not admitting it all over the country.


William Stevens Fielding: I think I am safe in saying that they did admit it to the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They certainly did. One man stated in the presence of the representative of an insurance company that he had admitted that he could not take it. I think $450,000 was the amount. J was going to say with reference to prohibiting the distributing of circulars and advertising, that it might make it very difficulty for a great many of those who desire insurance to know how they can get it. Suppose I wanted to insure and I [DOT]am not in touch with any insurance men, and do not know the name and address *of any insurance company, how am I to find out if they are not allowed to advertise.	i	j i


William Stevens Fielding: Business men who have a large amount of insurance to take out usually inform themselves on these matters. Every manufacturer or merchant, or .large owner of property, is well acquainted with the system commonly called the New 'England Mutual and he knows he can get insurance in that way if he is willing to take the risk involved in it. But I think if we can give our Canadian companies and the foreign companies which come and take our licenses and submit to .all the conditions of the law, if we are giving them any measure of protection at all, I do not think we should allow outside companies to come in indiscriminately.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not indiscriminately. But suppose the Finance Minister himself wanted to insure, and I asked him which Mr. FIELDING.
company he was going to insure with, 1 venture to say that offhand he could not tell me.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How will the minister prevent circulars coming in? Suppose I am a manufacturer in St. Catharines and some company sent me a circular soliciting business, how are you going to stop them doing that. Who is going to punish them?


Air. HARTY.: I may be excused from speaking upon this clause of Bill (No. 139), from the fact that the- insurances of the corporation with which I am associated are all carried in the unlicensed companies referred to. Now some of these companies are in the habit of sending out monthly statements showing the result of each month's business, and if I understand the construction some of my brother members are endeavouring to place upon this clause I would not be able to receive these statements without incurring the risk of paying a penalty, for they come under the heading of circulars.
Again, suppose I desire to place additional insurance upon our premises tomorrow, I would be obliged to go to Boston or Providence to do this, as I understand I am debarred from allowing any agent of these unlicensed companies to visit our works, inspect the same, and fix the rate at which the insurance can he carried. This appears to me to be both unfair and embarrassing.


William Stevens Fielding: The inspector is allowed to come, that is provided for.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And the statement also would be allowed.


William Harty: The monthly statement that I have spoken of comes as a circular.


William Stevens Fielding: It would not be a circular advertising for business; it would be the rendering of an account in a transaction already made. All that we can hope to prevent-and I know that there are difficulties in the way-would be the sending of circulars to solicit business. But the difficulty of carrying this into effect is rendered less by the fact that, as hon. members know, these companies, as a rule, do not come with offers of business; you have to go to them. Knowing that to be the general practice, I do not think we shall have any difficulty in working it out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that is the practice, why do you need the clause at all?


William Stevens Fielding: You have to prohibit all from doing it, otherwise, somebody might do it.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: I have followed this clause as it was in the old Bill, and as we have it now from the Senate. It seems to

me that this clause which has been so much debated in the House and the Senate, has nothing in it. It is simply declaratory of what the law was before the Act was introduced. The Bill would be just as effective if the clause were struck out, except for the fact that the insured has to make a return to the department. 1 do not think the Act would be either better or worse if the clause were struck out. It is a fake, pure and simple.


William Stevens Fielding: In that case, it might just as well be allowed to stand. I am informed that, after very great discussion, the representative manufacturers and merchants who discussed the question on one side and the insurance companies on the other side, though neither party was fully pleased, agreed that this was about as wise a conclusion as could be reached.


Alexander Haggart: It does neither good nor harm.


William Stevens Fielding: If that could be said of all legislation, the world would be much better off than it is.


Arthur Meighen: There can be no question that the main purpose of insurance legislation is sacrificed by the arrangement, whoever may .havg agreed to it, that is, there is no protection for the public who may insure in these foreign and unlicensed companies. I would like to understand two things: first, do we as a committee proceed upon the assumption that, if the insured goes and seeks the company and is not made the subject of a canvas by agent or circular, he is entitled to no protection against a company that, possibly, is not in a financial position to meet losses? Second, in arriving at the 15 per , cent tax that was formerly proposed, was it estimated that this' would represent an equally onerous burden on the licensed companies to that which is imposed upon the licensed companies in the way of putting up a deposit and complying with the other obligations imposed upon them by the statute ?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not say it was
mathematically adjusted. It was regarded as a certain measure of protection which might fairly be given to the home companies. I suppose that the companies would claim that it was not equal to. the burdens imposed upon them. But, as I say, it was not intended to be a mathematical adjustment of burdens.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Do I understand that the present clause does not contain the provision for a 15 per cent tax?


William Stevens Fielding: That is struck out; there is no tax. That is the material change that was made in the clause by the Senate Committee.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I am surprised that we should allow that to go through here.
I did not know that the Senate had proposed that. I enter my protest on behalf of those I represent here. I think it is exceedingly unfair. The 15 per cent tax was a very slight tax under the circumstances. Our companies have to take out licenses, put up deposits, make reports and comply with all the conditions of the law, while the outside companies can do all the business they like quite free from these conditions. 1 say it is exceedingly unfair, and I protest against it.


Mr. FOWKE.: Is it not clearly in the interest of the insured public of Canada?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There are two classes, the insured and the insurers. The insurance agents do not seem to think that it is in the interest of the companies that they represent, or in their own interest, for they protest against it earnestly. I do not' know what the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) means by saying that it is in the interest of the insurance companies, when the agents of those companies protest against it. I agree with' the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner), and I think the Senate went a long way when they struck out this clause. I believe they should have left it in.


Martin Burrell: My view is the same as that of the hon. member for Souris. I have had many representations on behalf of insurance companies and their agents against this legislation.


William Stevens Fielding: It is the old question whether we shall protect one class or the other.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The manufacturers want protection in big things and free trade in the little ones.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought there was some force in the argument that this was unfair to the licensed companies. It is, however, a vexed and complicated question. If the parties chiefly concerned-of course, the whole public are concerned- the insurance companies on the one hand, and the representatives, so far as they can be assumed to be such, of the large inw suring public, the owners of large manufacturing establishments and the great merchants, have accepted this as, on the whole, a fair compromise, I do not think the House will make a mistake in assenting to it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I cannot understand why we should go on in this country continuously giving^ everything to the manufacturers. That is about what we are coming to as fast as we can. I am exceedingly sorry to think this fifteen per cent tax has been removed and, I say again, I enter my

strong protest against the clause as it stanch. The manufacturers are getting nearly everything in this country now, and it is about time that something were done to curtail their privileges.


Mr. TALBOT.: Fifteen years ago it was worse.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I am following the policy of Sir John Macdonald, who held that when these manufacturing industries ceased to be struggling infants we should cease to protect them.


William Stevens Fielding: It is only fair to say, that thh is not a manufacturers' question. The large merchants were represented also. For instance, Mr. Green-shields, of Montreal, representing one of the largest importing houses in Canada, I am informed, made one of the most effective speeches before the Senate committee in support of the view that they should be allowed to get outside insurance. Every large importer, every large manufacturer, every large merchant, or handler of produce is interested in this. Petitions came in in reams, not only from these people, but also from the agricultural interests, from the cheese and butter factories, complaining that if the fifteen per cent clause remained they would be severely pressed. I am not always supposed to be too favourable to the manufacturers, but it is only fair to say, as I have already said, that this is not a manufacturers' question, nor is it a merchants' question, but it covers practically all classes, including the agricultural.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The policy of self-interest will come into play.


William Stevens Fielding: In all these cases selfinterest is the moving principle. It is only the few gentlemen who sit in this House that can be impartial.


Arthur Meighen: It seems to me the chief danger is that the public is not protected against companies that may not be warranted by their financial standing. Another thing is that while the House has forbidden companies to solicit insurance by agents, it has so framed the conditions that there will be no need of a foreign company advertising or soliciting business, business will be forced upon it. They will be able to get business, or to offer business, at a so much lower rate that as soon as it is known that Mr. A has insured at such a low rate in a certain company in the states, his neighbour will at once apply to the same company for insurance, and before long the poor local agent will be completely out of business. I do not think this House should too hastily accept the amendment of the Senate. It should be the duty of the House Jo see that whatever Mr. SCHAFFNER.
tax may be imposed should be such that the burden will be not less than upon the Canadian company.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I may say that the insurance companies were not satisfied with the conditions imposed by the Senate, but they made up their minds to accept the conditions imposed by the Senate rather than discuss the Bill any longer, and if it did not work out reasonably satisfactory, they could come back again to the House, and get' it amended. That was their idea, I speak frankly, in accepting the conditions imposed by the Senate. There is no doubt that clause 139 is more or less of a farce, as it has been called, because it will be evaded, no matter what you do. I would like to say that it was not the so-called New England mutuals that were being kept out by the insurance companies so much as it was what we call the underground companies, the companies without any standing which are allowed to insure throughout the country, and of course the people that insure with them have to take their own risk. They do here now by this clause. There is a preventive to a certain extent. My own idea about the insurance business in this country is that there should be no exception or excuse, every company should be licensed, what is fair for one is fair for another, and if we are to have licenses at all, every company should be licensed without regard to where they come from. But the licensed companies tried to get that in the Bill for two years, and as I said, made up their minds they would accept the Bill as it is rather than continue the agitation, and see what could be done.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think we should try, and make the legislation in the true interest of the country. The insurance people felt that they were suffering an injustice, and the fact that they gave in, and said they would go without their just rights for a couple of years, does not concern me. What concerns me is whether this legislation is fair to the whole country. I agree with the hon. gentleman that they, all ought to be licensed, but we should not say that a company must continue to submit to an injustice, because they are afraid of the powers that be, or afraid of the Senate. If the thing is wrong we should say it is wrong, and if it is right we should put it there. I say again that there should be some license, or some tax imposed upon these companies that come into this country, and interfere with our domestic companies. I believe in the principle of protecting Canadian industry in every way.


William Stevens Fielding: At the end of subsection 1, to meet the criticism about circulars and so forth, I propose to add:

Provided further that no such company, underwriters or persons shall, within Canada, advertise their business in any newspaper or other publication, or by circular made in Canada or elsewhere, or maintain an office or agency therein for the receipt of applications or the transaction of any matter or thing relating in any way to their said business
I would understand that advertising by circular would not mean a statement of business.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the use of passing legislation if we cannot enforce it? How can you stop a man from sending me a circular from New York?


William Stevens Fielding: You could not prevent him sending it in, but you could punish the inspector who came here to inspect the risks of the company which violated that condition. By a special clause we allow these companies to send inspectors to examine the risks; but if we found that these companies were violating the intention of this Act then we could have recourse against the inspector.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do you mean to say that you could punish the inspector for some one else doing something in New York, for sending a circular info Canada ?


William Stevens Fielding: We would try, but we might fail.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You could get after the insured. If the company sends him a circular, he has no right to insure in that company.


John Allister Currie: Why all this sumptuary legislation? I am very much surprised. This House started out to make an insurance Bill for the people, to try and get them some rights which they were not getting from the insurance companies in the first place. We have landed up by giving the bulk of the rights entirely to the company; every particle of It is for the company except these two clauses. I think the least said about this the better. Because a man sends me a circular from New York, and if I get insured in a New York company, why should I be punished? I think that is very drastic legislation. _ I think people should have a few liberties left to them in business matters in this country. I think that is most absurd legislation. If you look over all the statute-books of every country, even Turkey, you would not find such foolish or sumptuary legislation, and I am surprised to find members asking for more of it.


John Herron: I have very serious protests against this clause from my portion of the country, and I would be prepared
to vote against clause 139 if I had an opportunity of doing so.


William Harty: It strikes me that you canno.t prohibit any one from sending a circular from ' elsewhere '. You cannot prevent a man sending a circular into Canada from any American city. How you are to prohibit that by putting in the words ' from elsewhere ' in this clause I am not able to comprehend.


Alexander Haggart: And I do not see how we are going to prevent the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) from going to Boston or New York, making a contract there and getting all the insurance he wants. The contract is made in that country, and he has to enforce it there. I do not think this parliament has any jurisdiction.


William Stevens Fielding: Sometimes you prohibit the doing of certain things with a fairly good knowledge that somebody will do them, and all you can do is to provide a penalty. I think in this case it is a measure of protection to our own companies. You cannot prevent a man issuing a circular in New York, and sending it through the mails, but if a company is discovered to have done that it violates the provision of this clause and we can go after it by proceeding against the inspector.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: For what crime?


William Stevens Fielding: We would consider that the company doing the business had violated the law, that his inspection did not come withing the law and therefore he could be proceeded against.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What would be his offence, before what court would he be tried, and what would be the penaltv? I challenge the Finance Minister to say what is to happen to a man if he does this. Let us have no such nonsensical legislation as this is. I think I see the reason for this legislation. Men who have obtained standing in communities, who have used energy and skill in building up a business as insurance agents, who are thoroughly honourable men, and who know how to carry on their business have had their living interfered with, and this is done as a sop to them, they are led to believe that some one is going to be punished for sending a circular,


William Stevens Fielding: I can only refer my hon. friend to the penalty clause, section 70.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How' is he going to get the man into Canada who sent the circular and does he believe that when an inspector comes in on another piece of

business entirely he can punish him for what some one else did in New York? The inspector can say he did not know any, thing about it. Let us not humbug the people.
Mr. SPROULE We should not lose sight of the important educative work carried on by these companies in instructing individuals how to prepare their risks so as to minimize the danger of fire. That is antecedent to the insurance, and the inspector must come there before the insurance is affected. This educative work was never done to the same extent in Canada before. Why will a Canadian company ask me eight per cent to carry insurance, when this company will carry it for one-quarter of one per cent after they have given instructions how to prepare a building so as to minimize the danger of fire and to reduce the cost of insurance? It is the individual who wants the insurance who should be considered, not the company. They are not coming here soliciting business, the individual, who wants insurance and cannot get it in Canada without paying an exorbitant figure should be allowed to get his insurance where he can get it.


William Harty: The risk is all hig own.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think we can do better than take the clause as it is.


John Allister Currie: I think the word ' circular 1 should be left out. They send circulars giving instructions as to what shall be done and a statement of the standing of the insurance from time to time. Perhaps that might be construed as coming within this clause of the Act, and it might be said that they were sending circulars for advertising purposes.
On section 148, by-laws.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that these were all provisions of the old law.


William Stevens Fielding: Where there is any material change I will call attention to it.
On section 150, capital stocks, calls, and increase of capital.


William Stevens Fielding: That the heading before section 150 be changed so as to read ' the capital stock and calls thereon/


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 153, forfeiture of shares for default in paying calls.
Mr.   J.@: A, CURRIE. Where a company is approaching a point at which it is ver-tually in liquidation the directors might Mr. LANCASTER.
call and cancel the unpaid shares and thus relieve themselves from liability in case of disaster.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the law as it has been for years and I think there has been no trouble about it.
On section 166, arrears prevent voting.


John Allister Currie: I would ask the minister to make provision, the same as that which is in the English company's Act, that where two or more persons are registered for shares as joint trustees, the one whose name is first on the roll shall cast the vote.


William Stevens Fielding: This is the existing law, and I am advised that there has been no difficulty arising under it.


John Allister Currie: I think it is not the law. Where two parties are down for the same stock or where executors are down as holding stock in trust, the one whose name is first upon the register casts the vote That is the English law.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe it is in the English Act, but I hope my hon. friend will not feel it necessary to press it this evening. I am told that no difficulty has arisen under this clause.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to delay the Bill; if I had noticed it sooner I would have called the minister's attention to it.
On section 179, actions against shareholders.


Mr.  J. A.@: CU*RRIE. Did the companies make any representations to the government in reference to this question?


William Stevens Fielding: I am advised that the matter was not specially considered. No attention was called to it.


John Allister Currie: It is a very dangerous provision. I do not think you will find it in the Companies Act.


William Stevens Fielding: It is the existing law and it is in the Companies Act.


John Allister Currie: Not in that form.
On section 184, cost of incorporation chargeable to shareholders.


William Stevens Fielding: This section is designed to make the cost of incorporation chargeable to the shareholders and not to tile policy-holders.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. Saturday.


Saturday, April 30, 1910. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Eleven o'clock.


TREATMENT OF IMMIGRANTS.
Mr. LENNOX.: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior if he has inquired into the matter I referred to the other day as to the delay at Halifax in connection with a ship that arrived there.


Frank Oliver: I have a memorandum on the subject, but I have not it in my desk at the moment. But I would be glad to hand it to my hon. friend or lay it on the table at any stage.


Haughton Lennox: Perhaps on Monday you could do it.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I will do it on Monday.


SUBSIDIES TO. RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider certain resolutions respecting the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of lines of railway therein mentioned.
George Perry Graham: I may say that all the subsidies granted in this respect have been voted before. There are two or three cases where the subsidies apply to different parts of the line, but only in two cases is there any different mileage, and in both cases I think the measurement was found to be incorrect, in one case by three and a half miles, and in the other by one mile. The other subsidies are all taken from the statute and revoted in the same terms for the same distances and to the same amounts.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the necessity for re-voting these? Was there a time limit in the statute which made provision for these subsidies?


George Perry Graham: The time limit in all these is two years unless construction has begun and four years if construction work has been started. But under the statute they all run out at the end of two years.


Robert Laird Borden: Unless the work has been commenced.


George Perry Graham: Unless the work has been commenced.


Robert Laird Borden: Section 4 has that I think. What is the reason that they are put in? Are we voting them for the second time only, or for the third time, or for the fourth or fifth or sixth time?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to say positively, because I have not gone back through the statutes further than 1906. There are two or three which were voted in
1906, but the great majority we revoted in 1908. Possibly some were renewals at that time, I would not like to say. In the statute they do not appear as renewals. I have had representations with reference to all these subsidies, and it is the usual statement I imagine with respect to a great many of them that during the past two years or four years, as the case may be, they have not been able to get into position to proceed with the work, but they think now that if the subsidies are revoted, in fact they assure me that they think they will be able to proceed within the two years extended by this statute. In some cases the work has been started. I have not included any new ones at all.


William Roche: The Minister of Railways will remember that a deputation from Manitoba waited on him two or three weeks ago. On that deputation there were representatives from Brandon, Hamiota and Birtle, and probably some other towns, asking for a subsidy for a line between Hamiota and Birtle. The Canadian Pacific railway was considering the question of constructing a branch line there. It is a portion of the country that is badly in need of facilities and the Canadian Pacific railway promised with the usual assistance, to construct this road this summer. I understand the deputation left here very hopeful of receiving this assistance after their interview with the Minister of Railways and his colleagues, but I do not notice any subsidy for this road in the list presented to the House. Does the minister not sympathize with the aspirations of the people in that important portion of the country? What is the reason for refusing it?


George Perry Graham: I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposition that the gentlemen referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) placed before me. As he says there is considerable need there for railway facilities and for a connection between these two points. The Canadian Pacific railway representatives also discussed the matter with me. As he will understand, however, there are scores and scores of applications for new subsidies, and after investigating them the government thought that for this session at least, they should not recommend the granting of any new subsidies; but in order that no person who was in a position to proceed with the work might suffer, it was decided to renew certain of the old ones that had been already voted. I assure my hon. friend that if any new subsidies had been voted at all, the one to which he refers would have been included, as they put up a pretty strong case.


Mr. RHODES.: Are all these renewals made upon representations of the parties interested, or are they renewals as a matter of form, in some instances ?


George Perry Graham: There have been requests made for every one of them, or they would not have been renewed. There are scores that have not been renewed that were on the statutes before.
On resolution 1,


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it, every one of these is a renewal of a subsidy granted in 1908.


George Perry Graham: As I said, there are exceptions, three or four of them were granted in 1906-7, but the majority are of 1908.


Robert Laird Borden: Did those of 1906-7 expire ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
M. R. L. BORDEN : Could the minister tell us which of them are of the year 1906-7 ?


George Perry Graham: They are named in the resolution as we go along. For instance, No. 5 was granted by chapter 40 of 1907 ; No. 12 was 1907; No. 13 was 1907. The chapter and the year of the statute are indicated.
On resolution 2,


Robert Laird Borden: Are these and the following paragraphs exactly the same as those which have been enacted by the House in such matters in the past ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, they are an exact copy of the statute.
On resolution 8,


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is section 8 the same as in all the railway subsidy Acts?


George Perry Graham: An exact copy.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and agreed to.
House went into committee to consider the following additional proposed resolutions for subsidies to railways :
45.	For a line of railway from Montreal to a point on the National Transcontinental railway in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 48, not exceeding 200 miles.
46.	To the Little Nation River Railway Company, for a line of railway from Papi-neauville on the Canadian Pacific railway towards Lake Nominingue, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 70, not exceeding 30 miles.


George Perry Graham: These were passed in 1908, but after my resolutions were prepared it was called to my notice that I had not included these. I had included them in the Act, but not in the other list of resolutions. They are an exact copy of the statute of 1908.	'


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolutions reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 226) to authorize the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of the lines of railway therein mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second time, and House went into committee thereon.
George Perry Graham: The Bill contains nothing that is not in the resolutions.
On section 5,


Robert Laird Borden: The section of the resolution is different from that of the Bill. The resolution contains these words :
And the said board shall have absolut* control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and bridges hereby subsidized.
In the Bill the words ' and bridges ' are omitted.


George Perry Graham: The reason is, I think, that there are no bridges subsidized under the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, it should not be in the resolution.


George Perry Graham: It is superfluous in the resolution. There are no bridges covered by the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Except in so far as these may be part of the railway lines ?


George Perry Graham: But there are no special subsidies to bridges.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall section 5 stand as part of the Bill? Carried.


David Henderson: Could the minister tell us the total amount of the subsidies we are authorizing to-day at the maximum and minimum rate, and the total mileage subsidized?


George Perry Graham: The total mileage is 3,277-4 miles. At a subsidy of $3,200 per mile that will amount to $10,487,680; at a subsidy of $6,400 per mile that will amount to $20,975,360.
On the preamble,


John Allister Currie: Is there any intention on the part of the government to grant the subsidy to the Ontario government railway which has been granted to all the colonization roads? I understand that this railway is to be an important link in the Transcontinental. The next time the minister brings down his subsidies for railways, I suggest that he should propose and pay a subsidy to the Ontario government railway, such as the ordinary railway company have received.


George Perry Graham: The government at present has no intention of granting a subsidy to the Ontario government railway. That road did not get any subsidy when it was inaugurated. It has now been largely constructed by a very rich province, and I think it would hardly be wise for this government to interfere with the government of a province in that way, particularly under all the conditions. Then if we were to grant a subsidy to that line I would be inclined to say that the line should come under Dominion jurisdiction, under the Dominion Board of Railway Commissioners, and the government of Ontairo would not care to permit that.


John Allister Currie: If I were discussing the question of jurisdiction, I should say that the Dominion government railways ought to come under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government, and then they would be able to give a profit.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. gentleman
will give me the rate the'Ontario road charges I will give a profit of $2,000,000 each year on the Intercolonial railway.


John Allister Currie: Why do you not take it?


George Perry Graham: The people get the benefit.


Robert Laird Borden: I have heard so much about low rates on the Intercolonial railway as compared with other railways that I really would like to have some information on the subject. I would invite the minister to bring down, before the close of the session or before his supplementary estimates go through, a table comparing the rates on the Intercolonial railway, both through and local, with the standard rates on the other great railways of Canada. I have not understood that the local rates on the Intercolonial railway were so much lower than. those on other railways as the minister would have us imagine.


George Perry Graham: It might take some weeks to prepare such a table. The rate sheets, unless in the hands of an expert, do not show the income from freight. The classification of freight has a great deal to do with it. As a matter of fact, the location and the classification of freight of the Ontario government road is suoh that if its rates on a sheet were exactly the same as on a sheet of the Intercolonial railway its income would be much lower on account of the higher class of freight it has to carry. They are in a much better position per mile.


Robert Laird Borden: That does not mean that the rates are higher, but that they are favourably situated in respect to the particular description of freight that forms the bulk of their haulage.


George Perry Graham: That is one reason.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the other?


George Perry Graham: I have made a statement before the House as to passenger traffic. Their passenger rates are higher than the Intercolonial railway.


Robert Laird Borden: I should not imagine that they are very much higher. I realize that the through passenger rate from Halifax to Truro or Montreal is a very reasonable one, but the local passenger rates on the Intercolonial railway in Nova Scotia are about the same as on any other railway in Canada, so far as I am aware. I am rather tired of hearing about these rates. It is creating in impression throughout the country that the people of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec, are getting a sort of pauper rate on the Intercolonial railway. I do not think that that is the case; I think they are paying the usual rates, in respect of local traffic at least. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected. If the minister cannot give that information before the close of the session, I would like to have it after the session, or at all events at the commencement of the next session.


George Perry Graham: The information my hon. friend has asked for is on ' Hansard ' either this year or last. We took the local rates on the Canadian Pacific railway in the maritime provinces and compared them.


John Allister Currie: The'question was asked last year if these figures were on a ton mile basis, but the minister said they were never calculated on a ton mile basis on the InteTcolonail railway. The only statistics the people will accept in the United States are the statistics published in the manuals and based on a ton mile basis.


George Perry Graham: These returns are placed on the table of the House every year.


John Allister Currie: If we had the information we could tell what the rates are. You can juggle the other figures in any way you like.


George Perry Graham: The information published in reference to the Intercolonial railway is the same as the sworn statements in regard to other railways, and the hon. member has a copy in his desk.


John Gillanders Turriff: I had occasion to look into the freight rates on coal to ascertain whether the rates in the west were higher than in the east. I got the freight rates for coal on the Intercolonial railway and found that whereas in the west we are paying a much higher rate to carry coal 400 miles than the Intercolonial railway was carrying it for 800 or 900 miles. I think it is absolutely unfair that the Intercolonial railway should haul freight for one

half the price charged by the other roads. We in other parts of the country do not get any part of the cheap rates on the Intercolonial railway. We have to pay our own high rates and have also to put our hands in our pockets and pay taxes to get cheap rates for thos& who happen to have the advantage of living along the Intercolonial railway.


Mr. STANFIELD.: In inland towns we pay a good rate. From Stellarton to Truro, a haul of 40 miles, we pay 80 cents a ton, although the through rate to Halifax is the same. So in making up their rates it is hard to strike an average.


Robert Laird Borden: And there is a low rate, established many years ago, from the coal mining centres to Montreal. This was done advisedly with an idea of assisting in the development of the mining properties of Nova Scotia. I am not prepared to dispute that that is a fairly low rate.


George Perry Graham: Yes, it is.


Robert Laird Borden: I say that so far as the local rates in Nova Scotia are concerned, they are not materially lower than rates on other railways. Take the case mentioned by the hon. member for Colchester, 80 cents a ton for 40 miles, that seems a fairly substantial rate, and I doubt whether the rates in Ontario are higher than that. My hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) tells me that for such distances in Ontario the rates are lower.


George Perry Graham: On all these things my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) is not a strict authority. There are special cases. The question of freight and passenger rates is very complicated, and the study of a freight or passenger sheet is a science.
Bill reported.


AID TO CANADIAN NORTHERN ALBERTA RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide:
1.	That the Governor in Council may aid and assist the construction of the line of railway of a company to be incorporated under the name of ' Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company,' from a point at or near Edmonton or Strathcona, in the province of Alberta, thence, in a generally western direction, to the coal areas, situated at or near the Brazeau river and the headwaters of the McLeod river, for a distance not exceeding one hundred and fifty miles, by guaranteeing the principal and interest of the bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities, hereinafter called securities, secured as hereinbefore mentioned, of the company, to the extent of thirteen thousand Mr. TURRIFF.
dollars per mile for the first fifty miles of the line so aided, and, for the remainder of the said line, to the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars per mile, not exceeding in all one hundred and fifty miles, the interest upon the said securities to be at the rate of three and one-half per cent per annum, payable half yearly, the principal to be payable in fifty years; and that the aid granted or authorized by chapter 25 of the Statutes of 1908, intituled: ' An Act respecting aid for the extension of the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific railway,' be cancelled:
2.	That the said securities so guaranteed shall be secured by a deed or deeds of trust, by way of mortgage or charge, to a trustee or trustees, approved of by the Governor in Council, and such deed or deeds of trust shall respectively grant a first mortgage or charge upon the said line of railway so aided, and the right of way, station grounds, or other real estate and interest therein, buildings and other structures and improvements, rolling stock and equipment, plant, machinery, tools, supplies, materials and other personal properties, present and future, acquired for the purposes of the said line so aided, and in connection with operating, repairing and maintaining it, and the tolls, incomes and revenues of the company arising and to arise from the said line, and the right9, privileges, franchises and powers of the company now or hereafter held with respect to and in connection with the said line and the operation, maintenance and repair thereof.
3.	That the kind of securities to be guaranteed as aforesaid, and the forms thereof, and the form and terms of the deed or deeds of trust securing them, and the times and manner of the issue of securities and the disposition of the moneys to be raised thereon, by sale, pledge, or otherwise, pending the expenditure of such moneys for the purposes of the line of railway so aided, and the form and the manner of guarantee, shall be such as the Governor in Council approves, and such terms, provisions and conditions may be included in such deed or deeds of trust as the Governor in Council deems expedient or necessary.
4.	That the said guarantee shall be signed by the Minister of Finance or such officer as is designated by the Governor in Council to sign it; and upon being so signed the Dominion of Canada shall become liable as guarantor for the payment of the principal and interest of the securities so guaranteed according to the tenor thereof, and the said payment shall form a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
5.	That any moneys paid by the Dominion of Canada under any guarantee herein provided for shall be held to be paid in discharge of the liability of the Dominion and not in discharge of the liability of the company under the securities guaranteed, or under any deed of trust securing them, and the moneys so paid shall be held to be still secured by the said securities and deed of trust, and the Dominion shall be subrogated in and to all the rights of the holders of such securities, the interest upon or the
6rincipal of which has been paid by the ominion, and the Dominion shall, with respect to all moneys so paid, be in all respects
[Stage Direction]
in the position of security-holders with respect to whose securities default has been made in payment to the extent of the moneys paid by the Dominion.
6.	That the decision of the Governor in Council as to the length of the mileage of the said line of railway so to be aided shall, for the purposes hereof, be final.
7.	That the books of the company shall at all times be open for inspection for and on behalf of the government by any person named in that behalf by the Governor in Council or the Minister of Finance.
8.	That the Canadian Northern Railway Company shall, by guarantee included in the said deed or deeds of trust, or in some other instrument agreed to by the Governor in Council or the Minister of Finance and the last named company, in such form as the Governor in Council shall approve, guarantee to his Majesty the due payment by the company of the principal and interest of all securities issued and guaranteed under the provisions hereof, according to the tenor and effect of such securities, respectively, and in accordance with the terms of the said deed or deeds of trust, and shall also guarantee to His Majesty the due payment by the company of all loss or costs which His Majesty may sustain or be put to in enforcing, after default, the provisions of the said deed or deeds of trust against the line of railway and premises thereby mortgaged and charged.
9.	That the company may acquire the line of railway constructed or partially constructed or located by the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company, or by the Canadian Northern Railway Company as its successor by amalgamation, between the points set forth in paragraph 1 hereof, and all properties, works, surveys, plans and locations, held, made, approved or established in connection therewith; and the same shall, for the purposes hereof and the guarantee hereby authorized, be taken to form part of the line of railway hereby aided. The deed of transfer or acquirement (which the respective companies interested are hereby authorized to execute) shall be executed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State of Canada before any securities are issued or guaranteed hereunder in respect of the line of railway and incidental properties so acquired; and the said deed upon being so executed and deposited shall, without further formality, be taken to vest in the company all the properties, works, surveys, plans and locations held, made, approved or established by or for the transferring companies, or either of them, in respect of the line of railway or portions thereof so transferred, with the same rights, privileges and priorities as were at the time of the execution of such deed held by the transferring companies respectively.
George Perry Graham: This resolution is somewhat unusual, but under the conditions that exist the introduction of such legislation seems to be imperative. In 1908 certain lines of railway were guaranteed by the Dominion government. The Edmonton Yukon Pacific was given a guarantee of bonds of $13,000 per mile for fifty miles, and $25,000 per mile for the balance of 100 miles, the length of the road being 150
miles with the proviso that the Edmonton Yukon Pacific should become part of and amalgamate with the Canadian Northern. When the amalgamation came to take place, and the securities were about to be issued a difficulty arose. The Canadian Northern itself has practically two sets of securities, one Dominion guaranteed or provincial guaranteed, as the case may be, for I think it is $15,000 per mile, and these securities become a first lien on the roads to be constructed, and a second or third mortgage on the lines already constructed. But they have another class of security called consolidated debenture stock, extending over their entire system, and in the Act giving them authority to issue these securities it is provided that there shall not be more than $15,000 per mile of an underlying security. That being the case, when the amalgamation took place, the portion of the guarantee by the Dominion for $25,000 on its 100 miles was found to come in conflict with the other Act of the Canadian Northern. It was impossible Tinder existing conditions for the Dominion to get its first mortgage on this 100 miles for more than $15,000 per mile, although the guarantee was for $25,000 per mile. In order to overcome that the solicitor of the company, Mr. Phippin, after consultation with the Justice Department, and the Finance Department decided to introduce a Bill to really incorporate a new company. This new company is to be called the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company, and the guarantee is to be given to this company and executed. Then after this is done, and the guarantee provided for, and the road constructed, they are to amalgamate with the Canadian Northern, and the securities would then run for the $25,000 per mile, for the 100 miles, no Act interfering. That is all the Act is intended to cover, and it is what the Justice Department, and Mr. Phippin assure me is provided for by the Act. If asked if the company gave up this guarantee given under the Act of 1908, I say that they do release that absolutely. I have submitted this to the Justice Department, and to the Finance Denartment. Some little changes were made, and it was approved of by Mr. Phippin.
Mr. HENDERSON Perhaps the minister can tell us what the estimated cost of this road will be, whether the $13,000 and the $25,000 will be sufficient to build the road or whether it will be more than sufficient.


George Perry Graham: Much more than that. The $25,000 per mile is granted on account of representations made that this part of the line would be quite expensive. It was discussed in 1908 when the 'guarantee was first made. That is the reason an increase over that amount was asked.


David Henderson: If it is to be very expensive, my impression is that it would be better to drop it. The Canadian Northern can build cheaper than that.


George Perry Graham: It is not much of a road that can be built for $25,000 per mile.


John Allister Currie: I understand there is likely to be a lot of heavy bridging?


Robert Laird Borden: Does this resolution or the proposed Bill do away with the guarantee of 1908 alluded to by the minister?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Mr. 'MAGRATH. Is this the same guarantee that was passed in 1908, or are there any extensions?


George Perry Graham: Yes, the same guarantee. This is to make practical and work out the guarantee we gave in 1908. There was a desire to add a little to the mileage, but I struck it out.


Robert Laird Borden: The mileage, I understand, is exactly the same as in 1908.


George Perry Graham: I know it is not any more, and I think it is some less.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 227) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company and to aid in the construction of its railway.


Richard Blain: Has the minister before him any figures showing the total amount of railway subsidies that have been voted by the government of Canada since confederation?	-.


George Perry Graham: I have not the figures before me, but if the hon. member will refer to the last report on railways and canals, he will find them in the schedule that I had prepared by the statistician.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee and reported. .

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Government of the Yukon - Salaries and expenses as connected with the administration of the territory, $130,000.
['Private Bills, and when we reach government orders all the resolutions that stand on the order paper will be taken up in their turn.']
Frank Oliver: That item is a decrease of $35,000 since last year by the reduction of the staff.


Richard Blain: What was the revenue of the Yukon last year?


Frank Oliver: The revenue from the export tax on gold, which is a special tax on the Yukon, was about $90,000.


Richard Blain: Have you the figures of the total revenue?


George Perry Graham: 


Frank Oliver: Of course, the Yukon pays its share of customs and other taxes, but we have not the Yukon figures separately. The special tax of which I have spoken is estimated to have yielded, in the fiscal year year just closed, over $90,000.


Richard Blain: Is the cost of governing this territory decreasing?


Frank Oliver: There is the decrease of $35,000 which I have just mentioned. The other items remain at the same figures as before.


Richard Blain: And is the revenue higher than two years ago?


Frank Oliver: In 1907-8, it was $70,504; in 1908-9, it was $81,000.
Dominion Lands-chargeable to income- Salaries of the outside service, $300,000.


William Roche: 1 take this opportunity to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) if he has ever had his attention called to the idea of allowing women to homestead. I noticed, some time ago, an article in one of the city papers of Winnipeg commenting upon a letter by a reverend gentleman in Saskatchewan, in which letter this idea was advocated. I have seen also a great deal of comment upon the subject in the press of western Canada. I think the minister might do worse than allow women to take up homesteads. Undoubtedly, there are men who have families of girls who would move to the west if their girls had the privilege of homesteading. And the minister knows also that in the west we have a surplus of bachelors. The change suggested would not only allow our ladies an opportunity to acquire some property, but would afford the male members of the population an opportunity to find helpmeets. As the letter I have referred to puts the case better than I can do, I take the liberty of reading it:
Let Women Homestead.
Editor ' Telegram/-I wish to call your attention to the remedy for one of the serious problems in our western world.
It is everywhere conceded in the province of Saskatchewan that there is a great dearth of marriageable ladies. In almost any of our new districts you will find ten young men for one young lady.
It seems to me this could he remedied by allowing girls over eighteen to homestead. I have just returned from a trip to Toronto and meeting an old friend down there I said to him, ' Why don't you come west? ' He said, ' Oh, if my girls were only hoys I would have been west long ago.' I told him we needed him more with his girls than if de had boys. He had four grown-up daughters.
Now, I ask you. why that man had not just as much right to homestead and get a quarter section for each of those girls as the man who happened to have four grownup boys ?

I claim, sir, that the west has more need to-day to allow such a man to come in with his girls and give him every right that a man with boys should get, than we have to encourage the single man. Again, in conversation, on the train, with a Norwegian from North Dakota, I got more information on the subject. He said down in the Dakotas and Minnesota, there are many men with large families of fine, strong, healthy girls, who would come to Canada if their girls could homestead, but because they cannot they are moving on down into the new country in Montana, where they have the privilege.
Now, sir, we all know what fine blood we have received from the Norwegian and Swedes; should we not encourage them to come?
We look forward to a big year in the growth of our population in this year 1910. But if it is going to receive the stimulus which will make it a red letter year in the history of the growth of Canada, our government cannot too soon grant the ladies the privilege of homesteading. For it would bring fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, lovers and sweethearts that we could never get in any othef way.
REV. R. W. BEVERIDGE. Watrous, Sask., Jan. 15.
I was unaware before reading that letter that Montana had land laws permitting ladies to enjoy the same privilege as the men, that is, the privilege of homesteading. Apparently, it is quite an attraction in that state, because Norwegians and Swedes go there from Minnesota and the Dakotas on that account. I would like to know if the minister has ever had his attention drawn to that, and if he does not think that it is worthy of serious consideration?


Frank Oliver: This matter has been brought to my attention frequently, as it was no doubt brought to the attention of preceding ministers and preceding governments. But it has never appeared to them, and does not appear to me, mat it would be in the interest of the settlement of our country. I am aware that that law is the law of the United States, but I am not aware that it is an advantageous law, even there; so far as my judgment goes, I do not think it would be advantageous in our country. The purpose we have in view in our homestead law is not merely that people may acquire land which will mean money to them; the purpose we have in view in giving free land to homesteaders is that the land may be made productive; to secure the productiveness of the land is the reason of our homestead laws. Our experience, and I have had considerable experience, is that in order that a homestead may be made fully productive, there should be, not a single woman upon it, nor even a single man, but there should be both the man and the woman, in order that the homestead may be made fully advantageous to the country. The idea of giving homesteads to single women would tend di-269
rectly against that idea; the idea of withholding homesteads from single women, as my hon. friend will see, tends strongly in favour of that idea. I do not know that I need emphasize the point that the single man on a homestead is not in a position to bring that homestead up to its full measure of productiveness.


William Roche: Because he has not got the woman with him.


Frank Oliver: Exactly. Then it is for him to get the woman, and for the woman who wants to settle on land in the Northwest to get the man, rather than that she shall have land of her own, simply to hold it down. The single woman cannot bring the land into productiveness under ordinary circumstances, even as well as the single man. We have provision for granting homesteads to women under certain conditions, and the princple underlying that system is this, that where a widow has children, although not of age to enable them to take homesteads, they are yet of sufficient age to help her satisfactorily to improve a homestead, then under those conditions, the woman is allowed to have a homestead. Having once given the privilege to widows with dependent children to secure homesteads, we find that it is used as a means of acquiring land by women who are not in a position to make improvements, and who were not in the position that was contemplated when the provision was first made. Our experience is entirely against the idea of women homesteading.


Richard Stuart Lake: One or two questions have been asked across the floor of the House during this session in regard to the duties of Mr. Leach, inspector of homestead agencies, and whose salary I presume, is provided for in this item. I would like the minister to give us some idea of what those duties are, and why it is necessary that Mr. Leach's office should be at Brandon. Looking through the Auditor General's Report for the last two years, I find that Mr, Leach appears to have drawn an extraordinary amount of money for board and lodging, and for travelling. I have calculated that during the two financial years of 1908 and 1909, he drew for board and lodging $2,135.90, or an average of nearly $3 per day for the whole time, or nearly $3.50 per day exclusive of Sundays. His travelling expenses during that time amounted to nearly $3,000, or upwards of $5.50 a day for every travelling day. It does seem to me that that is a very large sum of money, and either that Mr. Leach's office should not be at Brandon, or that he is charging very high amounts for board and lodging and travelling expenses.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Leach's business is that of inspector of land agencies at the



present time in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I think until a year ago he was inspector of all the land offices in the four western provinces. He is also employed at times in the adjustment of difficult cases that arise in regard to land, and his duties therefore require a good deal of travelling. It does not matter where the office is, because he is not supposed to be in his office any more than is necessary for the compilation of his reports, and generally to give him an opportunity to look over the field of his inspection. There are in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan four land agencies and 32 sub-agencies. I need not enlarge on the amount of business that is done or the intricate and complicated nature of the business that is done in these agencies, and the disputes that are continually arising. But I can assure my hon. friend that Mr. Leach's duties should occupy all his time, so that he would have very little time to spend in the office at Brandon. It makes little or no difference whether he is located at Brandon or anywhere else, inasmuch as Brandon is 130 miles west of Winnipeg, and as his duties extend westward to the boundary of Saskatchewan, his travelling expenses are lightened by his residing in Brandon rather than in Winnipeg.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does not the minister think that an average of $3 a day for board and lodging for every day in the year, for two years, is somewhat high charge when compared with the usual prices for board and lodging in those two western provinces?


Frank Oliver: Well, I could not answer. I am sure it cost me more than that for board and lodging when I travel. It would depend upon the number of days that Mr. Leach was absolutely away from his office whether it was a fair charge or not.
' Mr. LAKE. Has the department any check on the number of days Mr. Leach was absent. It struck me as a very large 'charge, indeed, and I think the department should have some means of checking it.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Leach puts in a fnonthly account to the department, and it is checked there. I presume the account is all right, although I agree with toy hon. friend that it seems a large amount. However, travelling is not inexpensive in that country, and Mr. Leach is supposed to be travelling pretty nearly all the time.
Protection of timber, forest reserves, &o., $146,250.


William Roche: Is it the intention of the minister' to take any portion out o the Riding or Duck mountain forest reserves and throw it open to settlement. I have had sent to me a petition largely Mr. OLIVER.
signed by those living along the Canadian Northern railway, not far from the town of Roblin where it is said there are two townships with very little timber on them and which would make splendid agricultural land. It is stated that there are a number of people waiting to see if the government would throw this open for homesteading. I had a letter from the Department of the Interior stating that the government were thinking of taking out a certain amount along the Canadian Northern railway, but they were not prepared to do it this session. Has the minister any idea as to what particular part of the reserve it is intended to throw open for homesteading?


Frank Oliver: There is no intention, so far as I know, of taking any portion out of the reserve, except at its northwest corner where the main line of the Canadian Northern railway cuts a little into the reserve. I was discussing that with the officer in charge with a view of deciding if it would not be well to cut that out of the reserve so as to leave the Canadian Northern railway outside the limits of the reserve entirely. We have had no discussion so far as I know about taking two townships out. I would certainly advise the people who are looking for occupation of these townships not to depend on It, because the matter has not been under my consideration yet. What the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) said is the first I have heard of it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think the Minister of the Interior should take into consideration the question of opening to homesteading a portion of the Turtle Mountain reserve south of my town. There is a township, or probably there are two townships there that we will never be able to do anything with as a forest reserve. The government is sDending money all the time on it, but the growth of the trees has not been satisfactory, and we will never be able to make it a forest reserve. That fact can easily be ascertained from the officers of the department, and if it cannot be made into a reserve why should we not throw it open to homesteading. I think the minister understands what I mean.


Frank Oliver: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner). We have no wish to hold land in reserve simply for the purpose of having it under reservation. But' of course these reserves were created on the supposition that it would be possible to improve the source of water supply by securing the growth of timber, and we are trying to do that in that locality. If we fail the reasonable thing will be to abandon the effort, but we cannot abandon it without having made a fair attempt to succeed. I will ask the hon. member to I have patience to give us an opportunity

to make good fair test, and if we fail we will no doubt have to take the other course.


Richard Blain: Is the Department of the Interior having any considerable amount of printing done outside of Canada at the present time?


Frank Oliver: We have still a very large amount done in the United States, and especially the atlases that we print for circulation for immigration purposes.


Richard Blain: Why should not those be printed in our own counry?
Mr. OLI\ ER. Since I have been minister, I have made several attempts to get these atlases printed in Canada, but so far without success. I presume the reason is because, in order that such an atlas may be turned out in good quality and style and at the lowest price, it must be done by a well equipped establishment which carries on a very large business in that particular line. There did not seem to be an establishment in Canada which was willing and able to take hold of the work in the same manner as this institution in the United States can do it. The hon. gentleman understands that when we want immigration literature we want it at a certain season of the year, and unless we get it at that season, its value is largely lost. One of these establishments we were dealing with took an order at a certain price, but they did not make delivery within anything like the time stipulated, and while it was not a dead loss, it was not an advantageous commercial transaction.


Richard Blain: Was that a Canadian company?


Frank Oliver: Yes, one of the largest in Winnipeg. However, I managed to get some of this work done in Canada, and we have recently given a trial order for some atlas work that will be used for distribution at the Brussels exhibition. We are having that done in Canada as an experiment, and if we get satisfactory results we will be glad to give further orders.' In view of the necessity for getting quality, and prompt delivery, at a certain price, the printing of this atlas cannot be handled as in the case of an ordinary printing contract. Now, as to the printing which we require for use in the United States, if we printed it in Canada the United States customs charges would make it an altogether disadvantageous transaction for us. The hon. gentleman may take it for granted that for any printing we want in the United States, we will have to get it done in the United States, because of the customs duties. I am anxious to have any printing we want in England, or Canada, or on the continent of Europe done in Canada.
269J


Richard Blain: That seems to be all right.
Immigration salaries, $125,000.


Richard Stuart Lake: What is the reason for the large increase in this vote?


Frank Oliver: It is rendered necessary by the increased pumber of arrivals of.immigrants and the necessity for increased officers to take charge of them. Our exclusion service has also considerably increased, and that necessitates further expense.	t


Richard Blain: I want to direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the necessity for taking greater care of the immigrants arriving at the Union station at Toronto. The minister himself must be thoroughly conversant with the condition of affairs in that respect. Any person who passes a few hours of any day during the summer months at the Toronto Union station will see congregated there a very large number of immigrants, including some of our own people from other parts of Ontario, who are making ready to go to the west. Among the immigrants are also to be found a considerable number who intend to locate on farms in various parts of Ontario. I heard the minister state the other day that it was not the duty of the government to make provision to detain the immigrants in the cities, but rather to send them out to their destination as soon as possible, and I do not at all criticise that idea. But, I would point out to the minister that money expended on employing one or two extra immigration officers at the Union station at Toronto during the summer months to look after these immigrants, would be money well expended. These officers could direct the immigrants how to get to their destination; they could give them information as to the conditions which they would be likely to meet with, and they could communicate with the farmers who are coming into the city every day looking for these immigrants to engage their services. I believe that the government could wisely expend a sum of money for the employment of one or two capable and intelligent officials who would counsel and advise the immigrants and look after their comfort. If this were done by the government it would be in the interests of the government themselves, in the interests of the farmers of Ontario, and it would be especially in the interest of the new immigrants who are very susceptible to first impressions. and who should receive some special attention from the government when they arrive in great centres of population like the city of Toronto.


Frank Oliver: The suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) is well worthy of consideration, and I will take it up and discuss what can be done.

To pay expenses connected with waterpower investigations and reports in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the railway belt in British Columbia, $20,000.


Richard Blain: Is this a new vote, and if so, what is its purpose?


Frank Oliver: The question of water-powers is attracting more attention than ever before, and it is thought well that the department, in order to administer the water-powers that come under its jurisdiction in the prairie provinces and presumably in the British Columbia railway belt, should have advance information as to the character of all these powers and their possible value for development purposes. If a person comes to the department and makes application to develop any water-power, the department has either to delay the application until it ascertains what the possibilities of that water-power are, or accept the statement made by an interested party. We want to gather information so that when applications are made we will be able to deal with them on their merits. This, of course, will cost some money, and the information may not be turned to account immediately, but I think it is in the interest of the country that the department should have that information.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
Naval service - including the purchase, construction and maintenance of ships, the maintenance and upkeep of dockyards at Esquimalt and Halifax, and the establishment and maintenance of training schools, $3,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: On a previous occasion I stated to the House that it was our intention, as soon as the Navy Bill passed, to ask for tenders for the ten ships with which we propose to commence our navy. It is not probable that any portion of the $3,000,000 for which we now ask will be applied this year to that purpose. Tenders will be called for, and the first thing the successful tenderer will have to do will be to put up a plant, and therefore I do not think we shall be in a position this year to spend a single dollar of this amount. I will explain to the committee how we propose to deal with this appropriation. I stated on a former occasion that we had entered into negotiations with the imperial government for the purchase of the steamship ' Niobe.' Those negotiations are practically completed and are only awaiting the assent of parliament. The amount of the purchase money agreed upon, as I have already stated, is $1,075,000. This will be taken out of this appropriation. The ' Niobe,' it is expected, will reach Canada early in the season and will form the first nucleus of our navy. We propose to appro-Mr. OLIVER.
priate for the maintenance and upkeep of this steamship the following amounts: Pay of nucleus crew and training personnel, $174,000. We estimate that the crew will be composed of 27 officers and 324 men, including sailors, mechanics, etc., a total of 351. For the victualling of the crew, $38,000; this is based upon an estimate of 30 cents per day per man. For medicine, $1,000; this is an estimate based upon the experience of the admiralty. For clothing gratuities, that is, uniforms, $10,000. For the upkeep

hull, machinery, sea stores and fuel-$140,000; this is based upon the calculation of the admiralty. For alterations in fitting the ' Niobe ' as a training ship, $50,000. These appropriations total $413,000.


Richard Blain: Have any officers been appointed yet?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Richard Blain: A newspaper indicates that a Mr. Macdonald of Victoria or Vancouver has been appointed to take charge of one of these vessels.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say
that Capt. Macdonald, though not yet appointed, has been designated for the command of the ' Niobe.' He is a Canadian, a son of Senator Macdonald of British Columbia, and has had considerable training and experience in England.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the 'Niobe' be stationed in the Atlantic near Halifax?


Wilfrid Laurier: It will be stationed in the gulf and will be used as a training ship. Coming to the ' Rainbow,' I may say that it has already been purchased. The appropriation for this purpose was taken last year, but we now include this ship in our navy. The ' Rainbow ' is to be employed in the fisheries protection service along the Pacific coast, chiefly in Hecate straits and the waters adjacent thereto. For the maintenance and upkeep of the ' Rainbow ' the appropriations are as follows: Pay of nucleus crew and training personnel, $95,000. We estimate that the crew will be composed of 16 officers and 163 men. For victualling the crew, $20,000. For medicine, $500. For clothing, $5,000. For upkeep-'hull, machinery, sea stores and fuel, $110,000. To pay balance of purchase price of $250,000, $35,000. For fitting magazine cooling arrangement to prepare the ' Rainbow ' for the work it has to do, $27,600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will the ' Rainbow ' cost when completed?


Wilfrid Laurier: $277,600. Then, we provide at once for 422 recruits, made up of 228 seaman class, 170 engine room ratings and 24 other ratings, such as cooks, armourers and electricians.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these 422 men of the crews for both boats or for ODly one?


Wilfrid Laurier: Both. The next item of importance is the educational service. This year we cannot expend a very large amount under this heading, and we estimate the expenditure at $35,000. It is our intention at once to prepare plans for the building of a naval college. It has not been finally settled, but it is almost finally settled that the college will be in Halifax, which after consideration seems to be the most appropriate place for the college. In the meantime, the 'Niobe' will be taken advantage of to give the cadets training, and they will receive their education on the 'Niobe.' For the dockyards we have an estimated appropriation of $210,000. I understand that this is based on the calculation of the admiralty. For the purchase of reserve stores for the 'Niobe' and the 'Rainbow' we estimate an expenditure of $50,000, and for the purchase of reserve ordnance for the 'Niobe' and the 'Rainbow' an expenditure of $100,000.


Richard Blain: Where are the 'Niobe' and the 'Rainbow' at the present time?


Wilfrid Laurier: The 'Niobe' is at Portsmouth ready to sail as soon as the proceedings before parliament are received. The 'Rainbow' is also undergoing repairs in England.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these boats to be furnished with the wireless telegraphy?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: Are you borrowing officers and men from the royal navy for training purposes?


Wilfrid Laurier: Aes.


Richard Stuart Lake: How many will be required and what rates of pay are you going to give them?


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Richard Stuart Lake: Do these men enter the Canadian service, or do they remain in the royal navy and are merely loaned to this government?


Wilfrid Laurier: The men who are borrowed from the imperial navy to organize the Canadian service will remain in the imperial navy.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does Captain MacDonald remain in the imperial navy?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister gave an item in connection with the college.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, $35,000.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the educational service?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the educational service. We do not propose to spend this year anything on the capital account. It is our intention to have plans at once prepared for the building of the college and to ask for tenders. In the meantime, we expect to have 30 cadets who will be trained on the 'Niobe,' and for that we appropriate $35,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of the expenditure upon dockyards?


Wilfrid Laurier: This item is the estimated expenditure of the admiralty, the last year they had the dockyard, 1904-5.


Robert Laird Borden: That was the expenditure in connection with the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, both.


Robert Laird Borden: Has any estimate been made of the expected expenditures at the two places? Could the Prime Minister give a statement of what is to be done, for example, at Halifax? As I understand it, the dockyard at present is simply used for storing certain articles belonging to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. As one of my hon. friends from British Columbia said of the dockyard at Esquimalt, it might be regarded as no more than ' a glorified junk shop.' I understand that it is to be something more than that in the future, and I would like to know just what.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that I am informed that the dockyard is in rather a dilapidated condition. It is proposed to establish there the naval college, with houses for captain and college director, barracks, drill shed and so on, and to spend something on dockyard construction, making a total of about $590,000.


Robert Laird Borden: ^This is to put the
dockyard in good condition?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, the dockyard at Halifax.


John Allister Currie: I understand that the dock at Halifax is owned by a private company?


Wilfrid Laurier: The dock-yes.


John Allister Currie: Is any of this money to be spent to enlarge the dock so that it will take in the ships of the new navy?	*


Wilfrid Laurier: None of this expenditure is for that purpose; it is for the preparation of the dockyard.


Robert Laird Borden: It is to be spent, I understand, on what was formerly the imperial dockyard at Halifax. I may explain to my hon. friend from North Sim-coe (Mr. Currie) that the Halifax graving dock and the imperial dockyard are entirely distinct things. There is no graving dock in connection with that dockyard. The graving dock is owned by a private company which has had assistance from the imperial government, from this government and from the city of Halifax. I would like to ask the Prime Minister how it is that this very great expenditure is necessary? The imperial government as I understand, handed over that dockyard in perfectly good condition. I do not know to what extent it was dismantled if at all; I never understood that it was dis-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
mantled. I brought to the attention of the government in January last the statement of an English gentleman of experience, Sir. Wm. White, who spoke with authority on these matters. He had visited the dockyard at Esquimalt, and he gave an exceedingly bad report of it. In effect he said that it was in very poor and ineffective condition. He stated, further, that he had not visited the dockyard at Halifax, but understood, from information that had been given him, on what he conceived to be reliable authority, that it was about in the same condition. I received from the government a rather reassuring reply. True, like many replies that we get from the government with respect to such matters, it was not very definite, but, so far as it was definite, it was reassuring. I cannot understand how it is .possible, if that dockyard has been kept up by a proper system and by reasonable expenditure in the meantime, that it should be in a condition necessitating the expenditure of about $600,000. If the expenditure is necessary, I am not objecting to it; but I think that before the committee votes the amount, we should have a very clear and definite explanation as to why that enormous sum of money is necessary.


Wilfrid Laurier: As to the dockyard at Esquimalt, that has been like Mahomet's coffin, which was suspended between heaven and earth-the dockyard has been in the possession neither of the imperial government nor of this government, and so it has got into a rather dilapidated condition. Of course, I have never seen it. But I have seen the dockyard at Halifax, and I must say that it is not in so bad a condition. There is a splendid property there, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) knows better than I do. I do not know that there is much to be done in the way of repairs, except what might be expected in a property of that kind. But the expenditure I have spoken of is made necessary because of the character of the new navy and the works and buildings in connection with it that are to be put there. For instance, in this expenditure is included the naval college. It is impossible to say how much that will cost until we have, seen the plans and specification prepared by the architect, but I understand it must be a fairly expensive building.


Robert Laird Borden: Has this expenditure of $590,000 anything to do with the naval college?


Wilfrid Laurier: It includes the college. Let me give the items covered by this expenditure of $590,000-naval college and furnishing of the same; workshops in connection with the college; houses for captain of college and director

of studies; barracks for men; battery for heavy and light gun drill (this is something new, and I do not know what expense may be involved in it); arming of battery; drill shed; alteration of admiralty house for officers of barracks; dockyard construction.


Robert Laird Borden: What is that- dockyard construction?


Wilfrid Laurier: That covers the repairs to the building and the wharf. All this expenditure cannot be very definitely estimated until we have the plans and specifications from the architects. But this is the nearest approximate that the officers of the department have been able to give us.


John Allister Currie: I had the pleasure of going through the dockyard at Halifax last year. The epithet applied by Sir William White to the dockyard at Esquimalt applies to some extent to the Halifax dockyard. This plant is there, but it is not modern. Of course, there are some modern tools, but, in order to carry on the work of the navy under modern conditions, fully three-quarters of the appliances and tools might as well be cast into the sea. There are no air tools, the power is not applied by electric motors, and there are none of the economies that ought to appear in a modem dockyard. Everything there is substantial, but old-fashioned, and evidently intended more for the repair of ships built of wood than for the repair of modern steel vessels. The condition of the tools and machinery, I must say, speaks well for the staff, for everything not in use was carefully oiled and in good repair. But I have not the slightest doubt that it would take a couple of hundred thousand dollars to put modem tools and appliances in that dockyard so that ship repairs might be made economically.
As to the admiralty house, that is to say, the quarters and that sort of thing, I think they are very good quarters, some slight repairs might be needed. Another thing in connection with this college, if it is^to be in Halifax, is that it should be placed where the cadets of the college can be given practical employment in the yard where 'these tools are used, and then there would be no necessity of duplicating the tools at the college. I cannot understand why the government does not renew that dock and enlarge it. An expenditure of possibly $200,000 would lengthen that dock, and by means of concrete piers and widening the bottom, it could be made a first-class dock. It will also be necessary to provide the necessary crane equipment to handle the heavy steel and cast iron bars and ordnance, and everything of that kind to be placed on those ships. That is expensive, but if the government is going to
do this work, I would strongly urge that they make it up to date, and not do it by piecemeal, and be coming down here every year for additional small items. It is better to go right on and tear out what is old, and put in what is necessary to make it an up to date shipyard. Riant of this description becomes antiquated very quickly. Labour-saving appliances and inventions are brought into use so rapidly now, that of the men who were well acquainted with these things some years ago, you could hardly find one man in a thousand now that knows how to use them. However, I am glad that the dockyard is to be fixed up, because it is a magnificent site. I do not think there is a harbour in Amerioa that is equal to the Halifax harbour. There is no situation equal to it in the world for a dockyard such as is proposed. I have also been out to Esquimalt, and I think that the opinion of it given by Mr. White is corrrect.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know anything about Mr. White's opinion except that he is supposed to be an eminent authority on these matters. But I think some of my hon. friends from British Columbia *who are familiar with the conditions, would be much inclined to agree with him. So far as Halifax is concerned it was a naval base up to about five years ago, when we had a very considerable squadron on that station. About ten years ago one of the largest battleships in the navy was in that squadron. Up to the time that Halifax ceased to be a naval base that dockyard was sufficient for t-hfe purpose, and it was handed over to this government, as I understand, in that condition. I still desire to express surprise that it should be necessary, if proper care has been taken, to expend so large an amount for the purpose of making it effective. There may be some conditions I do not understand. Certainly the government were not lacking in one respect, for they have put a considerable number of men at work in the dockyard from time to time, and more especially at the time of general elections, when more than 400 unnecessary men were put on according to the sworn evidence of persons in Halifax who were interrogated with regard to that by Mr. Justice Cassells, and by the counsel attending that commission. Except when a general election was imminent the ordinary staff seemed to be-reason-ably adequate for the purpose. We shall have, I suppose, at another session some information as to what has been done with this money, and perhaps some fuller information as to the conditions which make the expenditure necessary. It would have been better if the Prime Minister could have found it convenient to print and distribute among us the memorandum from which he

reads, as it is not easy to get a definite idea of what the expenditure contemplates merely hearing it read.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is typewritten, but I will send it over to my hon. friend. The condition of the Halifax dockyard is very much as it has been described by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie). The building and constructions are all of a very substantial character, every one who has been in the dockyard is impressed by that fact. I think also that it has been kept in very good condition of repair, and perhaps this explains the extraordinary number of men who were employed at election times. It shows that they did not lose their time, they oiled the machinery very well and kept it moving.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN Did they spend much of their time in oiling the election machinery?


Wilfrid Laurier: At Halifax it is probably necessary to do what has been suggested by the' hon. member for Simcoe in order to put the works in modern condition. When the dockyard was first established many years ago it was prepared to handle wooden ships, now we have to get in a new plant to meet modern conditions, and the establishment of a navy. That will also necessitate a new building. I think my hon. friend from Simcoe is quite right in saying that we should have the naval college in close proximity to the dockyard. We must also have barracks for the men, and houses for the officers, we must have a battery, and all the conditions implied thereby, also a drill shed. We shall probably need many new constructions, as well as repairing wihat already exists there. My hon. friend from Simcoe suggests that the dock itself ought to be lengthened, and I understand that the same idea has occurred to several others. But I am informed that the officers of the admiralty, who are expert in matters of that kind, think it cannot be lengthened, they have made an examination, and found it impossible to lengthen the dock.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that the gov-ernfent are to borrow officers from the imperial navy. What is the plan proposed to substitute them for those men who have been in the Canadian service, and how is the exchange to be effected, and for what period?


Wilfrid Laurier: The officers would be borrowed for three years, and a skeleton crew will be brought over for five years. This will be the nucleus upon which we propose to build our own navy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the intention to employ some Canadian sailors at once to work with the nucleus of the British sailors?
Mr. R, L. BORDEN.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. ,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: How many?


Wilfrid Laurier: We propose to begin at once to train 400 recruits.


Mr RHODES.: How many imperial officers will remain on board, and how many Canadian officers will go on board at once?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have no Canadian officers at the present time. All the officers on this boat must be brought over from England But we propose to train our own men as fast as we can.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The intention is to man the ships with imperial officers until such time as you can educate Canadian officers?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear; that is it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Are these to be educated in tlie Canadian college?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the intention.


Richard Stuart Lake: The Prime Minister stated that the intention was to place the Halifax dockyard in a modern condition. Has he an estimate of the whole expenditure required for that, because obviously the appropriation taken this year will not be sufficient for the whole work.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is intended, as I understand it, to rejuvenate the dockyard at Halifax, but, of course, it is not possible to do it in one year, and it must be done gradually.


John Allister Currie: What is the amount for that?


Wilfrid Laurier: The estimated expenditure under all these headings will come to nearly $600,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: How are the 400 recruits which are to be taken on at once, to be selected?


Wilfrid Laurier: By recruiting officers and advertisement, I presume.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is it the intention to make Esquimalt the naval base for the Pacific squadron, and if not, where will the Pacific naval base be?	.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Esquimalt is intended to be the naval base. We have not yet had a full transfer- of Esquimalt, but as soon as we have, it is proposed to do there exactly what we are doing in Halifax, barring, of course, the naval college. We will not have a naval college on the Pacific, but everything else will be the same as at Halifax.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This item speaks of the establishment and maintenance of naval schools; what other schools are contemplated besides the naval college?


Wilfrid Laurier: It should be school; there will only be one school.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What is the proposed rate of pay for the men in the Canadian service as compared with the pay of the men in the imperial service?


Wilfrid Laurier: The following table shows the pay in the British and the American services, and the proposed payj in the Canadian service. Of course, it must be understood that those rates are not definitely fixed yet.



[Stage Direction]
Comparison of Daily Rates of Pay.
Captain	
Commander	
Lieutenant	
Sub-Lieu tenant	
Midshipmen	
Engineer captain	
it commander ...
it lieutenant....
[DOT]i sub-lieutenant.
Fleet paymaster	
Staff	
Paymaster	
Assistant paymaster....
Surgeons	
Chief warrant officers .. Warrant officers	
Militia (a).	British.	American.	*	Proposed Canadian.	$	cts.	$	cts.	$	cts.	$	cts.	15	50	to	12	50	10	95	to	13	70	8	20	to	14	1015	30	to	6	10	9	60	to	12	30	6	00	to	9	504 25 to	5	00	2	50	to	5	10	5	48	to	10	05	4	00	to	6	502 75 to	3	25	1	22	4	66	3	000	42	3	80	2	008	55	to	9	80	10	75	to	13	70	13	505	88	to	9	30	9	60	to	12	30	7	59	to	10	252	50	to	6	00	5	48	to	10	95	4	00	to	7	001	80	4	66	3	009	60	to	12	30	7	00	to	9	003	50	to	8	08	(G	00	to	6	50H	66	to	10	95	5	00	to	5	501	20	to	3	50	I	1.3	00	to	4	003	45	to	4	16	5	48	to	10	95	4	00	to	5	002	45	to	3	20	f ?	5(	to	5	151	32	to	2	40	I3	to	\2	50	to	3	85
* Increased by 10 per cent when serving at sea.
(a) These rates are for substantive pay and corps pay and do not include allowances. Rates of pay for an officer commanding a district or higher command vary from $6 to $10.95 a day.
[Stage Direction]
Comparison of Daily Rates of Pay.
-	Militia.	British.	American.	Proposed Canadian.Seaman class	$ cts. 0 50 to 2 75	$ cts. 0 30 to 1 30 0 40 to 1 82 0 56 to 1 82 0 32 to 1 10 0 25 to 1 35 0 32 to 1 75 0 40 to 1 10 0	56 to 1 50 1	10 to 1 58 0 30 to 0 75	$ cts. 0 58 to 2 56 0 80 to 2 56 0 91 to 2 20 *0 73 to 2 20 *1 10 to 2 20 2 20 to 2 56 0	91 to 2 00 1	10 to 2 38	$ cts. 0 50 to 2 40 0 75 to 2 50 0 75 to 2 50 0 75 to 2 50 0 75 to 2 50 0 50 to 2 60 0	50 to 2 25 1	00 to 2 50 1 50 to 2 50 0 75 to 1 500 75 to 2 25	
0 73 to 2 20	
				
* Eligible for warrant rank with increased pay up to $fi.l5 a day.
In additian to above, men in United States navy receive $6.36 a month extra on first re-enlistment, and $4.36 a month extra on each subsequent re-enlistment. It is proposed to grant men in the naval service of Canada an allowance of $1.50 per month for each re-enlistment if the term of service is 5 years, or proportionate rates if enlisted for a longer period.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At what rate is it proposed to pay the officers from the imperial service for the time they serve in the Canadian service?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, The same as the Canadian, the rate of pay I have just stated.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Can the minister give us the minimum ages in the British and Canadian services, for the admission of midshipmen?


Wilfrid Laurier: The proposed age in the Canadian service is from 14 to

16 years. I understand that in the imperial service it is from 12i to 13 years.


Richard Stuart Lake: Will members of skeleton crews from the imperial service be paid at the Canadian rates?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What expectation has the government with respect to recruiting? The Minister of Militia stated some time ago that in the permanent force not more than 20 per cent are Canadians born. I do not know how the rates of pay compare or what greater attractions the naval force presents, but assuming that they are about the same there might be the same difficulty in securing Canadian recruits.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that we have any expectation upon this. It is a matter which must be governed by experience. We may have some difficulty on account of the smaller field to draw Strom as compared with Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: One has to take into consideration the fact that there are perhaps greater opportunities in a country in process of development for an active and enterprising man, and therefore men who in Great Britain would enter the navy would here be diverted into some other form of activity and occupation. However, as the minister says, we will have to learn that by experience. Is any, and if so what portion of the $3,000,000 now proposed to be expended in the construction of ships?


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated before my hon. friend came in that we did not expect to be called upon to spend a dollar of this. I stated it was our intention as soon as the Bill received the sanction of His Excellency to ask for tenders. We have no plant at present which is prepared to go into construction of ships. It may be some months before we are in a position to accept a tender, and if a tender is accepted the first thing the tenderer will have to do will be to put up a plant. It is not expected, therefore, that within the present fiscal year we will be called on to pay anything out of this appropriation for construction.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It appears that at the last conference of representatives of this government and the admiralty, the question of the flag was raised. What flag is this navy to fly?


Wilfrid Laurier: That question has not yet been considered or determined. The suggestion has been made to us, and no opposition has been made to it, that we should fly the white ensign with the Canadian coat of arms on the fly. As to the uniform of the officers, it ha3 been suggested that we should adopt the uniform of the imperial navy, simply substi-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
tuting the maple leaf for the laurel leaf on the buttons.


Richard Stuart Lake: When is it expected the ' Niobe ' will arrive at Halifax?


Wilfrid Laurier: About the month of July.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand that $50,000 is to be expended on the ' Niobe ' and $27,600 on the ' Rainbow.' That of course is speaking approximately. Where are these repairs to be effected?


Wilfrid Laurier: In the admiralty yard in Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: Where are these two ships to be stationed?


Wilfrid Laurier: The ' Niobe ' will be stationed in the gulf of St. Lawrence, and the ' Rainbow ' in the northern waters of British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: Where will their headquarters be?


Wilfrid Laurier: At Halifax and Esquimalt.


John Allister Currie: On the Great Lakes there are between three and four thousand sailors, seamen, artificers and officers possibly as well disciplined and intelligent a class of sailors as can be found in the whole world. They are well trained, pilots and expert machinists, most of them understanding machinery of all kinds such as they would encounter on a warship with the possible exception of the guns. Will any steps be taken to provide training for these men? Will a naval militia be attached to the navy so that these men may spend their winters at sea so that they can learn the only other accomplishments they require, gunnery and ocean seamanship such as taking astronomical observations? They are all men of fine physique. They are employed under modern mechanical conditions, and among them you could get stokers, engineers, electrical men and "all kinds of men who would be required by this government to superintend the navy in time of war. All you would require to do would be to teach them gunnery.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me a very good suggestion. If we could take some of those voters down and put them on the ships, I can see no objection. They are good seamen and I am told a very fine population.


John Allister Currie: I think some arrangement might be made whereby they would get three months' training a year, and arrangements could be made that their expenses to Halifax and back in the spring should be paid.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear


John Allister Currie: I understand there is such a naval reserve in England and an officer on the lakes, who could pass an examination, should be entitled to fly a special flag, as in the English merchant marine.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Fisheries protection service, $281,500.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is nothing new in this appropriation; it is the same as we have had year after year; but I would like to amend this item by adding ' including cost of vessels engaged in fisheries inspection for the Department of Marine and Fisheries.' Hereafter the protection service will be under the Naval Department, while the inspection service will Temain under the Marine Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How -will you apportion the expense between the two departments?


Wilfrid Laurier: At present we have several ships which are doing both inspection and protection service. We have certain vessels policing our waters and preserving them from poachers; these are the protection service. Then we have a certain number of smaller boats, with very small crews, employed for the inspection of the fisheries, distributing provisions, and so on, and reporting to headquarters. These will remain in the Marine Department, while the others will go to the Naval Department. It is intended that in the course of time the vessels engaged in the fisheries protection service shall be replaced by vessels of our navy, which will be of a very much superior character.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I understand that those in the protection service will be charged to the Naval Branch, and those in the inspection service will be charged to the Marine branch?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the men in the protection service be under the naval discipline and uniformed like the men of the fleet?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the intention in the course of time, but not at present. I think I can safely say that the intention is to replace all the _ ships that we have at present in the protection service with ships of the Canadian navy; but so long as our present ships are in service, it is not intended to change them from their present condition.


John Allister Currie: When the navy is in existence^ I understand that the protection service at present given by the Marine and Fisheries Department will virtually disappear, and the line of cleavage will be between what may be called the
customs revenue or protective service and the naval service. I should think that the local service might be better undertaken by the Customs Department, as is done in the United States with their revenue cutters, so that the other department would be clear and promotions would go direct.


Wilfrid Laurier: Owing to our geographical position, I do not think that our coasts would be sufficiently protected by revenue cutters such as they have in the United States. It has been found that a particular class of men have to be trained for our protection service, and I think it is better managed as it is than it w-ould be in the way suggested by my hon. friend.


John Allister Currie: My idea is that the men who are at present in the service should have a chance to be absorbed into the navy. These ships are doing the same kind of work that naval vessels are doing in Great Britain and other countries, and if you leave them in a separate category, you will give cause for a certain amount of jealousy and disagreement, whereas if you have just the one service, with a chance for the officres to gain naval promotion, I think it would work more smoothly than it will if you have two departments.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend confounds the protection service with the inspection service. The inspection service is done largely in our inland waters, for which vessels of the protection service would not be suited.


John Allister Currie: No, I mean the protection service. The crews, I understand, will be absorbed into the navy?


Wilfrid Laurier: I should imagine so.
To provide for the construction of a steamer for surveying the Gulf and River St. Lawrence to replace ' La Canadienne,' $75,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: The steamer is under contract, being built in England. It is ready now.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN- What has become of ' La Canadienne '?


Wilfrid Laurier: ' La Canadienne ' is rather a veteran, and will have to be placed under another service-not absolutely put out of commission; but 3he is not suitable for this service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the new boat going to cost?	*


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Robert Laird Borden: When did the construction begin?


Wilfrid Laurier: About a year ago.	>


Robert Laird Borden: Ig there any difficulty about having a steamer of that size built in Canada?


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, I do not know. It was built by tender, and the lowest tenderer got the contract.


John Allister Currie: I understand there was very little difference between the tenders.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon friend is right. There was not much difference. The tender of Swan and Hunter was $177,653 delivered at Sorel, and that of the Collingwood Ship Building Company was $181,462.


John Allister Currie: That is a very small difference, and last year the Finance Minister said that if there was only a difference of 5 per cent or 10 per cent the government would not hesitate to give the preference to a Canadian shipbuilding concern over a British shipbuilding concern. The difference is so very small in this case that I think the government should have hesitated before they gave the contract to the English firm, especially bearing in mind that the customs department would have received considerable benefit from the material that went into the building of the ship and that the railway companies and Canadian workmen would also have received benefit. I do not like to criticise the department in the absence of the regular minister, but I hope that in another case of this kind the Prime Minister will bear in mind what I have said and recall the promise made last year by the Finance Minister that if there was only a difference of 5 or 10 per cent the Canadian firm would have the benefit.


Wilfrid Laurier: I agree altogether with my hon. friend. I am surprised that the Collingwood Company did not get the contract when the difference was so small. But knowing the mind of the minister, there must have been some other reason. Not only he but the cabinet as a whole would have been disposed to give it to the Canadian firm. I am delighted to find that there is such a small discrepancy between Canadian building and British building. It is a hopeful sign and I will be only too glad to remember the suggestion of my hon. friend.
Hydrographic surveys, including survey of Hudson bay, $320,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you a vessel now making a hydrographic survey in the Hudson bay?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, we have not. We have a vessel doing hydrographic survey work in the gulf. But we intend to send shore parties to the Hudson bay Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
this year to commence a survey of the bay. We have no vessel there yet.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the explanation of the increase?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the Prime Minister mean by saying he will send two shore parties to the Hudson bay if they have no boat?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will have to charter a vessel to send them up to Hudson bay, to both the Nelson river and the Churchill river. Then in small boats they will carry out the survey of the bay 20 miles from the shore, the object being to ascertain exactly what are the conditions for navigating purposes on both the Nelson and Churchill rivers.
Tidal service, $42,500.


Robert Laird Borden: What is being done-?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend knows that the study of currents is a work that never ceases. We have at the present time a steamer in the Gulf of St. Lawrence which is stationed there during all the seasons taking surveys at all times of the day. We are doing some similar work on the coast of British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose these observations are tabulated and published.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, published every year.


John Allister Currie: Is any hydrographic survey work being carried on in Hudson bay. They are talking about building railways up there and establishing grain elevators and grain routes.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the service which we commenced this year. We have taken an appropriation for this purpose. I repeat that we intend to send two shore parties to Hudson bay where, it is proposed, they will apply themselves to surveying 20 miles fifom the shore, at Nelson and Churchill. The object is to ascertain, in view of the early construction of the railway to Hudson bay wdiich is the better harbour. We have been under the impression that the only good harbour in Hudson bay was Churchill, but an impression has grown up recently that in certain respects Nelson harbour would be the better one. The object in sending the two parties this year is to secure as accurate information as we can collect to enable us to determine that very point. It will only be a preliminary step, for we will have to survey the bay as accurately as the St. Lawrence and the great lakes.


John Allister Currie: I understand that a great deal of money is spent every year on these surveys, and that they are simply duplicating the work done by the British admiralty years ago. I understand that the admiralty charts are very complete.


Wilfrid Laurier: The admiralty charts are certainly very complete and the chart prepared by Admiral Bayfield is as good a piece of work as has been done in any part of the world. But in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the river St. Lawrence there are displacements all the time and the hydrographic survey cannot stop. It must always go on because every year there are displacements which have to be recorded for the benefit of navigation.


Robert Laird Borden: What kind of displacements?


Wilfrid Laurier: Boulders in ihe river St. Lawrence especially. I understand that the currents at the bottom of the river are different from those at the bottom of the ocean and all the time you have to keep a detailed survey going on. New maps are published every year also.
To provide for the building and maintenance of wireless stations, $150,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are these stations?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will give the list. First, there is the maintenance of the east coast station as follows: Father Point, $3,500; Clarke City, $3,500; Fame Point, $3,500; Heath Point, $3,500; Point Rich, $3,500; Cape Ray, $3,500; Harrington, $3,500; Point d'Amour, $3,500; Belle Isle, $3,500; Cape Race, $3,500; Cape Sable, $3,500; St. John, $3,500; Cape Bear, $2,500. On the west coast, maintenance is provided for Point Grey, Cape Lazo, Pachena, Este-van, Triangle Island, Deluge Point and Prince Rupert. In addition, there is the construction of one station proposed in British Columbia. We propose also to duplicate the equipment at Point Grey, Victoria, Pachena, Estevan and Cape Lazo. The construction of stations in British Columbia will cost $20,030 and unforeseen expenses, $8,936.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not notice that Halifax and Sydney are included. Are there stations at these points?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


John Allister Currie: Has the department taken into consideration the establishing of wireless stations on the Great Lakes? The United States Steel Trust have decided to install the wireless on their vessels, and Canadian owners are considering the question. In order to have the operation suocessful, there should be at least three stations on the Huron-Superior division.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a proposition before us to grant provision for the erection of four stations.


John Allister Currie: Is the government going to handle the stations themselves the same as the Marconi in the east?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is under consideration.
Department of the Naval Service-
Deputy minister	$ 5,000
First division, subdivision B, 2 at
$2,100	 4,200
Second division, subdivision A, 3 at
$1,600	 4,800
Second division, subdivision B, 1 at
$1,300, 8 at $800	 7,700
Third division, subdivision A, 2 at
$900	 1,800
Third division, subdivision B, 2 at
$550, 7 at $500	 4,600
Messengers, 1 at $550, 2 at $500.. ..	1,550
Contingencies	 20,000


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps it would be satisfactory if I give the committee a statement of the proposed organization of this new department. There will be the deputy minister, who will have in his office, three clerks, one each in 2B, 3A and 3B. The accountant will be an officer in class IB, and he will have also one in 2A, one in 2B and two in 3B. The director of stores, who will be in class IB will have three officers, one each in 2A, 2B and [DOT]3B. In the records and correspondence office, there will be five officers, of whom one will be in 2A, two in 2B and two in 3B. The director of gunnery will have an officer in 2B with one assistant in 3B. In the office of the chief of staff, will be one officer in 2B and one in 3B. The same will be the case with the office of the naval engineer-one in 2B and one in 3B. The office of director of the naval service will have one officer in 2B and one in 3A. There will be two messengers. This makes a total of 28.


Mr. JAMESON.: Who is to be the new deputy minister?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a point that has not been settled yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The estimate here shows the number to be employed. Are more to be employed than are shown here?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is all.
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to government steamers and icebreakers, $710,000.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: There is an increase in this vote of $75,000, which is almost entirely accounted for by the 'Earl Grey,'

which did not figure largely in last year's estimates. For wages, provisions and so forth on the ' Earl Grey ' we require $86,683. The other ships are practically about the same as last year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the 'Earl Grey' a new steamer?


William Templeman: She is the new icebreaking steamer between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It is singular that a new steamer should require so many repairs. Was she damaged?


William Templeman: There are no repairs to the 'Earl Grey' among these items.
Rewards for saving life, including life-saving stations, $40,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: With regard to this item, the minister may recall the facts of the case that took place in connection with the wreck of the steamer 'Hestia.' He will remember that the seamen were on board that steamer from Sunday night, or about 1 o'clock Monday morning, until the afternoon of Tuesday, without any one coming near them to rescue them from that wreck. There is a life-saving station not far away, and a lighthouse only about three or four miles distant. It will also be remembered that this steamer sent off continuously rockets and bombs, and also lighted a large bonfire on the deck of the ship on Monday night. It was an absolutely clear night, all shore lights were yisible, and that light should have been seen at a very long distance. But apparently no notice was taken of it by the lighthouse keeper at Gannet Rock, and as a matter of fact, the wrecked seamen were not relieved until the afternoon of Tuesday. I think the minister will also remember that when the court of inquiry took place on that wreck, the chairman, Captain Lugard, said that it was the intention of the government to make a further inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, because the court refused to go into anything that occurred after the stranding of the ship. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, also, when I brought this matter up early in the session, stated that he would hold a further inquiry into the matter. If any other inquiry has been held it has certainly not been a public one. I have kept a lookout for such an inquiry, and I have seen nothing of the kind, and no reference to it anywhere. I think it was due to the department, it was due to the shipping interests, that a further and more searching inquiry should have been made into the circumstances attending that wreck, and why these wrecked persons were left so long almost within sight of help, without any assistance being rendered them. I think some explanation is due to parlia-


William Templeman: rnent and to the public from the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
The lighthouse and life-savtng service is most important, and it is growing in importance all the time as the commercial marine increases in numbers, and tonnage. One peculiar circumstance was stated with regard to the absence of the lifesaving crew coming to that wreck earlier, and it was that the life-boat could not be manned, because the crew refused to go in her owing to the fact that a considerable amount of back pay had been withheld from them. The correspondence brought down in answer to my motion demonstrates that, and it is a serious condition of affairs. The allegation that the light-keeper at Gannet Rock took no notice of these wreck signals, and bon-fires, is another thing we are entitled to have information about. I would suggest to the minister that in the appointmejit of lighthouse attendants, especially on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, only men should be appoint-ted who have been formerly at sea, who know the anxiety which is caused to navigators approaching land in hazy weather, and who know how important it is that everything in connection with the lighthouse and signals and appliances should be in proper order. I would therefore urge that only men be appointed who have experience as mariners, and who have been accustomed to keeping watch at sea. I hope the hon. minister will give us information as to the condition of that life-saving station, and as to the reason why the further inquiry promised by Mr. Brodeur and by the [DOT]chairman of the commission which investigated the wreck of the ' Hestia,' was not had.


William Templeman: The wreck of the ' Hestia,' was discussed at very great length, and very fully in the earlier days of the session, and the minister explained the facts and the result of the investigation which appears on ' Hansard.' I am advised that the minister came to the conclusion that a further investigation would be of no service.
Mr. DANIEL He promised it from his place in the House.


William Templeman: The minister was later on advised that a further formal inquiry would not be productive of any good results. The department has been very active since that time, and a new and modern life-saving station is nearing completion on Wood island in the neighbourhood where the wreck occurred. A very competent man has been brought out from England to take charge of the life-saving stations on the Bay of Fundy in order that a better service may be Tendered in the future, and the steamer ' Stanley,' has been

placed in service on the Bay of Fundy to take care of the life-buoys, and beacons, and to keep them in, proper order. This is all a decided improvement over former arrangements, and I suppose it is largely due to the unfortunate wreck of the ' Hestia.' The department has since that time done everything in its power to meet the requirements of the situation. A modern gasoline life-saving boat manned with a good crew and supervised by a competent man brought out from England for that purpose, will be placed on the station. I agree with my hon. friend as to the advisability of employing seafaring men in the lighthouses. I understand that on the Atlantic coast fishermen and ex-sailors are generally if not always selected for positions of that kind.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not always.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN My experience is that they are about the only class of men who will take such positions in these isolated stations. The great difficulty is to get good men, and my own opinion is that the salaries of the light-keepers are very low indeed and probably do not command the salaries of the light-keepers are very estly hope that the policy of the department in initiating a system of classification of lighthouses, and increasing the pay of the lighthouse keepers will be extended.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The statement of the minister as to the improvements that have been made since the wreck of the ' Hestia,' are reassuring, and satisfactory, but at the same time the further investigation promised by the minister, and by Captain Lu-gard during the inquiry, has not been held. We have no information as to whether the lighthouse keeper at Gannet Rock did his duty on the night of the wreck. There have been statements made in the press as to his seeing this vessel coming in too near and giving no warning signals. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but it is due to the department as well as to the shipping interests, and to the passengers who travel on these ships that a real investigation should have been held. If the lighthouse keeper was not at fault he certainly should be freed from blame. The promise of the minister that a rigid inquiry would ho held has not been carried out.


William Templeman: The investigation showed that the light was burning.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It is not denied that the Gannet Rock light was burning.


William Templeman: The investigation made by the commissioners was considered to be complete, and I understand the minister promised further inquiry by himself, but he concluded afterwards that nothing further could be ascertained.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The investigation stopped short at the moment of the stranding of the vessel. The delay in taking these men off the ship occurred after the stranding, and Captain Lugard and his associate commissioners would not allow evidence as to that.


William Templeman: The minister ascertained afterwards that the life-saving station was not in the best place, and I presume that it is in consequence, that he is building a better station in a more suitable location.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Can the keeper of the Gannet Rock light now signal to the main land for assistance?


William Templeman: They are putting a telephone connection between the Gannet Rock light and the new life-saving station.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will that give continuous communication with the mainland and St. John?


William Templeman: Yes; it will connect with an extension and give them communication to St. John.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Has there been anything done to improve the condition of the harbour at Port Stanley? The minister will remember that a car ferry which was trying to make the port last winter went to the bottom with 24 hands on board. I understand that the residents of Port Stanley have been asking that some protection be given in the way of a fog signal.


William Templeman: The people of Port Stanley have been asking that some dredging be done in order to make the harbour more accessible, and that is a question for the Department of Public Works. The question of putting up lights would be considered afterwards by the Department of Marine.


Richard Blain: I suppose the minister will communicate with the Minister of Public Works in respect to the Port Stanley harbour?


William Templeman: I will be pleased to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to what my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) has said, and my reply thereto.
Schools of navigation, $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are these schools?


William Templeman: Halifax, Lunenburg, Yarmouth, St. John, Canso, North Sydney, Quebec, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, Col-lingwood, Midland, Vancouver, Victoria.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do they teach in these schools?


William Templeman: Men conversant with navigation teach the rudiments of the science to all seafaring men who apply for instruction. I know that in Victoria the lecturer is the agent of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and he is a very competent man.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: One of these schools was carried on in Canso for a year or two, and did very good work. Fishermen and sailors, attended the school in winter at night and received instruction on questions of navigation. The instruments are found very useful, and when the men get their training they go to Halifax or another examining point and get their certificates. It seems that the instructor left the place without giving any warning to the school board, the instruments were withdrawn by the department and the school discontinued for a year. I hope the minister will try to have it revived next year.
M[r. JAMESON. For the -information of the minister I may say there .is need for a school of this sort at Digby. During the winter there are many sailors there who desire to improve themselves in their profession, but for lack of opportunity near at home are unable to do so. The expense of such a school does not seem to be great, and I think it would be a good plan for the minister to extend the system if the department has found it has resulted satisfactorily. I trust the minister will see his way clear to establish such a school at Digby.
Salaries and expenses of cattle inspection, $5,000.	-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Should this not come under some other department such as quarantine or agriculture?


William Templeman: This is for the inspection of the fittings of ships for the carrying of cattle, to see that they are properly stalled, and that there are the proper number of men on board to take care of them. It has always been under this department.
To continue subsidy for wrecking plant at Quebec, maritime provinces and British Columbia, $30,000.


Martin Burrell: I wish to draw attention to the case of a man named T. H. McNeil who has been lighthouse keeper at Fiddle Reef. He understands that there was something like a promise made to him by Mr. Gaudin, inspector of Marine and Fisheries. that he should have charge of the Trial island lighthouse when it was completed, and I understand that another man who applied for and obtained the appointment- \vas physically incapable of rendering assistance to those who were carried away by the dangerous currents near this Mr. SPROULE.
point. Mr. McNeil gets $35 a month. He has many tstimonials, and I would ask if some recognition of a financial character could not be given him in the shape of either an increase in salary or a promotion. I shall read two letters as samples of the testimonials he has received:
Agency of Department of
Marine and Fisheries, Victoria, B.C., March 9, 1907.
Sir,-I am requested by the deputy minister to convey to you the thanks of the department for your services in extricating the SS. ' Montara ' from her dangerous position amongst the reefs and dangers in the vicinity of your station.
The attention of the minister will be called to your valuable services in this connection.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,


JAS. GAUDIN,
[Stage Direction]
Agent.
Thomas Hay: McNeill,
Fiddle Reef Lighthouse,
Care of P. O. Victoria, B.C.
Victoria, B.C., October 16, 1909. Mr. D. H. McNeill,
Keeper of Light,
Fiddle Reef, Oak Bay.
Dear Sir,-I have to convey to you the united thanks both of myself and sister for your much valued service rendered off Trial island, when we were swept out in the Straits of Juan de Fuca, by a strong flood tide and westerly wind. We were unable to get back in our small skiff and you were the only person who rowed out and showed yourself able to get us back.
I consider your conduct in this case deserves consideration from the Marine Department of Lighthouses, and I think you should be promoted to a better station.
We thoroughly appreciate your much valued assistance rendered on August 29 last. With best wishes,
Yours very truly,


M. BUCKLEY,
[Stage Direction]
735 View St., Victoria, B.C.
There are many other leters and testimonials of this kind, and I trust the minister will be able to give some assurance that this man's merits will receive some recognition. .
William Templeman: I am quite familiar with the circumstances of this case, I quite agree with what the hon. member says of Mr. McNeil, except the statement that he was promised the Trial island light. That is incorrect.


Martin Burrell: I am not quoting that as official.


William Templeman: I quite agree as to the inadequacy of the salary of $37.50 a month. It must be remembered, however, that this lighthouse is probably a quarter of a mile from Oak Bay hotel, in front of his house. Mr. McNeil rows out to it and putsupa light, and I believe he has rendered good service to a number of inexperien-

ced men and women who foolishly went out into these waters trying to catch salmon. I know Mr. McNeil very well. I quite sym-pathize_ with the views expressed by my hon. friend, and I will say a good word for Mr. McNeil to the department.
To provide for the maintenance of vessels employed in patrolling the waters in the northern portion of Canada, also for establishing and maintaining police and customs ports on the mainland or islands, as mav he deemed necessary from time to time, $59,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the Bernier expedition?


William Templeman: This is for the * Arctic.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it all for the ' Arctic '? Because it says ' vessels.'


William Templeman: It is all for the 'Arctic'; but it might be necessary, I am told, to send another steamer to bring the ' Arctic' back. This is approximately the amount required for the outfitting of a steamer for a two-years cruise, and paying the salaries for one year. The items are: Salaries, $14,000; fuel, $5,000; repairs, $9,000; supplies and sundries, $32,000. The total amount is the same as last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the total outlay in connection with the expedition?


William Templeman: Yes, thi3 covers everything for a two-years cruise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What authority has Captain Bernier to establish police stations and customs ports there?


William Templeman: An officer of the Customs Department goes on the ' Arctic ' with Captain Bernier, who ha3 full authority to collect and does collect customs dues from American and other foreign whalers in our northern waters. I do not suppose that he will establish any permanent cus->to*ms ports, but for the time being he will collect customs dues wherever he finds foreign whalers in our waters. I am bound to say that the voyage of the ' Arctic ' to the northern waters for the purpose of planting our flag and exercising our authority has been fully justifie_d.
River St. Lawrence ship channel, $800,000.


William Templeman: This vote is the same as last year. Tihe details are as follows:
This vote is to make provision for the operation of the ship channel dredging fleet, for the construction of additional plant, for the maintenance and improvement of the Sorel shipyard, as well as general additions to the machinery and plant, all according to the subjoined detailed estimate.
6 elevator dredges, with tug9, at
$45,000..		$270,000
1 hydraulic dredge with two tugs.. 118,000 279
2 suction-hopper dredges and tug.. .. 120,000 2 inspection and sweeping tugs at $18,000	 36,000
1	ice-breaker	  40,000
2	stone-lifters and 1 floating shop.. 10,000 Operating one dipper-dredge and tug. 40,000 Operating one rock-crushing plant.. 6,000 Fleet generally-*
Amount for outfitting, docking and providing of extra parts for dredging fleet	 40,000
Maintenance and improvement for
Sorel shipyard	 70,000
Addition and improvements to the fleet of dredges, tugs, scows and stone-lifters	 50,000
1 $800,000


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Last session the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Herron) brought up the question of a dredge which had been built at Sorel at immense cost to the Dominion, and when launched it wras found would not hold water, and a false bottom had to be built in it. We would like to have some information in regard to that.


William Templeman: I am advised that the dredge was built there and was found to be too short for the work, and was lengthened by 20 feet.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Did she turn turtle after she was launched?


William Templeman: No, that is a fiction.


Glenlyon Campbell: Did she stay above water?


William Templeman: Oh, yes.


Glenlyon Campbell: What was the object of the false bottom?


William Templeman: There is not any false bottom; there never was any.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am referring to a statement made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Herron) that a dredge was built at the expense of Canada at Sorel, and that when she was launched she was not able to float, without anchor, coal or anything else, and that she was put in the dock again and had a false bottom put in. That is the information I am asking for.


William Templeman: The minister is authorized to say that it is a fiction absolutely. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Herron) was incorrectly advised. There was no such dredge, and there is no truth whatever in the case.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would like to ask who authorizes the minister to make that statement?


William Templeman: The deputy minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is he correctly informed?


William Templeman: I think so.
Purchase of yard property at Sorel, $30,000.


Glenlyon Campbell: What has been done with this property at Sorel. Are the government operating it?


William Templeman: The government has had this property under lease. We took a vote last year to buy it, but we did not do so, and we are taking a vote again.


Glenlyon Campbell: To buy it outright?


William Templeman: Yes.


Glenlyon Campbell: How many yards of frontage has the property?


William Templeman: It is about 35 acres in extent.


Glenlyon Campbell: I asked for the water frontage.


William Templeman: I am told the total frontage is about one-eighth of a mile.
To provide for the completion and construction of a dredging plant for the River St. Lawrence from Montreal to Father Point, $250,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have a specific item for dredges that you are building, and now you seem to have another item for dredging.


William Templeman: It is proposed to deepen the channel from Montreal to the sea to 35 feet, the present depth being 30 feet, and it was necessary to provide a plant to dredge deeper than the present plant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are these dredges to be built?


William Templeman: At Sorel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All at Sorel?


William Templeman: Yes.
Amount required for permanent piers in Lake St. Peter and other places in the ship channel, River St. Lawrence, $50,000.


William Templeman: There is a decrease here. Most of the work is done.
Salaries and allowances to liglitkeepers, $400,000.


William Templeman: There is an increase here of $30,000. It is simply for the purpose of covering the salaries of new lighthouse keepers and of giving slight increases to the present lighthouse keepers.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are there more lighthouse keepers or are the salaries of the present lighthouse keepers being increased merely?


William Templeman: There are more lighthouse keepers and slight increases in the salaries.


Glenlyon Campbell: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the average salary -for a lighthouse keeper employed all the year round?


William Templeman: There is a wide scale of difference in the salaries of lighthouse keepers. They run from $60 a year to $1,500 a year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I mean those in exposed positions.


William Templeman: Well, $1,500 a year. I think in that case the lighthouse keeper has to pay the salary of an assistant. The lighthouses are divided into classes, there being some 19 different classes. From one to six, they are combined light and fog alarm stations, and in these cases the maximum salary runs from $640 to $1,200. Then there is another class of lighthouses where there is no fos alarm, and they are subdivided again into minor classes, the salaries running from $300 to $530 per year. Then there are minor stations where the exclusive services of a keeper are not required and where the salaries run from $65 to $240 per year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Do they get any supplies in addition to their salaries?
Air. TEA1PLEAIAN. They get no personal supplies, but they get coal and oil and lighthouse supplies.
Air. JAA1ESON. Will there be a general increase in the salaries throughout the entire service? And what will the percentage be based on, the old salaries?


William Templeman: I understand that it was a readjustment and reclassification of the lights, and that necessitates an increase of salaries. The average increase was about 10 per cent. That increase was made a year or two ago.


Clarence Jameson: I brought this matter to the attention of the Alinister of Marine and Fisheries (Air. Brodeur), last year, and I would like to say to the acting minister (Air. Templeman) now that I think the increase given to the light-keepers was not in proportion to the advance in the cost of living The duties of the light-keepers are very important; upon their faithful attention to these duties the lives and property of many people depends. Alany of these light-keepers are practically exiled, and the post is one which, perhaps, is not very eagerly sought. In many cases, their duties are of such a nature that it is impossible for them to engage in any other calling. The salaries paid are too meagre altogether. I can speak definitely concerning those in my own county; I know that the light-keepers and others in connection with the service there are underpaid. They render excellent service, and, I believe, are faithful in the performance of the duties entrusted to them. I hope the minister

will endeavour to do justice to these faithful public servants.
Construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, including apparatus, submarine signals, and providing suitable boats for carrying on construction works; also for the improvement of the West Coast Trail, British Columbia, $1,000,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does this include the new occulting buoys, the automatic whistling buoys?
*%


William Templeman: Yes, all the lighthouses, fog alarms, and machinery appertaining thereto.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The evidence brought down relating to the Old Proprietor buoy showed that it was at fault, and that thereby the wreck was caused. It appeared that this buoy had not been visited for fifteen months after it was placed in position. When it was visited, of course, everything was wrong-the light was out, and the whistle was not operative. I understand that it should not have been left unvisited, certainly, for longer than twelve months. Perhaps the minister might explain what the regulations are with regard to the visiting of these buoys, and who sees that they are attended to. For this seems an extremely important thing. If buoys are left unvisited for three months longer than they ought to be, somebody is responsible.


William Templeman: As I explained a moment ago, the steamer ' Stanley,' having been placed in the Bay of Fundy to attend to the lights on those coasts alone, she will have ample time to visit them all very frequently. As a matter of fact, they have to report to the department once a month now with respect to the condition of every light in the Bay of Fundy, and along the coast. Of course, lighthouses need not be visited so often as beacons and buoys that have no personal attendants, but they ought to be visited by the steamer practically once a month.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am glad to hear the
minister's statement, for the evidence in the case of which I have spoken shows that, although that light had been out, and the buoy defective for nine or ten months, the fact was never reported to Ottawa until after the wreck took place. I am glad the department is waking up to the necessity of looking a little more carefully after these things than it has done in the past.


Clarence Jameson: The minister has placed in the estimates this year $1,000,000 for lighthouses and aids to navigation. This is an increase of $200,000 over the appropriation for last year. I have no criticism to_ offer of the increased expenditure in this branch, for I think this a very im-270}	!
portant service. But I hold also that the aids to navigation should be properly distributed. Some time ago, I brought to the attention of the department the need for a ' Fairway ' whistling buoy at Grand Passage, Brier island. The Lighthouse Board have said that they did not consider there was any need for a buoy at that particular place for the safety of navigation. That is not the opinion of mariners who navigate those waters. That is not the opinion held by Mr. E. C. Bowers, a former member of this hon. House, a lifelong resident of Brier island, and a man largely interested in shipping at that port. I am going to add that for the lack of this urgently needed aid to navigation, there may be a serious marine casuality at that place, and I wish to be on record as having stated this danger. I understand an application was made for this aid to navigation some years ago, but was not granted. The real trouble, I think, is that the Lighthouse Board does not fully understand the situation, because if they did, I do not believe they would decline to grant this 'Fairway' buoy. There are a great many of these automatic buoys lying about the marine agency at Halifax, when they should be in use, and this is one of the cases where they are needed. The harbour at Westport is a very important harbour, and is much in use by a large number of vessels, but it is almost impossible in a fog for a vessel to safely make that port lacking this ' Fairway ' buoy. I am going to make a request now to the hon. the minister. If he will, during the coming summer, send an officer of the board to visit Westport and make a personal examination of the locality, I will be glad to accompany him myself, and if that i3 not possible, I will place him in the hands of people who know the situation thoroughly, and I am convinced that if he does make an inspection, he will report that there is a need for this whistling buoy.


William Templeman: I understand my hon. friend is speaking about Westport. The department built a lighthouse there last year. I have suggested to the deputy minister that the request of my hon. friend is a very modest one, and if he is content with a buoy, I promise that we will send an officer of the department to make an inspection, and if he finds it is necessary, I promise him that the buoy will be placed there.
To provide for breaking ice in Thunder bay and Lake Superior, and other points deemed advisable for the good of navigation, $40,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has this all been used up at Thunder bay?
MT\ TEMPLEMAN. A part of this money was spent last year. The department hat

a contract with the Canadian Lake Towing Company for breaking the ice in Port Arthur and Fort William. The contract price is $30,000 a year, and was made for three years, to expire in 1911. Other contracts were made for breaking the ice in Parry Sound, Depot Harbour, Midland and Col-lingwood. In these cases the water is kept open by tug boats.
Signal service, $9,000.


William Templeman: These are signal stations for signalling passenger vessels, largely in connection with the lighthouses. There are five stations: Quebec, 6t. John, Brier island, Partridge island and Pointe Bleue.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How do these stations. Brier island, for instance, signal? By means of flags, or in what way?


William Templeman: They report by wire and by telephone.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I saw a complaint some time ago that a steamer belonging to the Canadian Pacific railway line tried to communicate, and hoisted her number for the Brier island man to signal her, and he did not do it. I know that the steamer reported the remissness afterwards.


William Templeman: The department has no complaint from the Canadian Pacific railway about that, and they would be apt to report any mistake of that kind.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not suppose the Canadian Pacific railway made any complaint to the government, but I saw the complaint in the press, and it showed that the vessel endeavoured to get a signal from the Brier island man, and he did not signal her.


Clarence Jameson: I happen to know the keeper of the signal station at Brier island, and he is a most trustworthy man. I think there must be some mistake, and that my hon. friend perhaps has read a report in a newspaper that is not correct. I know that mariners have the utmost confidence in the fidelity of the signal keeper at that port. I notice that the minister is only paying him a salary of $250. That salary is altogether too small for the duties this man has to perform. He is stationed on a bleak hillside, away from all houses and human society, and he has to live in quarters which are not the most cheerful. I am told by people living at Westport who know the situation, and who know the life he has to lead, that the salary he receives is not sufficient. When the minister makes a readjustment of the salaries, I hope he will bear in mind the keeper of the signal station at Brier island.
Amount required to pay pensions of $300 each to fifteen pilots, $1,500.


William Templeman: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why does the government pay pensions to these pilots? I do not suppose the government pension system applies to pilots all over the Dominion?


William Templeman: Some years ago there was a corporation of pilots on the J3t. Lawrence. They had the right to pilot on that river, they were a close corporation. The department thought it necessary to make an arrangement with them, many of them were getting old, and had to be retired, and the whole pilotage system of the St. Lawrence was put on a new basis some few years ago. An arrangement was then made that when the pilots retired they would get this allowance of $300. They are compelled to retire from the service at a certain age.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In the other ports pensions for pilots are provided out of the pilotage fund made up from the earnings of the pilots. That is the case in St. John, and I do not think they make any more money than the pilots on the St. Lawrence.


William Templeman: The formation of a fund of that kind is purely voluntary with the pilots. I do not know whether that has been done on the St. Lawrence river. I know that on the Pacific where there is a pilotage authority they have no such fund. It is a matter for themselves, they receive good salaries, but I doubt if they put much away for a rainy day.
Purchase or construction of a lighthouse and buoy steamer for River St. Lawrence to replace the ' Shamrock,' $175,000.


William Templeman: That i3 to build a new steamer to take the place of the old ' Shamrock,' which is out of date, and practically out of use.	[DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will it cost?


William Templeman: The estimate is $175,000. Plans are being prepared, but no tenders have yet been called for.
Purchase or construction of a lighthouse and buoy steamer for the Pacific coast, $200,000.


William Templeman: That will have to be built by tender. On the Pacific coast the department practically owns only one steamer, the ' Quadra,' for lighthouse service, and as a result in the last few years the department had to charter two steamers to aid the ' Quadra.' It is absolutely necessary to have another steamer there, in fact we may have to get two.


Clarence Jameson: Will these be built in Canada?


William Templeman: They ought to be,
and probably on the Pacific coast if price is satisfactory.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.

After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Henry Sharpe: I wish to enter a protest against these estimates being brought down and put through to the extent of millions of dollars in the dying moments of the session, especially the estimates for this department, which are between $6,000,000 and $7,000,000, and w'hich, I can say from my own experience, is one of the departments of the government which is not being run in the way it should be. For instance, it takes over a year to get a little return from this department.. On February 4, 1909, I asked for a return in regard to the Pembina river in the province of Manitoba, and I did not receive that return until February 14, 1910, one year and ten days afterwards; end before I could get it I had to visit the department several times. I also took it up with the Prime Minister, who promised to have it brought down, and even after that, I had to -write a letter reminding him of his promise before I received the return. The Pembina river runs through my constituency into North Dakota. In the early days the farmers who lived along this river were able to get all the fish they needed for their own use; but some years ago some people in North Dakota built a dam at a town called Walhalla, which is just across the line, and since then the fish have not been able to come up the river into the province of Manitoba. I visited that town last year in company with Mr. R. N. Lee, who has always taken a great interest in this question, and we found that a dam 14 feet high, over which it would be impossible for any fish to get. We saw plenty of fish below the dam, and if there had been a fish ladder put in the dam, there would have been no difficulty in getting all the fish we needed in that part of the province of Manitoba. I may say that the settlers along the Pembina river have been trying to get this government to do something that would afford them relief ever since they have been in power. My predecessor, _ Mr. Greenway, took it up a good many times with the department, as the return will show, and he was unsuccessful in getting the department to act. The commissioner of fish and game of North Dakota, from whom I have a letter here, did promise to have this done, and if the matter had been followed up by this government there would have been no difficulty in having it done. I will not take up the time of the House to read this letter, but I wish to say that though this matter may not be of much importance to the Marine and Fisheries Department of this government, it is a very important question to the settlers who live along that river in my constituency, and I would respectfully ask the
acting minister to take some action in regard to this matter. All. that is necessary is either to write or to send a man to the commissioner of fish and game of North Dakota to show him the conditions that exist at Walhalla, and I am sure that he will be only too pleased to comply with the wishes of this government.


William Templeman: The explanation given to me in regard to the delay in bringing down the return to which my hon. friend has referred-and I think the explanation was made to him by letter-is that the delay was due to the fact that Prof. Prince, the Canadian commissioner of fisheries, had with him when in California the particular file of the department bearing upon the question about which my hon. friend asked for the return, and it was not returned to the department until after the close of last session. But I do not know why my hon. friend did not get the return immediately after the file was returned to the department. With respect to the dam on the Pembina river. I am advised that the question has formed the subject of some correspondence between the Marine and Fisheries Department and the officials of the state of North Dakota. I understood my hon. friend to say that he had a letter from the game warden of that state pointing out a way in which this matter might be remedied. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he send a copy of that letter to the department.


William Henry Sharpe: They have got it, It is No. 30 of the return.


William Templeman: If it suggests a way of overcoming the difficulty, I think, without knowing anything about the facts, that the difficulty ought to be overcome. I can understand quite well the great value of the fishing streams to the farmers along the Pembina river; and if a 14-foot dam prevents the fish ascending into Canadian territory, and if a mere fishway, which is not expensive, could be erected, I would assume that, being in American territory and controlled altogether by the people of Dakota, it would be built altogether by the state of Dakota.


William Henry Sharpe: They built a mill there, and made this dam.


William Templeman: If our department can facilitate the building of a fishway, I would suggest to the officials of the department that they ought to try to accomplish the object my hon. friend has in view. I am a very strong believer in conserving the fish in every river in Canada and in seeing that no natural or artifical obstructions are put in the river in the shape of dams. I know particularly in the province of British Columbia these dams prevent the salmon from spawning and so

means should be taken to overcome these difficulties and to permit the fish to ascend the rivers. The expense of doing so is not great. 1 am glad that my hon. friend has called the attention of the department to that particular matter. The officers of the department are here and heard what has been said, and I would assume that if anything can be done it will be done.


William Henry Sharpe: The files must have been taken away with the object of doing something in connection with this river. Did they do anything while they were away?


William Templeman: No, the file was not taken with the special view of doing anything with regard to this river, but I might have added when I was on my feet a moment ago, that very probably, in fact I think it is altogether likely, that the Pembina river is not mentioned in the treaty between the United States and Canada, notwithstanding that it is an international water. But I would assume that although it is not mentioned in the treaty, a regulation might be agreed to by the two commissioners jointly to improve the .condition of the Pembina river or any other river that crosses the boundary line. It is a small stream, nevertheless there are a great many small streams crossing the boundary, and I think it ought to be the duty of that commission to supervise the fisheries in these small rivers just as well as in the larger waters.


William Henry Sharpe: The minister is mistaken if he understood me to say that this government would have anything to do with the obstruction of or the controlling of the dam in North Dakota, because I did not say anything of the kind, and I did not wish to convey that idea at all. The idea I wished to convey is that this government will not follow up and carry out the suggestions that have been made to it in connection with this proposition. There have been 68 letters- between this government and private individuals which are on the file in the department at the present time. Now, the letter I referred to particularly is from the state commissioner for fish and game in North Dakota. It is not addressed to this government, though this government has the orignal in their department. It is addressed to R. N. Lea, game warden, Pembina Crossing, Manitoba, and it says:
Dear Sir,-Your courteous letter of November 5 is under consideration, also copy of letter to T. M. Daly, Esq. I thank you for calling my attention to this matter of obstructing on Pembina river in North Dakota. It is my duty to see that fish sluices are placed upon all dams of the streams and rivers in North Dakota for the free passage of fish over the same. Can you forward the names of owners of the dams that you refer


William Templeman: to, giving their names and addresses. I will commence such action as I trust will result in the construction of the needed fishways or sluices. This department is anxious to provide sluiceways for the passage of fish over all obstructions in all waters, especially those rivers and streams passing into Manitoba.
Now, the department has had this letter in their care for four or five years that I know of, because Mr. Greenway, my predecessor, got these letters from R. N. Lea and gave them to the department. But the department has not followed up the suggestions or tried to have the sluice or fishway put into this dam, and I claim it is the department that is to. blame for the fact that we have no fish coming into Manitoba up the river Pembina.


William Templeman: Of course, I am not prepared to admit that it is the department that is to blame at all, and I do not think my hon. friend in his own statement of the case has shown that it is the fault of the department. The facts are, that in the state of North Dakota a dam has been put on the Pembina river on American territory and by Americans, and the game warden in that state has written to somebody saying that if the department will point out where the obstructions are he will undertake to have them removed.


William Henry Sharpe: That has been done.


William Templeman: The first thing that occurs to me is that if the game warden of that state wishes to know where the obstructions are he does not need to write to the city of Ottawa to find out. He ought to know where they are.


William Henry Sharpe: He did not write to Ottawa at all.


William Templeman: He is not a very good game warden if he does not know'. There is some correspondence in the department in regard to this matter. Will my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe) give me the date of the letter he has just Tead?


William Henry Sharpe: On November, 1894.


William Templeman: That is a very old complaint.


William Henry Sharpe: Certainly it is an old complaint, that is what we are kicking about.


William Templeman: Probably the grievance does not now exist.


William Henry Sharpe: I stated before that I was there last summer wdien I made a special trip to see it myself.


William Templeman: The Department of Marine and Fisheries has been in communication with the state of North Dakota,

and the two last letters sent by the department have not been replied to, and they were written long after that date of the letter quoted by my hon. friend.


William Henry Sharpe: Will, the minister be good enough to have the department look into this matter and try to give us relief in southern Manitoba?


William Templeman: All right.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Before we got onto the fisheries, I wanted to ask a question about the marine. A short time ago the steamer ' Lansdowne ' ran on a rock on the coast of Nova Scotia. At the investigation which was held shortly afterwards, the captain of the steamer stated that he had received no sailing directions. Now, what I wanted to ask the minister was, whether it is the case that all the fishery or government steamers receive no sailing directions for the safe navigation of waters through which they are likely to pass. Capt. Lugard, who was chairman of that commission, and one of the other commissioners, expressed surprise that the captain of the ' Lansdowne ' should have been sent to sea without any sailing directions. I bring this to the notice of the minister, and ask if that is the condition of things generally with regard to these government steamers, because if it is, it certainly ought to be remedied.


William Templeman: I am told that all the captains of government vessels have sailing directions, and it is the duty of the captain before he sails, to see that he gets them.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Well, this, the captain certainly stated on oath, that he had not received sailing directions, and that he could not get them.


William Templeman: I understand it is the fact that that captain had not sailing directions. But, the sailing directions are comprised in a small book which is supplied freely to all captains of vessels. If any captain has not a copy, he ought to procure it. It is no fault of the department if he loses his copy of the directions and does not supply himself with another.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have here the report of the examination

The formal examination in connection with the stranding of the steamer ' Lansdowne,' on January 24, at Pubnico, commenced yesterday morning before Captain Lugard, with Captain James Hayes and E. C. Elkin as nautical assessors. In the course of his evidence, Captain Burns said he had no sailing directions for the Bay of Fundy. He had asked for them, but hadn't yet received any.	[DOT]
And, later on,-
Murdoch McLean, chief officer of the steamer, testified that there was no proper place on the ' Lansdowne ' to take soundings, which drew the remark from Captain Hayes that it was a strange condition of affairs on board a government steamer.
There is a statement that the captain had applied for directions and could not get them.


William Templeman: I am advised that the department are prepared to dispute that statement. Every person who applies for the instructions gets them-not only captains, but every person. It is a captain's duty to get them. If he applied for them and did not receive them, the department has no knowledge of that matter. It is the easiest thing in the world for a captain to provide himself with them.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there any record of that application in the department? For this captain makes this statement on oath.


William Templeman: The deputy minister tells me that there is no record of the captain applying for these papers.


William Pugsley: May I ask the hon. member for St. John if he is reading from the transcribed record of the hearing or from a newspaper report?


John Waterhouse Daniel: From a newspaper report.


William Pugsley: That might make a difference. They do not always get the statements accurate.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They very often get them the opposite.


George Henry Bradbury: I was glad to hear the minister declare in favour of rivers being taken care of and fishways being put in where necessary. I called to the minister's attention the need of a fishway at the mouth of the White Mouth river. I do not wish to detain the House at this stage of the session, but I would like an assurance from the minister that the matter will be investigated, and, if found necessary, that the fishway will be provided.


William Templeman: My hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) handed me two letters which I carried in my pocket for several days. But, this morning I sent them to the officer of the Fisheries Department and asked him to advise me with respect to the request made. Probably I shall be able to give an answer on Monday.


George Henry Bradbury: I am to be absent on Monday. I would like to have the assurance of the minister that the matter will be investigated, and, if found necessary, the fishway put in.


William Templeman: It will be investigated, but I do not want to make too many promises about putting in fishways.

I have expressed my own personal opinion that appliances for conserving the fish in our rivers should be provided as far as possible. These fishways do not cost much money.


George Henry Bradbury: We have settlements all along that river. The river empties into Lac du Bonnet, which abounds in fish. But, a small fall prevents the fish from getting up. Now, an inexpensive fishway would provide the people all along that river with fish.


Clarence Jameson: I would like to bring to the attention of the minister, a matter of importance to the people living along the Salmon river in Digby county. Several years ago, complaint was made by certain fishermen with regard to a dam on the Salmon river at a mill owned by a Mr. Saulnier. The department required Mr. Saulnier to place a fishway in the dam. He replied that he did not know how to construct one and asked for advice. The local officers stated, as I am informed, that they did not know how to construct one and called on the department for information. The department, as, I am informed, gave information and plans and a fishway was constructed by Mr. Saulnier under the immediate direction of the fishery officers on the grounds, up to the plans which has been furnished by the officers of the department. About a year ago, further complaint was made to the department that the fishway was not giving satisfaction, that it did not allow fish to get up the river. Later some letters were written to me. I visited the place and obtained a statement from Mr. Saulnier, a statement of the facts, the substance of which I have given. Having already put a fishway in that dam under the direction of the officers of the department and according to the plans furnished by the department, he naturally objects to defraying the cost of building a new one. If a new one is found to be necessary, I trust that the department will provide it at its own expense, and out of this appropriation of $10,000 which is being asked for to-day. In fact, I enter a protest now on behalf of Mr. Saulnier against his having to pay any part of the cost of a new fishway.


William Templeman: I am advised that instructions have been given already to the inspector of fisheries for that district, to visit that locality and prepare plans for a new fishway.


Clarence Jameson: I know that this matter has been before the department for upwards of a year. But, do I understand the minister to agree with the position Mr. Saulnier takes, that he, having built the fishway according to the plans of the department and under the direction of the


William Templeman: officers of the department, should not be required to pay any part of the cost of a new fishway?


William Templeman: The record does not show anything with regard to that position. The hen. member (Mr. Jameson) wants me to admit that Mr. Saulnier is not liable for the fishway. I do not know enough about the facts to be able to make any such statement. I am told that the Act holds him responsible. The department is acting upon it. They sent an officer there to prepare plans and advise as to the best kind of fishway to construct. I suppose it is not a very expensive matter, but I am not going to say whether the party or the department will build it. I assume, from the actions of the department, that the fishway will be put there this summer.


Clarence Jameson: Mr. Saulnier is a poor man, and it will be a serious matter if he has to defray the cost. The department, in all fairness, should defray the cost.
Fisheries-salaries and disbursements of fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $220,000.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would like to know what is paid to the fishery inspector at Winnipegosi3 in Manitoba, for the last year, and what work he has done for the salary that has been paid him.


William Templeman: Mr. Colliston is the fishery overseer living at Winnipegosis. His salary is $700.	,


Glenlyon Campbell: When was Mr. Colliston appointed?


William Templeman: Last year.


Glenlyon Campbell: What time last year?


William Templeman: The official of the department, speaking from recollection, says that he was appointed some time in the fall of last year.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not asking thesq. questions from any desire to be factious, or to make fun; I am asking because the inspector who was in charge of that district until some time last fall, was a man by the name of Olenny, who was not only inspector for this government, but who was the secretary of the Northwest Fish Company that held, under this government, the monopoly of fishing up in that northwestern part of Manitoba, and which extended up into Saskatchewan. While, I say, he was inspector for this government, he was at the same time secretary for this American fish company, which was robbing the people, my constituents, right and left, under the patronage of this government. I want to know if there was any dissatisfaction with his services, and why he was deposed and Colliston appointed.


William Templeman: My hon. friend has just stated the reason himself. I am informed that Mr. Clenny -was asked to resign because he occupied a position with a private company, and Mr. Colliston was appointed in his stead.


Glenlyon Campbell: Who asked for Clenny's appointment?


William Templeman: The appointment was made by the minister some two or three years ago.


Glenlyon Campbell: Who recommended him?


William Templeman: He was appointed by order in council on the recommendation of the minister.


Glenlyon Campbell: But who recommended him to the minister?


William Templeman: 1 have not the slightest idea.


Glenlyon Campbell: Can you not find out who recommended him?


William Templeman: If I was the minister who made the appointment, perhaps I could say.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the new regulation for Lake Winnipeg. I received a copy of those regulations to-day, and I noticed a very lyise provision to the effect that after 2,400,000 pounds of fi3h have been taken out of Lake Winnipeg the fishing would cease, and that the inspector would have power to order all the nets to he lifted. I commend the department for making this arrangement. Now, how is the officer in charge going to arrive at the amount which has been caught? I understand there was a recommendation made by the commission that all these fishermen would be compelled to make a sworn statement to the fishery officer of the quantity of fish they had taken. I do not notice any protection of that kind in the regulation, and unless some check of that kind is provided. I would like to know how the officer at Selkirk is going to know when there are 2,400,000 pounds of fish taken.


William Templeman: I understand the companies have entered into agreement that the maximum amount of whitefish to be taken by them this year shall not exceed 2,400,000 pounds. The inspectors will have to be responsible to see this regulation is carried out. The particular method by which he will do so has not yet been evolved by the department, but probably affidavits will be required as to the quantity of fish taken. The inspector will probably report the quantity landed at Selkirk each week, will keep a close check upon it by personal observation, and take
every means in his power to see the regulation carried out.


George Henry Bradbury: If what the minister suggests, and that only is done, I fear the regulation will not be enforced. There should be some provision -made in the license that you give-


William Templeman: It will probably be embodied in the license.


George Henry Bradbury: There should be a sworn statement.


William Templeman: It will be a condition in the license that when the stipulated quantity of fish is taken fishing will have to stop. The particular methods by which our inspectors will check up the catch will be decided upon by the department. I suppose we can require the companies to make a sworn statement, and the inspector can report at intervals that they have landed so many fish, and no more.


George Henry Bradbury: I urge on the minister the suggestion made by the commissioners, that a sworn statement should be made by the fishermen themselves as to the amount of fish they catch. The mere fact that the companies agree that they will only take
2,400,000	pounds- does not mean that they will not take more if they get the chance. But if there is a condition m the license, and a sworn statement required, and a severe penalty provided for infraction, then, there will be a possibility of the regulation being carried out. If a man makes an incorrect sworn return his license should be cancelled, and he should not be allowed a license in the future. I speak from experience when I urge the adoption of these precautions upon the minister.


William Templeman: I think the department will attend to that.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I direct the attention of the minister to the following facts: About fifteen years ago, a dam twenty-two feet high was constructed in the Chambly river between Chambly and Richelieu, by the Chambly Manufacturing Company. There was no fish run provided for in that dam, and the consequence is that the Chambly river which was once full of fish is now almost entirely depleted. Is it the intention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to force the Chambly Manufacturing Company to construct proper fish passes in that dam, so as to permit the fish coming from the St. Lawrence to reach their habitat in Lake Champlain. No action has been taken by the department for the last fifteen years in this direction, and it is high time that we should now ask the department of government concerned to force this wealthy company which is rated at $15,000,000 to spend a few thousand dol-

lars for the benefit of the fishermen who live along the Chambly river. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries should give some promise that this matter will be attended to.


William Templeman: I will call the attention of the officers of the department to what my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) has said, and if the thing is possible I will ask them to attend to it. That is all I can say.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I understand that a fish run may be constructed there at a cost of about $3,000, and there is a law at present under which the company can be compelled to do that work. The people of the county of Chambly, and of the other constituencies along the Chambly river have suffered long enough in this regard, ahd the minister should now give a specific promise that he will ensure the construction of a fish run in this dam.


George Henry Bradbury: I wish to have some assurance from the minister that there will be a declaration required under oath with regard to the catch of white fish. The hon. gentleman may think I am unreasonable, but I may tell him that I have a good deal of experience in this matter, and my experience leads me to believe that unless my suggestion is carried out the law will be evaded. If a sworn declaration is required from these fishermen they will have no excuse for making a false return, and if they do so they can be prosecuted for perjury. If you take from them a mere statement they may say they have only taken
2,400,000	pounds, but if it is afterwards found they have taken 5,000,000 pounds you cannot successfully prosecute them because their plea will be that they did not know they had taken so many fish. I hope the minister will assure me that there will be a sworn declaration required from each of these companies as to the quantity of fish they take.


William Templeman: I thought I was very explicit in stating that the department is bound to see that this regulation is carried out.


George Henry Bradbury: I know you say that.


William Templeman: I do not think I ought to be asked now to give an assurance that we will make every man give a sworn affidavit.


George Henry Bradbury: It is the only way that is any good.


William Templeman: It is one way, but
possibly it may not be the best way. I think the fish are landed for Wininpeg at Selkirk, and we can station our inspector there to check every fish landed at the wharf, and charge them up against each Mr. GERVAIS.
company, and when they have readied their limit we will stop them fishing. I will give my hon. friend the assurance that this regulation will be carried out in the very best way that the department can devise.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The statement of the minister is not satisfactory in view of what the hon. gentleman from Selkirk has said. I should think the time of the inspector of the department is more valuable than that he can stay there watching these fishermen take the fish. After all, is not the suggestion of the member for Selkirk the best that can 'be adopted? If a sworn declaration is required, the man cannot afterwards say that he did not know he had taken so many fish, and give other excuses. If a fisherman makes false affidavits, he would know there was no technical way of escaping the consequences of his deception. He knows, and is the only one who does know, and if he stated what was not true, he would be liable to perjury. If the license contained a provision that these affidavits were to be made by the fishermen themselves, they would fear to. run the risk of being imprisoned for per-, jury. If, on the other hand, the affidavit, is made by an officer of the company who must depend on the statements of the fish-, ermen, and who would have no personal knowledge of the facts, so that he could, evade conviction by saying that he was informed or instructed that the statements were true, there would be no protection. If the minister expects the inspectors to go up and inspect every fish, he is placing a very low value on the inspectors' time.
Salaries, building and maintenance of fishbreeding establishments, $322,300.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This would indicate that, it is not intended to increase the number! of fish-breeding establishments.


William Templeman: Provision is made
for two new hatcheries on the great lakes costing about $10,000 each, a salmon trout hatchery on the north shore of Lake Superior, and a whitefish hatchery on the northern end of the Georgian bay. The exact sites have not yet been decided. There i3 also provision for lobster-breeding, establishments or retaining ponds in the maritime provinces, and several new establishments in British Columbia.


Glenlyon Campbell: Would the minister give some account of the work of the fish hatchery at Lake Winnipegosis?


William Templeman: I can get that information.	.


Glenlyon Campbell: I want it now.


William Templeman: That hatchery has been in operation two seasons. This year

60,000,000 young whitefish are to be distributed.


Glenlyon Campbell: He closed the hatchery last season.


William Templeman: The hatchery was closed the season before, as my hon. friend is no doubt aware, because there was no supply of eggs with which to fill it.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am sorry the minister is so lost to knowledge of the conditions there as to make a statement of that kind. It was not closed for the reason he alleges. Two million eggs were taken ia the fall of 1908.


William Templeman: That is very little.


Glenlyon Campbell: The minister will find in the Public Accounts $1,500 paid on contract to Coffey and Company for 25,000,000 eggs which were not delivered in the fait of 1908. The contract provided that no fish were to be taken at that time except for the purpose of collecting the eggs. Fish were not to be taken for commercial purposes. Coffey and Company employed inexperienced men and wrong methods and collected only 2,000,000 eggs. The eggs were put in the hatchery on October 25,
1908,	and the staff was employed there taking care of their hatching until on in January, when they found that owing to the methods that had been employed by the government employees and contractors the eggs were absolutely unfertile, and they dumped them into the lake in January,
1909.	That cost this government $1,500. This occurred during the time the minister said the hatchery was not in operation. In getting this spawn, 151,200 pounds of whiteflsh, 43,540 pounds of pickerel, and
43.000	pounds of jacks were taken and were all shipped to points in the United States, absolutely against the wording of the contract entered into by that company with the government. In other words, about
75.000	full-grown whitefish, two-thirds of which were females-and I understand that is a very small proportion-were destroyed. The average, I believe, is something like 4,000 eggs to each female, so that if you make the computation you will see that this means that 200,000,000 eggs were destroyed in an attempt to secure 25,000,000 eggs, which attempt proved absolutely abortive, as no eggs were hatched; and the minister has cloaked his department under the excuse that the hatchery was not running. The hatchery was closed during the spring of 1905, and was only opened in 1908; and during the time that the lake was open in 1908, 175 cars of fish were shipped from the shipping point nearest the lake, and every one of those cars was a case of law-breaking on the part of Coffey and Company, who shipped them. They had no permission to do this and in
fact had signed a contract in which they bound themselves not to ship any fish. We have seen that the cost of the hatchery up to last year was $18,754, and not even a sucker has been hatched out during the three years that it has been more or less in operation. I understand that this year there has been some change for the better, and I am glad of it, because I heartily approve of hatcheries being established in those northern lakes. I want to point out another matter which pertains to the fisheries up there; that is, the fact that the hatchery requires a large amount of cord-wood to keep it going-to keep up the steam in the boilers and tjo keep the hatching rooms at a proper temperature, and that the contracts for the cordwood are given to partisan friends of the government. I think it is only right that tenders for supplies for a government institution should be called for, and that all parties, whether Liberals supporting the government, or Liberals antagonistic to the government, or Tories, should have an equal right to tender. This year I know that the men who got the contract were partisan friends of the government, and I hope that the minister, if he is going to act for any length of time in charge of his department, will see that this does not occur again, or I will talk a little more Ifreely on the next occasion than I am doing now.


William Templeman: Public tenders have been called, for cordwood and other supplies, for the Selkirk hatchery, and the same thing is going to obtain hereafter in respect to the other hatcheries.


Glenlyon Campbell: Why the delay? Whv has not this been done before?


William Templeman: I cannot give the reason why it has not been done before this.


Glenlyon Campbell: It was just as easy to do it at Winnipegosis as at Selkirk. While we live far back, we have both mail and telegraphic communication.


William Templeman: I may as well confess at once that I cannot possibly enter into a discussion of all the matters brought up by my hon. friend in regard to the Winnipegosis hatchery, the cost of its building, the cost of the eggs and the reason -why 25,000,000 eggs were not obtained and 2,000,000 were obtained. I am afraid that it would take too long to master the letters which have been placed in my hands, and I do not suppose my hon. friend would care for me to read the instructions given to the officer in charge who made the contract for the delivery of these eggs. My hon. friend, I imagine, rather desires to make his own statement and get it on 'Hansard' and in the press.

The department is quite willing to let it go at that.


Glenlyon Campbell: I must take exception to that. I am asking for information. There have been the worst kind of abuses in the north end of my riding. I tried last year to bring them to the attention of the minister. I pointed out to him how this Northwest Fish Co., an American company, who shipped all their fish to the United States held a monopoly under this government, were protected by this government in every way, robbed the fishermen, failed, and did not pay their just debts to the fishermen, who were compelled to sell to them at a less price than the market would have afforded them had this government and its officials not insisted in upholding this monopoly. Then, in the case of this hatchery, I am drawing to the attention of the government again the abuses that have existed there and that exist to-day, and I want the government to sit up and take notice. I am not making a grand-stand play for the sake of getting on ' Hansard.' I never look at ' Hansard.'
1 only try to bring to the attention of the government abuses that exist in my riding, in the hope that the government will at some time wake up and correct them.
Fisheries-legislation and incidental expenses, $4,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What are these expenses for?


William Templeman: They are for minor cases which the department may have to prosecute for violations of the regulations about which they may know nothing, and they instruct the Department of Justice to prosecute.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the Department of Justice instruct local lawyers to do the prosecuting? Where are those lawyers situated and what do they do?


William Templeman: They may be in any town in Canada?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But where were they, they might be in the moon?


William Templeman: We pay then} their fees as they may be retained from time to time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Again I ask where do they live?


William Templeman: They might be in Halifax or in Vancouver.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where. There is a good deal of money going out from the departments in that general way for legal and incidental expenses. It is a very handy way of rewarding political friends Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
for doing party work, and sometimes rather disgraceful party work. We are beginning to find it necessary to know who these gentlemen are.


William Templeman: I do not know where these people reside. They may be in any province of the Dominion, or in any city. The expenses would be paid to the lawyer who wras retained for the time being to prosecute a particular case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: At what rate are the} paid?


William Templeman: I do not know. The Justice Department certifies the expenses and the department pays it.


Glenlyon Campbell: Perhaps. I can help out the minister. There was a legal gentleman of the name of Markey, who was mixed up in some of those fish leases. Perhaps the government paid him for accepting these monopolies, and the payment may be included in that charge. Does his name appear among the legal lights who have been paid?
Mr, TEMPLEMAN. The department is not aware that Mr. Markey has been paid any fees whatever. .
Canadian fisheries exhibit, $16,000.


Mr. CROSBY.: What is that used for. Is it used for exhibits in the Dominion, or for exhibits abroad?


William Templeman: There is in the city here a fishery building, and this item is largely to pay the cost of maintaining that. A small sum goes to a small exhibition in the province of British Columbia where a miniature hatchery is exhibited yearly.


Mr CROSBY.: We have a provincial exhibition in the city of Halifax which is conducted by the provincial government and the city. It is more or less an agricultural exhibition, but the fish interests have been trying to arrange a fishery exhibit there. As no funds are provided for that purpose by either the province or the city I think it would be fair and reasonable if the department could see its way to assist that exhibition, because it is in the centre of the Atlantic coast fisheries. We have the exhibition there every year, and a small annual contribution for the fishery exhibit would help materially the fishing interest of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and perhaps New Brunswick.


William Templeman: The request of my hon. friend appeals to me, because I am a little familiar with the good results that have followed from the slight assistance given to the fisheries exhibit at the New Westminster exhibition, and with the success that has attended the fishery exhibit

is the most popular one on the grounds. They show the fish alive and the process of hatching. Without making a distinct promise I may say to my hon. friend that I will request the deputy minister to do what he can along the lines we have followed in New Westminster, as we recognize that the maritime provinces are a great centre of the fishing industry., and ought to have a fishery exhibit at its annual industrial exhibition.
Oyster culture, $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the increase in this item for?


William Templeman: For the proposed establishment of an oyster bed in Prince Edward Island.
To assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for bait, and the conservation and development of the deep-sea fisheries, $40,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: While we approve of the system of cold storage and admit that it has been of great assistance to -the fishermen, I am sorry to say that in a great many cases it has not proved of such assistance as might have been expected. When the cold storage systems were established it was understood that they were for the purpose of enabling the fishermen to put in their bait during the season *when they could collect it, so that they could get it out of cold storage when they could not get fresh bait from the sea. I do not wish to say anything derogatory to the gentlemen who have those cold storage systems in charge, but there are complaints that the fishermen cannot get the storage facilities for their bait that they expected. It is said that they cannot get their bait in storage and that they have to pay the cold storage men very high prices sometimes, and in some cases have to make a contract to give the fish that they catch with the bait back to the cold storage men at their own prices. The department might make some inquiries during the recess into this matter. I (have no doubt that the government established this cold storage system for the purpose of helping the fishermen, and if it is the case that they are not being (helped, I think it would be wrise for the government to ascertain the facts.


William Templeman: We will do so.
To provide for the maintenance of experimental works for the reduction of dog-fish, $60,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: What success has the department had in this work? Are the establishments that were first set running still being carried on, and have the results been such as to warrant the continuance of the experiments?


William Templeman: The works first established are being carried on. The amounts realized for scrap and oil sold are as follows1905-6,	$30;	1906-7,	$1,675;
1907-8, $15,900; 1908-9, $346; and 1909-10, $10,498.
To provide for expenses of inquiries respecting the relative rights of the federal and provincial governments in regard to the fisheries, under Privy Council decision of 1898, $10,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the condition now in this controversy?


William Templeman: Of course, the hon. member knows that the question of jurisdiction over the fisheries has been the subject of negotiation and correspondence between the several provincial governments and the Dominion for some years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And what is going on now?


William Templeman: With respect to the province of British Columbia, Mr. Bas-tedo, a year or two ago, carried on negotiations with the government with a view to arriving at an agreement whereby one government might administer the fisheries. But nothing came of that. Recently, the deputy attorney general of the province ha4 been in Ottawa discussing with the Justice Department a reference to the Supreme Court of these fishery matters.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You propose to state a case by agreement as to the facts between the province and the Dominion for the decision of the Supreme Court on matters supplementary to the Privy Council decision and with a view to working that out?


William Templeman: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And it will be heard this year?


William Templeman: I can hardly say that the question to be submitted is absolutely agreed upon, but I think they have made progress.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will that include only one province, or will there be more?


William Templeman: It has been discussed so far with the province of British Columbia. But. any decision arrived at, I assume, would have a bearing on all the provinces.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the reason why I was going to suggest that it would be better to have all the provinces, or, at all events, the provinces likely to be concerned, engaged in it, because if they were not parties to it they might not be bound in exactly the same way as if they were 1 heard on the same argument.
\


William Templeman: I understand that it would be the desire of this government that all the provinces should join.
To pay customs officers for services in connection with issuing of modus vivendi licenses, $700.


Adam Brown Crosby: Has the department taken into consideration doing away with these licenses? I do not wish to take up time at this stage of the session. But that matter was gone into very fully by Mr. Maclean the former member for Lunenburg. Has the department in view the bringing of this to an end?


William Templeman: The department has not been considering the question of doing away with the modus vivendi in regard to this matter. I am not certain, but, probably, the questions being submitted to the Hague tribunal will have an effect unon the government's policy in this matter.
To pay customs and other officers for services in compiling and forwarding daily reports in connection with the fisheries intelligence bureau for the season of 1910-11, $500.


Clarence Jameson: The minister of Marine and Fisheries is asking parliament to vote $828,000 this year, an advance of $69,000 over the amount asked for last year. I wish to make a few remarks on fisheries generally. I do not believe in criticism for criticism's sake, but I believe that there are many ways in which the condition of the fisheries and those connected with them may be improved. It is in that spirit I offer the suggestions that I propose to offer, very briefly, and I trust the minister will receive them in the same way. If he does so, I think he will find that many of the suggestions I make are practical and can be carried out to the benefit of the fisheries and fishermen and with little trouble to the department.
First, as to the reports of the fisheries intelligence bureau. The minister is asking $500 for this purpose the same as last year. I think a much more generous vote should be taken for this service. The reports are very meagre. They are telegraphed to the daily papers, but they do not in all cases, or even in many cases, reach the fishermen in time to be of much value. If they were telephoned to the fishery stations, many of which have telephones, they would be of great utility. I think also the weather probabilities should be telephoned to the fishery stations. In my own county of Digby the weather forecast is telephoned every day to the signal at Westport down Digby neck. The fishermen have frequently said that if this weather forecast could be taken off the wire at the different fishing stations when it was sent down to the signal station and placed in a bulletin, [DOT]Mr. LANCASTER.
it would be of the utmost assistance to them. And the same on the opposite side of St. Mary's bay, and in almost every part of Nova Scotia. This system would be of the greatest advantage to the fishermen when they are leaving home, it would enable them to know what the weather was likely to be .during the next 24 hours. I think an appropriation should be made for that purpose. I could recite many instances of fishermen who have been blown off the coast of Nova Scotia, and who have suffered great hardships and perils by reason of not knowing when a storm was approaching.
Another suggestion I wish to make is for the establishment of a fishermen's library at the various fishing stations. In many places there now exist fishermen's unions, associations which are formed amongst the fishermen. These have been established in many parts of Nova Scotia through the initiative and assistance of Mr. M. H. Nickerson, M.P.P., who resides at Clark's harbour. These associations are gradually extending their influence and are well patronized. Where they now exist I do not think there would be any difficulty in establishing fishery libraries, and where they do not exist the libraries could be developed by the assistance of the customs house officer, postmaster or other prominent person. Reports of the Department of Fisheries, together with the results of investigations made by the department could be furnished to those libraries, and other information along that line. We are desirous of improving the condition of the fisheries and those engaged in them. At the present time the fishermen are scattered along 5,000 miles of the coast and there is little community of interest among them. We wish to improve their condition, and I think this would be a very effective means of doing so, and it would tend to secure co-operation among the fishermen in a better observance of the laws. Many of the fishermen are educated men, they are great readers, and very intellectual people.
Another subject which of late years has received a good deal of consideration by the people engaged in the fishing industry, is the question of bounty paid to fishermen. This was begun by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald, in 1882, and I understand that an amount of $160,000 has been voted from year to year for that purpose. The amount of the Halifax fishery award was capitalized, and the interest from year to year is applied to this purpose. Now, the bounties which have been paid to the fishermen have varied from year to year, according to the number engaged in the industry. The vessel fishermen receive a much larger bounty than the boat fishermen, and the boat fishermen

consider that now, since they are obliged to have more expensive boats, fitted up generally with gasoline engines, they should receive more equitable treatment, they should receive a larger sum. The fishermens' union have discussed this matter and taken strong ground. I do not mean to say that there should be any reduction in the amount paid, either to vessels or to vessel fishermen, but I think a more generous grant should be made for the purpose of paying these bounties.
The amount received by the government from yeaT to year for licenses under the modus vivendi is about $10,000; something less than $500 of this is paid to officers of the department who issue the license, and the balance of $9,500 might very properly be turned into their fishery bounty fund. The fisheries are developing, and the revenues of the country are increasing, and it seems to me a further amount towards the fishing bounty might be voted. The boat fishermen, as I say, are now using boats much larger and better equipped than in years gone by. A fishing boat now costs five to eight times more than it did ten years ago, and it also costs considerably more to maintain and operate it. This is a further suggestion I would commend to the consideration of the department.
Now, on the subject of the oyster fishery. We had during the sessions of the Fishery Committee last year, -the evidence of Captain Ernest Kemp, the oyster expert of the Department -of Marine and Fisheries, who gave his testimony on the 25th of March, 1909. I see there is a sum of $10,000 in the estimates this year, an increase of $4,000 over the amount voted last year for this purpose and I hope the work will be proceeded with systematically. Sometime ago there was an experiment made in Digby basin, but I have not been able to learn the result. I will quote from the evidence of Capt. Kemp on the occasion to which 1 refer when I asked him with regard to the subject:
Q. You have given us some information with regard to your knowledge of Nova Scotia coast. Have you any knowledge of the conditions in the Bay of Fundy, St.. Mary's Bay or Digby Basin with respect to oyster culture?-A. I have examined the area in Digby Basin. Some years ago I planted oysters as an experiment on Goat Island and I have heard that those oysters have grown well. I have not had an opportunity of ascertaining whether there has been any spat derived from there or not. These oysters were planted in different places and grew well, I am told.
Q. Do you remember the year in which they were planted?-A. They were planted in 1902.
Q. Have you visited' the locality since?- A. I do not think so.
Q. Those oysters were planted in Annapolis Basin?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you at that time examine St. Mary's Bay, or are you familiar with the formation of the bottom there?-A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with the formation of the bottom of the Bay of Fundy ?-A. No, that is the only place that I have no knowledge of.
Q. You found the conditions were favourable within Digby or Annapolis basins for the culture of oysters?-A. The waters on the north of Goat Island, I think it is, were the most suitable. I had difficulty in finding suitable bottom on account of the heavy sediment on the sides of the basin and river.
Q. There is a large volume of fresh water from the Annapolis river flowing into the basin, would that interfere with oyster culture?-A. I did not want to go up too far. I thought if I could plant any on Goat Island that would be a suitable locality. The farther I went up the shore I found more mud bottoms. Suitable bottoms are limited there.
Q. Who has charge of the cultivation of the oysters which you planted in Annapolis Basin ? -A. The ground was in charge of the light-keeper on the opposite side, as far as I know.
Q. On the Grenville side?-A. Yes.
Q. You have had no reports from him?-A. No.
Q. Was the oyster farm leased to any person?-A. No, I do not think so. My time has been so wholly taken up that I have not had the opportunity of going dowrn to see how those oysters were getting on. I wanted to go there last fall but was detained with my boat and did not have the opportunity.
Now, this seems to me to be a most extraordinary way to conduct experiments of this kind. The oyster industry can be made a most profitable one, and I hope the minister will see that Captain Kemp' visits Digby basin and inquires into the condition of this oyster bed that was set out there. There are other places along the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary's bay where I believe oyster culture is not only a possibility, but where there is very strong reason to believe that it would prosper and flourish and become a profitable industry. I trust the minister will take pains to see that Captain Kemp shall adopt a more systematic method of procedure. I do not think it is right at all that he should leave an oyster bed set out nearly seven yeaTs ago and not have any reports from it. If this industry is worth spending $10,000 a year on, it is certainly worth while that the department should keep in touch with it and see what progress is being made from time to time. These suggestions are not offered in the way of hostile criticism, but-merely with the view of placing before the department the ideas I entertain on the subject. I believe that if the minister will take them into consideration he will find they can be worked out profitably and beneficially to the fisheries and to the people who are interested in them.


William Templeman: The department appreciates the suggestions made by my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson), and I am quite sure they -will be taken into serious consideration. I am advised that the department has at present under consideration very considerable improvements in connection with the fishery intelligence service. It is hoped that the service will develop into issuing bulletins and even embrace telephonic communication. As to the libraries, my own view is that they do not come within the scope of the Marine Department or even of this government. I cannot, of course, speak with full knowledge as to the bounty question, but I think the bounty money was fixed at five per cent on the Halifax award. Of course, the more fishermen there are, the dess will be paid to each in the division, and the fewer there are, the higher the bounty will be to each. Whether it would he advisable to pay a higher interest than that provided is a question of policy on _ which I would not care to express an opinion. I will call to the attention of the experts of the department the suggestions made by my hon. friend as to oyster culture, and I shall ask for them the very best consideration.


Clarence Jameson: Do I understand that the minister will take the question of weather bulletins into consideration, and endeavour to have them communicated to the fishermen by telephone.


William Templeman: I am advised that the meteorological service is being extended very rapidly, and that still further extension will be made.


Clarence Jameson: There is now in the county of Digby a very perfect system of telephonic communication between the fishing stations, so that the experiment would cost very little indeed. I believe that if it were once given a trial, the department would be so impressed with its advantages that they would beyond doubt continue it and extend it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Digby with regard to the fishing bounties. The Halifax award was $4,500,000, which would produce $225,000 yearly at five per cent, but I understand that we only pay $160,000 a year in bounties. The boat fishermen get a very small amount of this, and I would urge on the minister that their bounty should be augmented. In many sections the fishermen have to come to the fishery officer, 10 or 15 miles in some cases, to file their claim, and then have to travel the same distance again to get $3 or $4 of fishing bounty, so that it is hardly worth the trouble. The Washington treaty, of which the fishing bounty is an outcome, was Mr. JAMESON.
brought about by the admission of the American fishermen within the three-mile limit, so that in reality the compensation granted by the award belongs more strictly to the boat fishermen who fish wdthin that limit. I do not say that a bounty should not be given to the fishing, vessels and the1 men engaged on them, but I do hold that that bounty should come out of the sgen-eral revenues of the country. The deep sea fishery is open to the world, and every* dollar we take out of it is so much brought into the country, whereas the inshore fisheries and the fisheries in our inland lakes may in a sense be said to belong to the country, and they, therefore, stand on a different footing from the other fisheries. Did time permit, I could prove .that all countries in the world interested in fisheries are paying bounties to their fishermen. The people of the little island of St. Pierre Miquelon, whose fish comes into competition with our Nova Scotia catch, have a bounty from the French government of nine francs for every quintal exported from St. Pierre to Canada or to any other part of the world outside of France, and in addition to that a considerable bounty is paid to the men and to the ships. I would urge on the government that they should consider the question of paying the bounty to the deep sea vessels and deep sea fishermen from the general revenues of the country, and permit the interest on the Halifax award to go to the shore fishermen to whom it specially belongs. Now that we require a great many men for our navy, whether it is a tin-pot navy or a runaway navy, or whatever else you like to call it, your recruits must come from amongst the deep sea fishermen, and they deserve encouragement from the national treasury.
To provide for the settlement of the claim of the British Columbia government for a share of revenue from fishery licenses collected by the federal government from 1901 to 1907, both years inclusive, $56,137.


William Templeman: This is a final disposition of a question between the province of British Columbia, and the Dominion which has been pending for some years. After the decision of the Privy Council which placed the ownership of the fish in the province, the provincial govern-' ment made a demand on the Dominion government for a share of the revenue which this government had been collecting from fishing licenses in that province. In 1901, Sir Louis Davies, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, entered into a modus vivendi with the province whereby the Dominion government continued the administration of the fisheries, and collection of revenue, a balancing of accounts to be made (later. In 190*7, British Columbia

passed its own Fishery Act, and proceeded to administer its fisheries, as far as it had authority to do so, and began the collection of licenses, imposing a license fee of $5 for salmon-fishing license. This terminated the modus vivendi. This amount is the sum arrived at between the province and this government as the share of the province in the revenue collected by this government between 1901 and 1907.
Investigation of ore deposits and economic minerals; examination and delimitation of peat bogs, determination of fuel values, coals and peat of Canada, including salary of a producer gas expert and mechanic; investigation of ore dressing; collection of information regarding mineral and metallurgical industries and operations, $41,000.


Robert Laird Borden: It would save time if the minister would explain all these increases together.


William Templeman: In the total vote for the Mines branch there is a decrease of $2,000. In this particular item there is a decrease of $7,500. This is for the publication of a monograph on various subjects in connection with the investigation of ore deposits and minerals. The increase can be accounted for by the desire of the department to carry on this work on a larger scale.
Operation of government peat bog, $4,000.


William Templeman: The department acquired a peat bog in Alfred, near Caledonia Springs, of 300 acres. We are now putting into operation a plant for the experimental manufacture of peat to determine how cheaply it may be manufactured. I invite all members to visit the bog in the next three months, and see the process in operation. We are hopeful of very considerable results from this experiment. This $4,000 will pay the expense of operating this peat bog. There may be another small sum in the supplementary estimates. We expect in this experiment to manufacture 2,000 or 3,000 tons of peat. If we were going to sell it, we might make some money out of it. The experiment is for the purpose of demonstrating the production of power from peat, the object being to show that peat will make gas which will produce electric power as cheaply as water-power. My hon. friend can see the demonstration going on any day in Ottawa at the experimental station, very successfully, and very cheaply.


David Henderson: Is there any quantity of the raw material in Ontario?


William Templeman: There are millions of tons all over Ontario. Another part of the work of the Department is the locating of peat bogs in the settled portions of On-271
tario and Quebec, and especially in the maritime provinces.


David Henderson: Can the gas be used for fuel purposes as well as for power?


William Templeman: I imagine that it can be, but when it is used in a gas-producer engine it goes into the engine as quickly as it is manufactured and is used in that way to produce power. We believe that it will be much more economical for this purpose than coal.


Glenlyon Campbell: Coming from a prairie province, I am interested somewhat in these experiments with peat. Is it the intention of the government to experiment in making peat brickettes to take the place of coal or wood for heating purposes?


William Templeman: Yes. The operation of the peat bog is simply to make brickettes to be burned in furnaces or stoves for heating purposes. The purpose of this experiment is, first, to demonstrate how cheaply peat can be produced as a fuel instead of coal; and, secondly, to demonstrate that peat can be put into a gas-producing engine, and the gas used direct to create power.


Glenlyon Campbell: How far west have these experiments been made? Have they been made in Manitoba or in any of the western provinces?


William Templeman: The department is making the experiment with this particular bog of 300 acres which we bought at Alfred. We put a plant on it, and last week we started to make peat. This is the only place in Canada where we have done any experimenting. We have also put up the experimental testing plant in Ottawa. But the location of peat bogs has been carried on for a number of years by officers of the department, and we now have in the department a record of hundreds of peat bogs in the country. Our investigations have been chiefly in Ontario and Quebec and the maritime provinces, although we know that there are peat bogs in Manitoba and other western provinces. Although the peat bogs in the more populated parts of the country will be the first to be brought into use, we will not neglect the west. For instance, if it is possible to make peat cheaper than you can buy coal in the city of Winnipeg, we will try to demonstrate to the people there that it is their duty to utilize the peat bogs which are not very far from that city.	.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Is it the intention of the department to get the report made by Mr. Mystrom translated?


William Templeman: The translator is very busy getting our reports translated,



but I am not sure whether that is one of them or not.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I have read the report Which Mr. Nystrom has made to Dr. Haanel. I have also read the letter of instructions from Dr. Haanel to Mr.' Nystrom, and I notice that Mr. Mystrom has been instructed to inspect the peat bogs of Denmark, Ireland, Belgium and Germany, but there is not one word said about the French peat bogs. As a matter of fact, the largest area of peat bogs, as many as 4,000,000 acres, and the most complete and perfect instruments for the manufacture of peat are to be found in France. I hope that this report, which is only a partial one, will be translated into French for the benefit of the province of Quebec, where many large peat bogs are to be found. I regret that Dr. Mystrom should not have been instructed to visit France, where there is the largest area of peat and where the comparative value of peat, soft, Anthracite, Cardiff coals for self-producing gas engines have been tested and studied more especially by Mr. Frangois Depeaux, of Rouen.


William Templeman: I am not sure about the instructions, but there is no doubt that Mr. Mystrom was the engineer who went to Europe on that occasion some years ago. I know he visited the northern countries of Europe, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Russia, where the manufacture of peat and the utilization of peat are on a larger scale, even than in France, though there is in France a very large quantity.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: 4,000,000 acres.


William Templeman: Peat is more plentiful in the countries I have named. However, Mr. Mystrom's report T think should be published in French, and that will probably be done if it has not yet been done.
Geological Survey Branch-for explorations and surveys in Canada, including wages of explorers, draftsmen and others, $140,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why that increase?


William Templeman: The explanation is that more parties are being sent out, and they are being made a little larger and stronger. There will be more men in the field, covering Canada as well as they can, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, this year than ever before.


Glenlyon Campbell: Does this cover the exploration of Canada in conjunction with the work of the Conservation Commission?


William Templeman: We have nothing to do with the Conservation Commission.


Glenlyon Campbell: Does not the Conservation Commission cover the same ground as is covered by this item?


William Templeman: 


William Templeman: I do not think so.
For the publication of reports, maps, plans, illustrations, &c., $75,000.


William Templeman: The increase here is due to the increased number of publications and reports.
For the purchase of hooks, instruments, laboratory apparatus, chemicals, mapping material, stationery, maintenance of offices and museum, transfer and packing of specimens, clothing for three firemen, miscellaneous expenses, $40,000.


William Templeman: The same reason for the increase here, the increase in departmental work.
To pay for specimens for Victoria Museum, $10,000.


William Templeman: This is an increase of $2,000. We have in view the occupation of the new museum probably before the next session of parliament, and we desire to be in a position to acquire all the specimens that may be offered.
Investigation of the manufactures and storage of explosives in Canada, $10,000.


William Templeman: That item is due to the fact that we purpose next session introducing a Bill to regulate the manufacture and importation of explosives of all kinds, based upon the English Act. There is nothing of the kind in this country at present. The many fatal accidents that have occurred in mines, and that have been due to premature explosions, and that kind of thing; have brought the matter to the attention of the department, and meetings have been held in mining communities at Cobalt, in British Columbia, and elsewhere, and have adopted resolutions asking the government to pass an Act regulating the manufacture and importation of explosives of all kinds. We have entered into the collection of information already and have some information prepared, but we thought it wise to let the Bill stand over until next session. In the meantime we are going to continue our investigation. We expect to bring an expert from England, an official of the British government who enforces the explosives Act there, with the view of examining all the manufacturing establishments where explosives are made, and with the view of helping us to frame an Act, and of giving us whatever information may be necessaray. That is the purpose of this $10,000 vote. We will certainly require to pay the expert a decent fee, and travelling expenses.
Militia and defence-chargeable to income -ordnance, arms, lands, rifle ranges, reserves, stores and equipment-transferred from militia capital, $1,300,000.


Frederick William Borden: For the
convenience of hon. members I have had

a memorandum printed and circulated, and I hope that every hon. member of the committee has a copy. I have endeavoured to explain the items as fully as possible, and perhaps at this late hour, and at this late period of the session it would be better for me not to make a statement, but simply to endeavour to answer any questions respecting points, which are not dealt with in this memorandum, as we go along. This particular item is one which has been voted for a number of years in capital account. It was changed this year to revenue as it was thought desirable to do so. But, that is the _ only change, a mere matter of book-keeping. The object for which the money is voted is the same as in former years, and the explanation will be found in the memorandum on page 16, namely the purchase of military stores of various kinds, armament, rifles, artillery, reserve clothing, lands, and constructing rifle ranges.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is to be expended during the coming year?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will that include any of the Mark II * * Ross rifles?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that the rifle you expect to arm the militia with?


Frederick William Borden: In part. We shall have about 80,000 of the Mark 2 rifle with the Mark 3 sight. About 30,000 are being distributed to the cadet corps throughout the country, which will leave about 50,000, which are being distributed to the troops. It js possible that the sight called the Mark 3 sight-which is not the best; there have been many improvements -may be changed to give us the latest up to date sight. We consider that rifle quite as good as any rifle, except, perhaps, the Mark II * *. It is intended to secure the manufacture of, probably, 5,000 of the Mark II * * at the earliest moment, and, later on, a still larger number. But we do not intend to throw over tihe rifles which have been manufactured; that is not necessary. In point of fact, there is practically no difference between the Mark 2 with the Mark 3 sight,, and the Mark II * *, except the length of barrel.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there not a difference in tlhe rifling?


Frederick William Borden: There is practically no difference except in length of barrel, and the weight of barrel^ which makes the rifle about one pound heavier than the Mark 2 with the Mark 3 sight.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is tihere any difference in the price?
271$


Frederick William Borden: None, except that we have had to pay $12 more for the Mark II * *, because we have simply had the other rifle converted-the Mark 2 with the Mark 3 sight converted to the Mark II * *. But the company claim that they should receive more for the Mark II * *. We do not admit that, but there is means under the contract by which any difference of that kind can be settled by one expert appointed on either side, and, if they do not agree, these appointing a third.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What does the department pay apiece for the new rifle?


Frederick William Borden: The price under the contract is $25.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But the new one?


Frederick William Borden: I say that we pay for the conversion about $12, and we had converted some 700, I think.


John Herron: Making $37 for the new rifle?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, those that have been converted.


Glenlyon Campbell: The Mark II** is the rifle we heard of in the early part of the session as having been issued to >a few of the members of the House. Have any more been issued?


Frederick William Borden: We provided 500 made last year, and 200 more are being converted now, and I nlaced an order with the company for 1,000.


Glenlyon Campbell: I refer to the discussion with regard to certain members getting rifles for the use of their constituents, the Mark II * * and I want to know whether any more members have got them. I would suggest to the Minister of Militia that all members of this House who are interested in rifle practice should have the privilege of having these rifles sent out for the use of the rifle clubs in their constituencies.


Frederick William Borden: More have been issued, and I have stated in tihe House that it was a perfectly proper thing to do. I have had a number of applications since, and shall be very glad to receive others.


Glenlyon Campbell: From every member?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


William Roche: Has the minister decided what new rifle ranges should be established in Manitoba this summer?


Frederick William Borden: Tihere are some places mentioned in the memorandum. I would refer the hon. gentleman to page 17-' under consideration '. That does not mean that these will all be constructed,

nor does it mean that some others may not be. We have not been able to settle on the list yet. As soon as parliament prorogues, I expect to take, that matter up with my officers of the Militia Council.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are the rates of annual pay to the volunteers who go to camo uniform throughout the Dominion?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would the minister tell us what they are.


Frederick William Borden: The basis of the pay is 50 cents a day. There is a further sum of 50 cents for good conduct and excellence in rifle shooting. It is the same throughout the Dominion, but the pay a man receives depends upon the way he comports himself in camp.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand it is regulated rather by marksmanship and that good conduct does not enter into it.


Frederick William Borden: The man who misbehaves does not get it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There is a good deal of dissatisfaction at the camps in regard to that, arising out of the inefficient marking. As a rule the green men, the worst men in the company, are sent to the butts to do the marking, and consequently it is apt to be inaccurately done. Pay should depend in large measure upon the length of service. Marksmanship might enter into the matter, but there should be more emphasis placed on the length of service.


Frederick William Borden: Great difficulty was found in the first place in ascertaining correctly the length of time an individual may have served, and there is the temptation to misrepresent. Further than that, you might have a man in camp who had attended six years, say, yet who would be unable to hit the target at fifty yards. Such a man is no good as a soldier, we do not want him. I am advised by the adjutant general and other military advisers, that, after careful note of the experience, the present plan is decidedly the best. If the system of marking is defective, that is a very serious matter. I am glad the hon. member (Mr. S. Sharpe) has called attention to it. What he has said here will be carefully read by the officers in charge, and, in any case, I should consider it my duty to bring the subject to their notice. We must see that absolute fair play is given to all the men in this matter which is so vital to them, and on which the amount of pay they receive depends.


Mr. HUGHES.: The point referred to by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe) is very important. But there is another matter which I have officially drawn to the attention of the minister. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
and which I desire to impress upon him now. Many of the men in camp shoot at a target for the first time. They do not understand sighting the rifle, and unless some one in the regiment is detailed to see that each rifle is properly sighted before the competitor fires, he loses a round or two before he gets his elevation properly. As I pointed out to the minister in a letter some time ago, four or five of tlip best shots among the officers in a camp last year failed to qualify by reason of having rifles handed to them and having to find the sighting. Major King and Captain Farrell, of the 46 Regt. expert shots took the trouble to sight every rifle before the volunteer fired it. It was a very useful expenditure of ammunition, but it took a couple of rounds extra per man, which were provided at the expense of the regiment. The sighting is a very important matter, because none of the sights put on the rifle are absolutely accurate for the range they are sighted for. I am afraid that there is too much truth in what the hon. member for North Ontario has stated. A good many scorers are not experts, and sometimes, possibly, sufficient care is not taken with the register keepers. That will always require oversight on the part of the range officers and musketry instructors. But the rifles should be tested by one of the officers on the range to see that they are accurate. This will mean a couple of rounds extra per man, and it would be worth it to the department to provide these.


Frederick William Borden: I quite agree with that.


Mr CROSBY.: I would like to read a resolution I have here from the municipality of Halifax:-
Moved by Councillor C. E. Smith of Sam-bro, seconded by Councillor J. V. Reno of Herring Cove.
Whereas the big gun ball and shell practice by the artillery at the forts at the entrance to Halifax harbour causes the fish to swim into deep water and prevents the mackerel from schooling on the south shore of this county and therefore deprives the fishermen living on said shores of the chances of catching these fish with their seines and nets as hex-etofore, more particularly in the vicinity of said forts.
And whereas the fisheries of our country are of great importance to this province as well as being the chief means of livelihood to hundreds of our fishermen and their families living to the south of Halifax, and every protection should be given to the toilers of the sea in prosecuting their occupation.
And whereas the said big gun practice could be done between the 30th day of November and the 15th day of June in each year, when the fisheries are of less importance to our fishermen as mackerel do not school in such quantities up to that time as they do later in the season.
Therefore resolved that the Dominion gov-

eminent be requested to make suck regulations with regard to the time of the big gun practice as will result in the least injury to the fisheries, and to the fishermen on the south shore of Halifax harbour as aforesaid.
Further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Minister of Militia of Canada, and also copies be sent to our representatives in parliament, Messrs Borden and Crosby.
I hereby certify the above to be a true and correct copy of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the 28th day of February, A.D., 1910.
PARKER ARCHIBALD, Municipal Clerk.
I presume that the Minister of Militia has received this resolution.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that from the county of Halifax or is it the city?


Adam Brown Crosby: Yes, the county. For the benefit of those who may not understand the schooling of mackerel on our Atlantic coast, I may say that during the months of July, August and September, the mackerel school in large quantities on the surface. They run into our bays and harbours and school along the coast. But, with this heavy gun practice at the mouth of Halifax harbour, the fishermen claim the fish are disturbed and they have not the opportunity to catch the fish that they otherwise would. I have heard that the department is trying to meet the views of the fishermen. I hope the minister will see to it that their wishes are met as far as possible.


Frederick William Borden: I received a copy of the petition which the hon. member has read, direct from the municipality. My attention was also drawn to the matter by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). The question was at once referred to General Drury, who took it up with the fishermen. And I believe that an entirely satisfactory arrangement has been reached for the future.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am glad to hear that.


John Allister Currie: So far as I know, there is no Tide Tange north of Toronto in the section in which my riding is located, that is, there is no rifle range either in the county of Simcoe or in the county of Grey. I do not wish to press upon the minister any unnecessary expenditure, but I think that possibly a couple of thousand dollars would purchase land and rig up a range that would do for the regiment there, and that possibly could be used by both the Grey and Simcoe regiments.


Frederick William Borden: At what place?


John Allister Currie: It could be around the shore of Georgian bay, in the vicinity
of Collingwood, or on the sand plains south of Collingwood. I think that a hundred acres of land could be got for, perhaps, $1,500. That is, there is waste land that could be obtained.


Frederick William Borden: A rifle range at Barrie is in the list of those proposed. That would be in that neighbourhood, I think.


John Allister Currie: I suppose that would do, but I should think it could be put further north than Barrie. If located in the place I have in mind, there would be no danger of people being shot.


Frederick William Borden: I am glad to have my attention called to this. We are extremely anxious to afford all the accommodation possible. It is vital to the militia to afford the means of using the rifle at every possible point, because that is the most important part of the training of the militia. I shall be glad to look into this again with a view to seeing whether Barrie is the best point at which to place a range.


Samuel Hughes: What is the minister doing with regard to cadet rifles?


Frederick William Borden: With regard to cadets, I stated before my hon. friend came in, that 30,000 of Mark II. rifles are to be issued to the cadets wherever possible. I suppose the ordinary rifle ranges will be used. The cost of constructing special ranges for the use of gallery ammunition is not very great and we will be prepared to afford the necessary expenditure to give the accommodation at every point where it seems to be justified by the numbers who are taking advantage of it.	5


Richard Blain: Is the minister buying any sub-target guns now, and how many has he purchased?


Frederick William Borden: I think there are none provided for this year. We have on hand 550. I gave to the House some time ago the points at which these sub-target guns are distributed. So soon as there is a further demand for them, I expect to ask for a vote. But we do not want to buy them until they are actually required. I think in connection with the very general cadet movement throughout the country, it is probable there will be a considerable demand for these guns at schools and colleges. They have proved to be a most useful accessory to the militia force in teaching the use of the rifle. They are looked upon as indispensable: we could not get along without them in the camps. Men who try to shoot with the rifle and fail, are given a course with the sub-target gun, then they return to the targets and make very good shooting. So I think the
. COMMONS
results have fully justified, our course in purchasing this sub-target gun. I may say that in England it is becoming more and more popular, and I think the same is true in the States.


John Allister Currie: Has the department under consideration the adoption of a new rifle in line with the rifle which the British War Office is supposed to be experimenting with at the present time? I understand they propose purchasing a rifle of about -25 to -28 calibre, and adopting a fire arm of automatic action. Now, a Canadian has the honour of inventing a rifle that has been in use in the British army for a great many years. I think the minister ought to take into consideration the advisability of offering some reward for the best invention along those lines, to stimulate the inventive mind of Canadians to produce a weapon for the British army. I think that in a few years a very modern arm will be made with an automatic rifle of 'a small calibre. The advantage is that the ammunition required is so small that a discharge can he carried over and above what is carried even with the '303 which has a small cartridge, and a soldier can carry about half as many again. Has the minister taken that into consideration?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. Of course we know that experiments have been carried on in England with a view to procuring possibly an automatic rifle. We are perhaps not experimenting exactly in that direction, but I have employed the services of two or three expert men in that respect, who have been engaged in the matter of perfecting the Ross rifle with great success. The question of offering a premium or a prize is worth considering. But I say in answer to my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that if a rifle is adopted by the war office which is better than, our rifle and better than theirs, I would consider it my duty to recommend that that rifle should be adopted b,y Canada; and notice given under our contract to the Ross rifle factory, that at the expiry of a certain time provided by the contract, a year I think it is, we want that rifle manufactured. They would have to do it, and it would be our duty to give them such notice.


Samuel Hughes: Experiments are being carried on in England at the present time, and I may say-it is not necessary to keep the secret any longer-that we have been carrying on experiments in Canada with automatic rifles. However, I am a little conservative in this matter, and I have very little use so far for an automatic rifle. I think that the experience of riflemen the world over goes to show that it is impossible to keep up the supply of ammunition for automatic rifles in the firing Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
line. I think it would be much better to have long range machine guns with telescopic sights. In my opinion, at all events, until I see an automatic rifle that will win me over, the best rifle in the hands of the soldier would be one with, say a -280 or [DOT]285 calibre, with a high velocity of 3,000 feet per second, and with telescopic sights. If this were carried out, I am satisfied that the enemy would hesitate a long time before they would advance to any position held by men armed in this way. However, the automatic rifle seems to be the fad at present, and they are experimenting with them in various places, buti I have not yet heard that they have been successful.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the difference between a repeating and an automatic rifle?


Frederick William Borden: I cannot say; not very much I should think.


John Allister Currie: My experience with tire automatic rifle is different from that of the hon. member (Mr. Hughes). I have used a military rifle for many years of course, and for three years I have used a sporting automatic rifle in the bush foT days and weeks and under what are equal to war conditions, and I found it not only reliable but just as simple in action as the Snider. There are always prejudices among military men, especially those who are growing older, about changes in equipment. The Duke of Wellington prevented the adopting of the repeating rifle through having laid it down that the bullet must be sufficiently large to break the leg of a horse, and if we apply that rule to-day we could not have high power rifles. Germany and Japan are adopting the automatic rifle as well as Norway and Sweden, and France and England are experimenting. Automatic rifles having proved successful for sporting purposes which is a good test, I think we should begin to consider the matter. When the -303 rifle was adopted the opinion was generally expressed by officers that it would be useless because the men would not keep it clean, but I know of four or five hundred of these rifles which have been in use for over 12 years, and fully 50 per cent of them are good for active service to-day. I have every confidence that a satisfactory automatic rifle can be obtained.
Militia annual drill, $881,250.


Samuel Hughes: Will this drill the whole force?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would suggest to the minister that he might curtail on certain items and increase the pay of the men. Fifty cents a day when everything is so ex-

pensive is not much inducement to a young man to join the militia.


Frederick William Borden: Quite true.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There should be a minimum per day of 75 cents and the efficiency pay added, so as to attract men of better character and better education. We must make our militia more attractive to the young men if we want to get the better class into it. There has been some criticism, how well-founded it is I do not know, against the Militia Department as to the headquarters staff being too large and being over paid. If the minister can make any curtailment there and add it to the pay of the men it would meet with the approval of the country.


Frederick William Borden: I think that would be false economy, but of course it is impossible to discuss that question fully to-night. I do not think there is a dollar more paid to the staff than ought to be paid, provided the staff does its work properly. The question of increasing the pay of "the militia is well worth considering. In former days my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) brought up that question a great many times and we eventually adopted the 50 cents efficiency pay idea. I think it is our duty to throw no unnecessary obstacles in the way of the men earning the extra 50 cents efficiency pay, but rather we should make it as easy for them to do so as possible.
Mr. HUGHES And as honest and as accurate.


Frederick William Borden: Certainly. I would think that all deserving men should earn the dollar per day without difficulty. We shall watch the matter closely during this season, and when we come together again we may take some action


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How many on the headquarters staff?


Frederick William Borden: About 28.


David Henderson: I have long advocated increased pay to the volunteers, and I may say that I am requested to do so again. In fact, the inadequacy of the pay of the volunteers has been, I think, my only criticism with regard to the Militia Department. I do not see why the minister should hesitate to give the men something more than they are getting now.


Frederick William Borden: The statute limits us, and we would have to amend it to increase the pay.


David Henderson: Then I think I may say that parliament will amend that statute just as soon as the minister brings down the Bill. I believe the sentiment of the House and of the country is in favour of
giving our militiamen a little more pay than they are getting now. It is unreasonable to expect men to leave employment at $1 or $2 a day to go to camp for 50 cents. If you increase the pay a little, I am sure you will get a better class of men, and I would ask the minister to consider the propriety of doing so.


Samuel Hughes: I am not going to advocate a decrease in the pay of the men, but I am going to advocate an increase in the pay of training officers. The only system of training that has been successful in this or any other country is to train the officers as cadets and let them take their place in the ranks as privates, corporals and sergeants, and holding their certificates, work their way up to the command. Then we could select our officers from the men who in subordinate positions had proven their efficiency. The record shows that the increased pay has not brought out a better class of men; indeed,
I verily believe that we have not as good a class of men in the militia now as we had when we had well trained officers and the men were paid only 50 cents a day. What you want is efficient and energetic officers in the regiments who will inspire enthusiasm in the men. I know one company in my own regiment in which the assessed value of the property held by the young men and their fathers was over $3,000 each, and that was common in the old davs when the pay was only 50 cents, and when the officers were efficient and enthusiastic for the service. The chief inducement to a young man now to go to camp is: Come along and if you make good shooting you will get the increased pay. That is not the way to build up a militia force. A militia force must be a patriotic force. Many regiments, city corps and some rural corps, never touch their pay, they turn it into a fund for other purposes, and I am satisfied that what is wanted is to see that the officers are trained and well trained, and that each company is equipped with officers and non-commissioned officers capable of putting spirit into the men and of leading them on the camp field or in action.


John Allister Currie: If you compare the militia list of to-day with the militia list of twenty years ago, you will find as many qualified officers now as then and more. However, the young man who takes a commission in a militia regiment is put to a large expense, probably $250 for qualifying and uniforming himself. In Great Britain formerly they granted to each volunteer officer to assist in paying for his uniform twenty to twenty-five guineas. Then to-day the militia uniforms have to pay duty, running $30 or $35. If officers who qualified themselves at a school or military instruction were given an allowance towards pro-

viding their uniforms, in two years there would not be a single unit in the country that would not have well qualified, and efficient officers. The pay given officers white attending the schools is really not sufficient to meet their expenses. The social advantages obtained by taking a commission are not great. The officers all over the country give their services, they do not expect pay for them, in fact they invariably fund their pay, and I think it would be highly desirable to adopt some plan as I have suggested.


Frederick William Borden: The suggestion is a very good one, and I agree with my bon. friend that the allowance to officers attending schools of instruction is ridiculously small. I found it there when I came into office. I was discussing it the other day with one of the staff, and I think a change should be made.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister inquired into the system of messing, and the general mode of living in barracks?


Frederick William Borden: We are doing that now.
Mr. HUGHES Proper supervision should be exercised even over officers high in the permanent corps in connection with mess rooms, &e., at the schools. Office^ should be taught also that their chief function is to educate those attending the schools along military lines, and not along social or other lines.


Frederick William Borden: There is sufficient supervision now. I think, we can scarcely remove the duty on officers' clothing, and I see no reason why uniforms should not be made in Canada, although of course the price would be greater. I agree that the better way out of the difficulty is to give some special allowance for uniforms, and I feel disposed to do that.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to call attention to the case of a messenger who was employed in the Auditor General's office. He had been there about ten years, and although technically a temporary officer he was virtually permanent in the same sense as many men in the service, until the passing of the recent Act. He went to South Africa, fought in the war, and his position seemed to have been exactly the same as that of other men who received full pay during their absence, and were reinstated in their positions as soon as they returned. For example, I understand, that his case is exactly the same as that of Cawdron of the Justice Department and Ross of the Dominion Police. He was not reinstated and remained idle for nine months. He lost the continuity of his service, certain statu- | tory increases, and his pay for the nine


John Allister Currie: months during which he was absent, and his pay from the department white he was in South Africa, Certainly in their case there was no delay after they returned. They were reinstated at once, as I am informed, in the positions which they had left to go to South Africa. I do not see why there should be any discrimination in the case of this man.


Frederick William Borden: I may say that this man was employed by the Auditor General, and he refused to reinstate him. My hon. friend from Victoria and Hal'-burton brought this case to my notice the other day, and I read all the papers relating to it, and I cannot see in what respect the Militia Department could have any responsibility in the matter at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not say that it has, except that the order in council under which some of these men were re-instated in their positions and received their pay was made on a report of the Minister of Militia and Defence. It seems, therefore, proper to bring it to his attention now.


Frederick William Borden: That was as to the service; but we could not change the rule. The Auditor General insisted on the letter of the rule being followed, and as he employed this man in his department, when he raised that difficulty we could do nothing.


Robert Laird Borden: I have been informed that the present Auditor General takes a different view of it. I do not see why one department of the government should take a different view. The government ought to come to some conclusion about these men. There should be one rule for all and no discrimination. I am informed that there has not been the same rule for all, and that there has been discrimination. If that is so, it ought to be rectified.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out to the minister that this matter was up years ago. The Auditor General employed this man, and he declined to recommend him for reinstatement, and I presume that the minister took for granted that that settled the case. I wrote to the minister the other day, calling his attention to the fact that Cawdron and Ross had both received their gratuities, although they served under the same conditons as young Cottee. In the same way the friends of two or three men who died on their way to South Africa have received gratuities while the friends of others who died have been refused them. There should be even-handed justice all round.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister, I hope, will look into this matter.


Frederick William Borden: I really do not see that I have anything to do with

it; but I shall be glad to take it up and see who is the proper officer to deal with it.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the attention of the Minister of Finance been called to it?


William Stevens Fielding: I remember that there was a young man of that name, and my recollection is that he was a temporary employee, and that when he returned his services were not needed. Hpwever, I have only a hazy recollection of the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: He may have been a temporary employee, as other men, who have been in the service of the government fcr 25 or 30 years, are technically called temporary employees. It is useless to consider these men as in a different position from permanent men in the service, because in honesty and common sense they are not. They are called temporary employees in the statute, but in reality they are permanent employees. This man, I am informed, had been 10 years in the service of the department before he went to Africa. It is idle to talk of that man as a temporary employee.


William Stevens Fielding: I hardly think that is right. There are two classes of temporary employees-the permanent temporary, if one may call them so, and the temporary temporary. There are men who are technically temporary employees, but have been in a department a great many years. Then there are the bona fide temporary employees who are only employed for a short time. I understood that this man belonged to the latter class.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read this memorandum in more detail than I have done :
Prior to his South African service he had been in the employ of the government for ten years. He had applied in the usual way for leave of absence to serve his country in the war in South Africa. He served in the 6th Regiment Canadian Mounted Rifles. On his return he reported for duty and was told that his position had been filled, as the work could not wait, and for nine months after his return he had no regular or steady employment.
We know that even private corporations kept positions open for men who went to South Africa to fight in that war, and I think it would be very petty for the government to adopt a different principle.
Militia and defence - engineer services, $.300,000.
Mr..S. SHARPE. There is an increase of $25,000. Will the minister explain the necessity of it?


Frederick William Borden: The increase is simply returning to the normal vote.
We had to cut down the vote last year owing to the shrinkage of the revenue, and we are putting it back where it was.
Grant to 65th regiment for armoury, $50,000.


Frederick William Borden: This is to assist in the construction of a large armoury, the government paying one-half. That has been done in two or three cases, and we think it is a very advisable thing to do in the city of Montreal.
Grant to 5th regiment for armoury, $15,000.


Frederick William Borden: That is the same thing, the balance of our contribution.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to urge upon the hon. minister the desirability of considering, where the Department of Public Works is erecting a post office or customs building, of placing the headquarters of the militia company, if there should be a company, in the building, and of providing an armoury for the company.


Frederick William Borden: In the same building?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes, say in tlhe basement of the building. There has. been an appropriation for a post office in the town of Uxbridge, and there is no reason why an armoury should not be constructed in the basement of the building. It would save the officers paying the expense of rental. I would strongly urge the minister to have that done. The Minister of Public Works stated the other night that he had had tlhe matter under consideration, and thought favourably of the idea.


Samuel Hughes: It would be even better to have it in the rear of the building where the boys could have miniature rifle practice, and where the arms could be stored.


Frederick William Borden: Where there is one company, or even two companies the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe) would be a very good one. It. is being carried out in one or two cases. I think there is a case in the eastern townships, >and I think there are one or two others. I will be very glad to take it up with the Minister of Public Works, for 1 believe it would be an economical arrangement, and it would help us to get armouries more quickly than in any other way.


Mr. CARVELL.: There are one or two in New Brunswick.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think it is very unfair that officers should have to pay rental for an armoury out of their own pocket.


Frederick William Borden: There is a special allowance.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes, but it is only a small sum, not sufficient to cover the rent of an armoury. I think it is unfair to the officers.


Frederick William Borden: Of course the old practice was in the rural district for the captain to provide a room in his own house, or to take some outbuilding, and then the $60, or whatever the allowance is was given to him to pay somebody to keep the arms and the clothing in order. That was the origin of the provision many years ago, and it has worked fairly well. Perhaps the country is outgrowing that system, and we have got to adopt a better and a more expensive one.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: A few years ago in Uxbridge we had a building and in one room we kept the stores, and we used it for drill, but the department took all the stores to the regimental town of Whitby, and took away our armoury. _ Now, I think this is a splendid opportunity for the minister. Uxbridge is a suitable town to have a good company headquarters in, and I trust the minister will favour the idea of providing an armoury in conjunction with the post office.


Frederick William Borden: I do.
Gratuities, $6,000.


Frederick William Borden: I want to reduce that amount by $4,000.


Samuel Hughes: Why?


Frederick William Borden: The intension was to pay a gratuity to Colonel White, but it has turned out as a result of the amendment to the Pension Act that he
is entitled to a small pension by counting time he served in the active militia, so that the gratuity will not be necessary.


John Allister Currie: There was a gratuity to an officer in my corps who caught disease in Quebec?


Frederick William Borden: Henderson?


John Allister Currie: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: That is to be paid. The gratuity is to be $1,000 and it will be paid.
Maintainance of military properties, $80,000.


William Roche: I would like to make my annual request for a drill hall in the town' of Minnedosa.	'
' Mr. BLAIN. Is it not in the supplemen-taries?


William Roche: I have failed to see it in the supplementaries. For a number of years I have been urging the minister to construct in my town a drill hall. We have a number of enthusiastic young men there who have banded themselves together and Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
have a very good company of dragoons. They have carried away first prizes in competitions at the annual drills, but they have not a suitable place for the storing of the government arms. They constructed a frame building at their own expense, but unfortunately that building was burned this winter, and the stores, saddles, bridles and other accoutrements were consumed. I do not know whether there was any insurance on the property or not. I presume a request has been sent in for a new supply. I heard that the town council had been looking for a site which they would be willing to tender to the government in order to secure a drill hall. I think it1 rather petty that the government would ask them to furnish a site. It is.a comparatively small town with 1,700 of a population, and the price of property is comparatively low. Some intimation must have come to them, but if the government will not give a drill hall on other grounds they are willing to give the site. I would strongly urge the minister to give a drill hall to that town. They are very much." disappointed and discouraged that they have not one, especially seeing that it was partially promised some years ago.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Roche) has brought the matter to my notice more than once. If there was any correspondence with the town council in Tegard to a site, it must have been with the Department of Public Works. I have no knowledge of anything of the kind emanating from my department. There is a general vote for the construction of armouries, and it is not necessary that the place should be named in the estimates. *


William Roche: I was told that six yearsi ago.


Frederick William Borden: I think the misfortune which our militia friends there have met with in the loss of their building fortifies their claim to have something done, and we will see whether we cannot do something this year.


Clarence Jameson: I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. minister the need for an armoury at Digby. There is now, as the minister knows, a battery of artillery, and they are very seriously handicapped for lack of a suitable place to store their accoutrements. I understand there are likely to be some guns placed there, and with the added interest which is being taken in the battery, I would like to see better facilities afforded the men. I trust the minister will provide the necessary grant.


Frederick William Borden: We will either have to construct a suitable build-, ing or rent one in three or four of thet

towns in Nova Scotia where the heavy artillery has its headquarters. Yarmouth, I think, is one place, Digby, Pictou and Mahone bay are other places. They are all under consideration, and we will have to provide a proper place for the storage of these expensive guns and equipment.


Clarence Jameson: Then the matter is receiving the consideration of the minister?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, but I am not saying whether we shall rent a suitable building or build one. That will depend upon the money at our disposal.
Pay, allowances, provisions and supplies of the permanent force, $1,950,000.


Samuel Hughes: In connection with the headquarters staff and the district staff, it has been the custom for many years to issue a sort of syllabus from time to time for the camps of instruction, prepared, I presume, by some clerk in the department, and these are supposed to form the routine for the instruction in camp. I need not say to any one who has had any experience with them, that those sent out are utterly absurd. The department should undoubtedly prescribe the sections and subjects to be taken up in camp and in which the volunteers should be proficient, but it should toe left to the discretion of the officer in command of the camp to prepare his own routine. Where you are out for twelve days camping, and have officers who are supposed to know their business, it is quite out of place to issue such a syllabus.
Salaries and wages of civil employees, $155,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think the minister has adopted a good plan in issuing a memorandum explaining the estimates. Unfortunately it has not been issued soon enough to be of much service to us. I desire to register a protest against allowing the estimates to stand until this_ late day in the session, near Sunday morning, when we are putting through several million dollars without examination and criticism. The members cannot do themselves justice, nor the public justice, under those circumstances. If that memorandum had been issued earlier in the session we would have been better able to study it. This item, and a previous item for paying allowances at headquarters to command and district staffs, seem to be large amounts in connection with our militia affairs, they seem to be out of all proportion to the number cf men we have on the permanent staff. It seems to me the staff is overcrowded. I cannot understand why we should require so much expense at the headquarters staff and so many civil employees.


Frederick William Borden: The explanation with regard to civil employees is to be found here. The small increase is due to the fact that certain things that were done by the Public WoTks are taken over by the Militia Department. As regards the staff, it is altogether too late to discuss that question. But I agree entirely with my hon. friend that it would be much more desirable that these estimates should be discussed earlier in the session. I expected that would be done, and this memorandum was prepared in the month of December. It was not issued, because I thought it would be better to issue it only two or three days before taking up my estimates in the House, and it was issued the day before yesterday. I hope next session we will be able to take the matter up earlier, and I think I will be able to prove to my hon. friend, who is himself ai militia man, the absolute necessity of having a large and efficient headquarters staff. I think I can demonstrate to him that our staff is less expensive, even taking into consideration the relative strength of our militia, than is the staff of Switzerland, whose militia is, of course, ahead of the world. There is no other force in the world that, for cheapness and efficiency, caq be compared with the militia of Switzerland. In a memorandum that I laid before parliament two years ago, I demonstrated that fact beyond doubt; and I had the advantage of laying before the House a carefully prepared memorandum made by General Lake, which entirely supported the view I have presented. I hope at some other time to have an opportunity of discussing this matter more fully.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How does the minister explain the large increase of $75,000 in salaries and wages to civil employees?


Frederick William Borden: $17,000 is taken over from the Public Works, and $39,706 which was' paid out of clothing vote, is put into this vote. So the only 'difference 'consists in certain new appointments, and increasing the rate of wages, $7,800.
Topographical survey, $30,000.


Samuel Hughes: Speaking of the general staff, how many members of that general staff are supposed to be in Canada?


Frederick William Borden: Five I think. We change them from time to time.


Samuel Hughes: Are they elected on account of any general fitness?


Frederick William Borden: They must all have passed the staff college, that is their only recommendation. As I explained to the House a few days ago in connection with the Royal Military College, we have

brought out an officer to take charge of the Royal Military College, and two persons who are specially qualified to be members of the general staff. General Lake and General Otter are members of that staff.
Monuments to battlefields - amount required towards the erection of a monument to commemorate the battle of Stoney Creek- revote, $5,000.


David Henderson: I desire to draw the minister's attention to a matter which I had the honour of speaking to him about a few days ago. In the county I represent, in the township of Nelson, on Lake Ontario, there is a small graveyard in which are buried some of those who took part, I am informed, in the battle of Stoney Creek, Queenston Heights, Lundy's Lane, and also at Detroit. The graveyard has been practically abandoned for over forty years, and the descendants of those old warriors who were, buried there seem to have all passed away or left that section of the country, and there is no one to look after this old cemetery. It is the desire of the people living in that neighbouring that it should be cared for in some way, and I think it is fitting, when the minister is asking a sum in connection with the battlefield of Stoney Creek, that something should be done to commemorate the memory of those who fought for their country and who lie buried in this old graveyard. I hope the minister will take the matter into consideration. The old graveyard is 80 yards long and 30 yards broad and it would not cost much to build a wall round it to protect it from desecration. I hope the minister will meet the wishes of the people.


Frederick William Borden: I shall be very glad to look into the matter.


John Allister Currie: I call the attention of the minister to the conditions with reference to Fort Malden on the Detroit river. From that point issued the expedition under General Brock that captured Detroit, and so it is an epoch making land mark in our country. I understand Fort Malden is now owned by private parties and is being laid out for town lots so that in a few years that famous spot will disappear from the ken of the public. Fort Malden is just as worthy of preservation as Fort George or any other of the historic places along the frontier. Mr. Clarke of Essex and I have received communications from parties interested in having the land at Fort Malden taken over by the government. I hope the minister will see what can be done.


Frederick William Borden: I shall be very glad to.


Frederick William Borden: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where is the monument'to be erected at Stoney Creek?


Frederick William Borden: Where the battle was fought, I think.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the cost to be?


Frederick William Borden: I think it is to cost $10,000, and we are contributing one-half.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the government contributing to the Laura Secord memorial?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a contribution to the association.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the government grant on condition that the memorial should be in the form of a monument?


William Stevens Fielding: That is in the hands of the association, but I believe the monument is being erected.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have had correspondence at the beginning of the session with a lady who is in charge of that, and she understood then that no provision was made for a contribution.


William Stevens Fielding: I have given direction that the amount should be paid before the close of the present fiscal year, and I think the matter has been arranged satisfactorily.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: These people are not in my county, but I have promised them to do what I could in the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman will find it is satisfactory.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The prevailing opinion now is that it would be better to erect a memorial hall rather than a monument. Is the government insisting that it should take the form of a monument?


William Stevens Fielding: My recollection is that the proposal made was for the erection of a monument and that we granted aid to that. I do not think we have imposed any condition that it should be a monument.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If those interested change their idea and decide on erecting a memorial hall rather than a monument, I hope the government will not insist that their original request -be adhered to.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the monument, if not constructed is under contract.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think it is, because it is only this session I was asked to advocate this with the Minister of Militia.


John Allister Currie: Is it the intention of the government to give a grant to the memorial tower at Halifax?


William Stevens Fielding: I think there is a vote in the estimates for that.
Some resolutions reported.


MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1911.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, His Excellency's message, together with his estimates were referred to the Committee of Supply.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


David Henderson: What business will be taken up on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: Private Bills, and when we reach government orders all the resolutions that stand on the order paper will be taken up in their turn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.57 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 2, 1910.