1910-03-21

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 177) to incorporate the Morris-burg Ferry Dock Company.-Mr. Broder.
Bill (No. 178) to incorporate the Ottawa and Montreal Power and Transmission Company, Limited.-Mr. Perley.
Bill (No. 179) for the relief of Helena Mellor Fleming.-Mr. Knowles.

[Stage Direction]
Canal Statistics, 1909.-Hon. Mr. Graham.
List of shareholders of chartered banks. -Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

[Stage Direction]
Upon the orders of the day:
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read an item in the ' Citizen ' of to-day, and found a question upon it which I will ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fielding) to answer. It reads, as follow's:


Hon.  W. S.@: Fielding Returns-Tariff Conference at Albany ends in most Friendly Manner-Reported that probability of Tariff War has receded and a Settlement regarded as likely-Conference occupied Whole of Yesterday but no Conclusion was reached, says President Taft. Canadian Minister has left for Ottawa and may go to Washington the end of month.
(Special to the ' Citizen/)
Albany, N.Y., March 20.-There will probably be no tariff war between the United Mr. ARTHURS
States and Canada. The prospect for commercial peace with the Dominion is more favourable to-night than it has been at any time since the president caused it to he understood that the situation was critical.
By joint agreement between President Taft and Hon. W. S. Fielding, the Canadian Minister of Finance, the following statement was given out from the state executive mansion this evening for publication:-
' The President and Mr. Fielding were in conference in respect to the tariff to-dav for several hours. No conclusion was reached, hut the situation remains that of friendly negotiations/
Despite the late hour at which the University Club dinner ended Mr. Fielding and Mr. Charles M. Pepper, who is here from Washington as the representative of the state department, were at the executive mansion at half past nine o'clock this morning. They immediately went into private ' conference with Mr. Taft and remained closeted with him until he had to leave them to keep his engagement to attend church with Governor Hughes. The Canadian minister and Mr. Pepper returned together to the Ten Eyck hotel, chatting in a manner that indicated amicable relations, but they returned to the governor's official residence in time to resume the conference with the president after luncheon, to which Earl Grey and Mr. Fielding as well as the president had been invited as the guests of Governor and Mrs. Hughes.
After luncheon the conference was resumed, and it continued until four o'clock in the afternoon, when the president, by reason of an appointment of long standing, kept an afternoon tea engagement at the house of his friends, Mr. and Mrs. Ward. Mr. Fielding and Mr. Pepper again returned to the hotel. They repaired to the apartments occupied by the Dominion Minister of Finance and busied themselves in going over certain of the tariff schedules with a view of reaching some basis agreeable to both sides whereby the president would he justified in withholding the operation against Canadian imports of the maximum tariff as prescribed by the Payne-Aldrich law after March 31.
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether that statement is substantially correct and whether there was a conference between the President of the United States and our Finance Minister in Albany yesterday (Sunday) re tariff matters, as alleged in the despatch read? Was the invitation of the president, which was accepted by the government, for a Sunday conference?


Mr. FIELDING.: At the invitation of the President of the United States, I visited Albany and had the honour and the pleasure of meeting that gentleman on both Saturday and Sunday. We discussed matters which I trust will work for the peace, order and good government of these two nations; there could be no better Sunday work.



JAPAN-UNITED STATES TREATY.

Mr. S. HUGHES.: In the New York 'World' of Friday, March 18, I see a dispatch speaking of the proposed treaty between Japan and the United States, part of which is:
England wishes to get away from her treaty with Japan, and Japan, it is said here to-day, is ready bo let her go at the expiration of the Lansdowne-Hayashi agreement. Japan is desirous, however, of having a government support her in the Orient without committing her against any nation.
The reason for this is that Japan does not feel capable of taking care of the commercial and industrial feature of China, but she also has her doubts as to the motives behind offers of certain European governments. With the United States ready to develop the far east in accordance with every provision of American ' commercial equality ' and without ulterior motives of aggrandisement, Japan feels that China's future and freedom from contention are assured.	[DOT]



POINTS IN NEW PROPOSAL.

[Stage Direction]
The points to be added on the new proposal, not included in the Root-Takahiia agreement, and which could not be embraced by the latter, even in its vague wording, are these:
1.	Consolidation in Asia, especially along the Pacific shores.
2.	To include Great Britain if she desires to become a party, through her alliance with the empire, by a triangulation of interests, or dissociate England entirely without in any way jeopardizing British interests.
3.	Further definition of fisheries rights.
4.	That the jeopardy of the rights of either nation requiring safeguarding of common and mutual interests and rights is not to be construed as open belligerents but a bid. for either arbitration or other outlet.
5.	That the powers signatory to the Hay note do not figure in any way in the motives behind this new pact other than to share all the [DOT]benefits to be derived by a direct understanding between two nations politically, diplomatically and commercially identified wTith the Pacific basin, namely, Japan and the United States.
6.	Japan will agree to maintain peace so long as her own sovereignty is not menaced.
7.	Japan, in the event that the United States will concede the moral right to guide and control Chinese Manchuria and the Pacific basin in general, does not oppose Russia, nor does she seek any right other than that of mutual friend to all those interested; m the event of difficulties, the matter will then be referred to the participating governments for settlement.
In courtesy to the powers they will be acquainted with the fact that Japan wishes to come to a more settled and definite amicable understanding with the United States.
Might I ask the government, in view of the fact that in this despatch the Pacific ocean is regarded as practically a sea concerning which the United States, Japan and Great Britain (Great Britain, I presume, being more especially interested through Canada, Australia and New Zealand) shall have control, if the government have the intention of taking any steps towards safeguarding the rights of Canada, through the empire, in this proposed treaty.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have to inform my hon. friend that we have received no invitation at all from the imperial authorities upon this subject.



TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. SPROULE.: Is the Finance Minister in a position to give any information as to what progress, if any, he afM the government have made in their negotiations with President Taft over tariff matters?


William Stevens Fielding: I can only say to my hon. friend that I do not think the good purpose that he has in view, and that we all must have in view, would be advanced by making any statement at the present time. The matters in dispute remain as matters for friendly negotiations, and beyond that it would not be expedient to make a statement at this moment. At an early date I hope to give the House fuller and better information.



WAR VESSELS ON THE GREAT LAKES.

Mr. BOYCE.: I have read an item in at least one newspaper to the effect that there has been some correspondence with this government looking to the modification if not the entire abrogation of the Rush-Bagot treaty so as to permit of training ships or armed cruisers going up the great lakes, which is prohibited at the present time by that treaty. Has there been any such correspondence, and if so, has any conclusion been reached?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that an invitation has come from the United States with a view of having this Rush-Bagot treaty revised, but nothing more than that has been done so far as I know.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. BRADBURY.: I would renew my inquiry regarding a return ordered about a month ago for papers with reference to a report made bv Mr. Williams in connection with the St. Peter's Indian reserve.


Mr. OLIVER.: The return in question is being prepared, and I hope to be able to lay it on the table within a day or two.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 128) to incorporate the James Bay and Eastern Railway Company-Mr. Girard.
On section 11,
Haughton Lennox: We had a good deal of discussion over this clause in the committee. I understand that the hon. minister was present when the Bill went through. From recollection the clause provided that the company might acquire electric power and energy and sell surplus power 'but had not the right to build dams or generate electric powpr. I am at a loss to understand why they should require the right to dispose of surplus power if they are only to get such as they need for theij own purposes.


Mr. GRAHAM.: This condition might arise. They might need 10,000 horse-power for the purposes of their undertaking. They might have to buy from some one who had 11,000 horse-power to sell and they would have to buy the whole 11,000. This Bill would give them the right to sell the surplus 1,000.
Mr. LANCASTER, The words 'not by expropriation' are to go in.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: That is rather a weak argument. If the railway required a quantity of power and got- one horse-power more than it required, it would not be a great hardship on the company if it were not able to dispose of that. It looks very much as if something was lurking behind this apparently innocent language. It looks like an attempt to get control of water-powers which will not be used necessarily for the operation of the railway as it should be.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Does the clause read now 'in the municipalities through which the railway is authorized to be built' or 'in the municipalities through which the railway is built'?	'


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The clause reads as follow's:
11. For the purposes of its undertaking and subject to the provisions of section 247 of the Railway Act the company may acquire but not by expropriation, electric or other power, or energy, which may be transmitted and delivered to any place in the municipalities through which the railway is authorized to be built, and may receive, transform, transmit, distri-Mr. OLIVER.
bute and supply such power or energy in any form, and may dispose of the surplus thereof, and may collect rates and charges therefor; but no such rate or charge shall be demanded or taken until it has been approved of by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, who may also revise such rates and charges from time to time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In other Bills of a similar character we have confined them to the municipalities through which the road is built and not through which it is authorized to ibe built, the reason being that the railway must first build its road before engaging in the business of distributing electric power. Otherwise the company might never build its railway and simply become a transmission and distributing power company. I would think that we should follow the practice adopted with respect to other Bills and 'strike out the words 'authorized tp build'.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that was the amendment made in committee. We had quite a discussion there. Attention was drawn to the fact that the railway might build two miles only, though authorized to build a line a thousand miles long. Under the power given by this Bill, it would have the right to distribute electricity along the whole of its authorized line through all the municipalities. There was evidently some mistake, for the Bill has not been reported as the committee intended.


Mr. J. D. REID.: According to that amendment, this company would have the right to enter into any municipality and distribute electricity in competition with a municipal plant and perhaps destroy it, or the municipality might have to sell out its plant to this company. I understood that it was the intention to have these Bills amended in such a way that a com- * pany such as this could not enter a municipality and interfere with a municipal plant.


Mr. BLAIN.: Do I understand the hon.
member for Westmorland has moved to strike out these words?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I did not understand him to make a motion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not wish to make a motion, but if the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill would act upon the suggestion I have made, he would be conforming to the practice allowed by the committee.


Haughton Lennox: Before the Bill was passed in the committee, we had several Bills in which these words ' authorized to be built ' appeared, and in every case we

changed them. In the Rainy River Bill we had this clause again, and we changed the wording so that this Bill stands alone in that respect. It will be advisable, 1 think, for the promoter of this Bill to consent to this change. This must have got in merely by inadvert-ance. We have adopted a definite practice in that matter, and it is the duty of this committee, I submit, to insist that in some way it be made right. I am disposed to press the objection, and, if the promoter of the Bill will not consent to what has. been the uniform practice, then to ask that the committee rise and report progress, so that notice may be given.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member (Mr. Girard), who is in charge of the Bill, is not present. Of course, if there are amendments to be made, it would be better to move that the committee rise and report progress, that the usual notice may be given. I know that there is a difference of opinion about the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox). The other point of view may be worthy of consideration, and it is this: A railway line-say this railway line-is to be built. If you confine it to the power on which the line is built, you might make the rule so rigid that they could not use it to run the road. It will be better, however, to leave the Bill over, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



RAINY RIVER RADIAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 108) to incorporate the Rainy River Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Conmee.
On section 9-power to operate telegraph and telephone lines.
Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is that amended, Mr. Chairman?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It does not appear so in the copy before me.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I think that after the word * may ' were to be inserted the words ' for the purposes of its undertaking, and,' .making it read: ' The company may, for the purposes of its undertaking, and subject to the provisions of the Railway Act, construct and operate telegraph and telephone lines,' and so on. I move that these words be inserted. I do not think it is usual to give a railway company the right to do a telephone and telegraph business. I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) desires more than that they should have power to carry on a telephone business in connection with and for the purposes of their railway.


Mr. CONMEE.: I think that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 10-express business.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the railway companies, when they have the express business entirely under their own control sometimes act in a not very generous way with the public. They often compel shippers to send goods by express and pay a much higher figure if they want them taken proper care of and sent through rapidly. There are many advantages in combining the ownership of railway and express services, but there are some disadvantages to the public which are very considerable. Take the case of a line passing through our section of the country; when it was in its original ownership, there was an express company different from the railway company. The railway company was obliged to haul the express cars, but the express company could make its own contract. The public had much better service then than they have had since the express company was bought up by the railway company. The railway and express are now controlled by the Canadian Pacific railway. The people' have to pay much higher figures for their express, and they have less advantages than they had under the old system. For instance, the company will not deliver express in the villages. The express matter is dumped at the station, and the individuals for whom it is intended may not receive notice before several days. And then they have to go down to the station for it. The charge is made much higher. For instance, where they carried express, it was 60 cents a hundred to Toronto, now it is 75 cents. These are all exactions from the nublic, and I thought it was due to the fact that when the railway company took over the express business and were carrying freight and express, they could charge whatever they pleased.
On section 12,


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would ask the Minister of Railways if this is the usual clause. I was not able to attend the committee in which the change was made.


George Perry Graham: I think this clause is somewhat new, in that it introduces the words ' not by expropriation.' We did not have that in the old clause. We have for some years gone on the understanding that the provisions of the Railway Act, as the particular clauses were drawn, did not apply to these Bills with regard to expropriation. But to make sure we put in these words ' not by expropriation.'


James Conmee: My understanding of that clause in the Railway Committee was this: There is in another subsection a further amendment to that clause, which stipulates that they -shall not buiid such works on the Rainy river, which is the only navigable river in the vicinity. I did not understand that the words ' not by expropriation ' were going to be inserted in that subsection 2. I think that is going a little too far. I think that subsection ought to be satisfactory, and such powers of expropriation as the Railway Act confers ought to be allowed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Wasn't that 'agreed to in the Railway Committee?


James Conmee: That is the way I understood it. What good purpose is to be served by using the words, when the clause itself excludes them from the only navigable stream that could be dealt with under their charter?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There may be other water-powers that they could expropriate.


James Conmee: They are given authority to use a water-power and sell the surplus, but they can only do it subject to the Railway Act. What good purpose could be served? It is only depriving the public of the use of that power. It is not injuring the companies to anv great extent, but it is depriving the public of the opportunity of utilizing the power. Every one knows that a railway does not use all its power every day. In the winter season when ii has to contend with snow and ice, it has to use nearly double the force it would at other times. Now why leave that force idle? The public interest is absolutely protected. The company cannot deal with it except under the control of the board, and they 'are excluded by Act from dealing with the important stream in the district where navigation might be affected. Surely the public interest is amply protected without putting in that restriction.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The hon. gentleman asks what good purpose was to be served. In the Railway Committee we thought that there might be other water-powers than the one specifically mentioned, and that the same rule should apply to all. There must be a principle, there must not be any picking, and choosing between different powers. We thought that both these amendments were necessary. The committee thought that this company was to be subject to the Railway Act, and that they should not go into the water-power business, but only into the business of developing electricity for the railway and that they should not have the right to expropriate any water-power. Then because the Rainy river is a navigable stream, and the


George Perry Graham: Dominion government might have some control over it, to be consistent, the committee said that ' not by expropriation,' would not necessarily cover the Rainy river, because the Rainy river is navigable. And so, to carry out the principle entirely, and protect the public both as regards the Dominion authority and provincial authority, the committee almost unanimously came to the conclusion that both these amendments should be adopted as they now stand.


George Perry Graham: My own opinion is that none of these Railway Bills should be given any right to expropriate the water-powers of anybody. If I owned a water-power, if I got on the ground first, I don't think any other person ought to have a right to come in and expropriate it, and use it for the same purpose I was going to use it for. They ought to make some arrangement with me. I do not think they ought to have the right to expropriate water-powers on the right of way for the railway. If they expropriate sufficient for the right of way, I do not think it should include the water-power. It is not needed for the right of way of the railway. It is supposed to be outside of it altogether. I think that is a pretty safe ground to take.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: 
Mr. TURRIFF.: I was very glad to hear my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) make the state-
MARCH 21, ll)b>
ment that he did. I believe the time has come when we should curtail the powers that we give under these different railway charters, and I hope that next session when these different railway companies come before this House for incorporation the Minister of Railways and Canals will lay down the principle that we will grant them railway charters but we will not grant them water-power rights in connection with the railway in any particular whatever, and that if they want water-powers let the same people, if they choose, form a water-power company and let us deal with them as a water-power company simply. There is no doubt in my mind that there has been a large number of charters put through this House with these water-power privileges attached in which we have been incorporating water-power companies and giving them privileges because they came before us as railway companies, that we would not have given if we had known clearly what their intents were. By these charters they may be enabled to secure water-powers and build only a minimum amount of the railway. The feeling generally throughout the country and on both sides of this House, I believe, is that the time has come when no more of these natural resources of the country should be given to railway corporations. I have supported some of them in the House this session simply because I did not feel that it was advisable or good policy at the end of the session to refuse one company what we have already granted to other companies during the present session, hut as far as I am concerned, at the coming session I will oppose the granting of these privileges to any of the railway companies that come to us seeking incorporation.


James Conmee: I do not quarrel with the general principle that has been enunciated by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), but there is a good deal of suspicion in the minds of hon. members of this House that because you say in a railway charter that the company may acquire and utilize a water-power thereby you give them the right to take or expropriate that waterpower. I deny that. You do not give them any such right, and no hon. member of this House can point to a single case in this country where a water-power has been developed or utilized by virtue of any such right given by a railway charter. You are giving companies the right to operate water-powers in connection with their system, and under the restrictions imposed in the public interest by the Railway Act instead of compelling them to carry on two sets of business, keep two sets of books and have two different organizations. That is all you do accomplish by making this
condition. I am not going to contend that the amendments should be changed because an hon. gentleman has stated that he understood them a little different from what I did. I do not think it makes any difference whatever to' this company. I do not think they are prejudiced by that clause going in, but this suspicion that you are and have been giving railway companies powers that are inimical to the public interest, and that you are creating a monopoly with regard to the acquisition and operation of water-powers is all a mistake. I do not want to use a stronger expression.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It depends on the view point.


James Conmee: It does not depend on the view point. It is impossible for a railway company under the powers of the Railway Act to take these water-powers. They cannot do it, and all you are doing is to compel them to maintain two separate organizations. 1 do not think that it is in the public interest that such should be done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the water-power is on the right of way do they not acquire it? They expropriate the right of way, and the water-power goes with it. Take such a case as that of the Lake of the Woods where the stream crosses right underneath the railway, and where the water-power is within the limits of the right of way. Surely the railway company becomes the possessor of it?


James Conmee: No, I have in a previous debate answered that point. There are several places where the Canadian Pacific railway, and the Canadian Northern railway cross important water-powers, but neither of these companies can develop these water-powers. At Eagle river and at Wabi-goon river the Canadian Pacific railway cross right over the head of the falls. The line of railway could not have been located better for the purpose of controlling the water-power on the Wabigoon river, as far as a railway line can control it, yet the company have no control over that waterpower. It is developed by another company altogether. The railway company never developed it, and never pretended to have any rights in the water-power. They did not secure their right of way under such conditions as to give them that right. They got their right of way from the province of Ontario, and in all the patents that are issued these water-powers are reserved. There is no case of conveying to a railway company in the deed for the right of way any right or title to the water-powers on

such right of way. It has not been done in any case that I know of, and if it were done the railway company could not develop the water-power, because you would require the right to raise the water, to build dams, intakes, and outlets, which would extend beyond the limits of any right of way. At the Lake of the' Woods the railway crosses three different branches of the Winnipeg river as it discharges from the lake, and it crosses over the head of the falls in each case. Yet these powers are developed by other people. The Lake of the Woods Milling Company controls one, the Mather Milling Company another, and Kenora another. The railway company have never pretended to have any claim on those water-powers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you want this power in the Bill?


James Conmee: There is no good purpose compelling any set of men to keep double books, a double staff, and a double organization. I do not see any sense in it.


Mr. PORTER.: All of these difficulties were advanced in the committee, and considered there. In my judgment too much care cannot be taken in the granting of these railway charters as far as the granting of water-powers is concerned. I believe that all conflict of authority between the province and the Dominion in regard to these powers has been very carefully guarded against in the wording of this Bill, and fully considered. It seems to me it ought not to be interfered with now.'
On subclause 2,


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I wish to express the gratification I have at hearing the changed views of the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) with regard to the acquisition under a Railway Bill of the use of Dominion water-powers. I only hope he will continue to be a convert to that view and will not take up the time of the House bv introducing such Bills as this (which apparently have as their object not- the building of railways but the acquisition of the most valuable water-powers in Ontario. This Bill as originally introduced transgressed every doctrine that the hon. gentleman has ad vanced because it gave the promoters the absolute right to -build! dams in the Rainy fiver to obstruct navigation, to put in locks and operate them to the exclusion of public use. I am glad the -hon. gentleman has' at _last become a convert to the -doctrine that water-powers should he held for the people and used for the people.


James Conmee: 


James Conmee: I am pleased indeed if I have been able to satisfy my hon. friend. This Bill, however, was not introduced by me; my name was put on it and I have done my best to make it a perfect Bill. The clauses which the -chairman has just read which are guarding the public interest were moved not by the hon. gentleman but by myself.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DOMINION MILLERS' ASSOCIATION.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Dominion Millers' Association.-Mr. Harris.
On section 2, membership.
John Graham Haggart: We are giving great powers, practically creating a trust, and it should be open to any one in the business under certain conditions to join the association.


Mr. HARRIS.: Any man engaged^ in the business of milling is entitled to join.


John Graham Haggart: That Would be all right if it was in the Bill, but the wording of the clause is that he is eligible.


Lloyd Harris: I do not believe that the hon. gentleman if he was a member of an association would want every one to come into it unless he had some say as to who should join. As I understand every miller in the country is eligible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand it is the same as in the old Bill and the difficulty then was to get them to join.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: It seems that there are some 180 members, small millers, &c., and the idea that a man wishing to become a member should put in his application recommended by two other members of the association, so that no disreputable person should become a member. The executive passes on the membership the same as in any other company.


John Graham Haggart: Could there not be some means by which a party introduced by two or three members would have a right to become a member?


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: The law clerk has pointed out that sections 6 and 7 ought to be consolidated, that there is a little repetition. He suggests, and I move, that in clause 7, subclause 2, after the word 'consist' in the first line the word 'only' should
57T3

be inserted, and in clause 6 all except the first two lines should be struck out, and then as subclause 3 we should insert:
Ordinary members shall consist of such persons only as are-
That does not change the purpose of the Bill, it simply puts the two' paragraphs into one with a sub-paragraph defining who are participating members and who are ordinary members.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not think there should be any objection to such a clause as the hon. member (Mr. J. Haggart) has suggested, providing that no application was refused when it was confirmed by two members of the association.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The only objection I see to that is that it seems to be contrary to the usual usage of associations and joint stock companies. In this way the company would have no voice as to who should become members.


John Graham Haggart: I am not pressing the point, but we are really creating a trust.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would it not be a greater trust if you admitted all the owners?


John Graham Haggart: No, because it would be open to every person in the business. Of course, it would be a greater trust as against the public, but as against the mill owners it would not be.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: By the terms of the by-law the executive committee must pass upon a man's application, they have power to reject a man. This Bill was carefully considered, and the trust aspect was greatly eliminated in clause 11. I suggested that they should not have power to purchase mills.


Edward Guss Porter: The clause is not framed se as to meet the wishes of the promoter. As I understand his desire is that all millers should be admitted, but the wording is only such persons as according to bylaws hereafter to be adopted are declared eligible. If the company passed a by-law declaring that no one is eligible, then you would have a close corporation.


Mr. FISHER.: My hon. friend does not quite seize the meaning of the section. If he will read section 7, and the warding is not changed under the amendment of the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Glarke), he will see that such persons only as are the owners or lessees of a mill, farmers and grain growlers shall be eligible. And in addition such other persons as are by bylaw hereinafter provided. But the by-law has nothing to do with the classes I have mentioned. They are eligible by the Act. * The others are to be eligible by bylaw.


Edward Guss Porter: Does the hon. minister interpret the Bill to mean that all per sons of the classes enumerated are eligible to become members?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are not shut out by the statute. Their entrance might be made so difficult that it would be hard for them to get in, but by the statute they are not shut out. The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) was quite correct in saying that the arrangement for entering the association is that two members must endorse the application. Then it is submitted to the executive committee and they pass upon it, and the impression is that they are only too glad to get everybody in they can.


Alfred Henry Clarke: This goes further than
the section in the present Act. Under the present Act only millers are entitled to become members. This extends to farmers as well. We are not limiting what they have but rather extending it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The motion of the hon. member for Essex is that clauses 6 and 7 be consolidated to read as follows:
Section 7 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted:-
The members of the association shall consist of two classes:	(a) Participating members, (b) Ordinary members.
2.	The participating members shall consist of such members of the association as subscribe for and are allotted one or more shares of the capital stock of the association, the issue of which is provided for by section 3 of this Act, and such shares shall be entitled to preferred cumulative dividends to an amount not exceeding ten per cent per annum.
Ordinary members shall consist of such persons only as are owners of a mill for the manufacture of flour, meal or other similar commodities, or lessees of such a mill actually carrying on the business of milling therein, farmers and grain-growers and such other persons as are by by-law hereafter provided for.


John Graham Haggart: I want clearly to understand the distinction between ordinary members and the others. An ordinary member, I understand, receives no dividends and pays nothing for the stock. The others are stock-holders and receive dividends.


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is right.


Richard Blain: When this matter was un for discussion last, it was referred back

to the committee. May I ask the Minister of Agriculture, who is taking care of the farmers in particular, if their interests have been well guarded. When it was discussed in the House on a former occasion, the suggestion was made that possibly a further combine-if it may be called a combine-of the smaller millers of Canada would be detrimental to the interests of the farming community in the purchase of offal and the products of the ordinary mill. I am not offering criticism or objection further than to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) if, in his opinion, the farmers' interests are well taken care of, and it is clear that this will not be a combine of the millers against the farmers' interests.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am a member of the Private Bills Committee to which this Bill was referred back. The committee referred to a special subcommittee. I was not a member of that subcommittee, but I know what discussions went on there and was present at. some of them. The question of the possibility of a combine, I think, is the most- important question in connection with this Bill. The other provisions affect the future stock-holders or the present members of the Millers' Association, and I shall not give an opinion upon these because I think they are largely the concern of these people themselves. The possibility of a combine, however, has been attempted to be guarded against by an addition to_clause 11 of the Bill providing as follows:
-if the association in any way fixes the prices at which its members shall buy or sell grain or other commodities in such a way as would have made the members of the association liable to the provisions of the Criminal Code or any other Act had they individually agreed together to the like effect, such members as acquiesce therein shall he liable under the provisions of the said Code or other Act, notwithstanding that such fixing of the price of grain or other commodities is the act of the association in the same way as if they had individually agreed together to do such acts.
I do not give a legal opinion, not being a lawyer, but this amendment seems to provide that if this association should take any action in the way of making a combine, each member of the association will be liable under the ordinary lawT.


Edward Guss Porter: Is not that what the law now provides, even without this clause?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand that the Criminal Code applies to individuals making what is considered by the law to he a combine. If the association, as an association, were to make such an arrangement, it is thought possible the criminal law might not apply-I do not say that it would Mr. BLAIN.
or that it would not. But this makes it apply. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, without presuming to give a legal opinion, that the public will be in no worse position by reason of the passing of this Act. If that be the case, the danger of a combine is provided against.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I opposed this Bill before, and cited a case, but, I am free to admit, on information given me which was not correct. I believe the railway company was involved, not the Millers' Association. I understand that the rate given in the case I referred to was exactly the same rate that the Miller's Association was paying, and that they encountered the same difficulty as I did-that the railway company would not guarantee to put the freight through in any given time, not even in six weeks or three months. I was told of an instance of grain ordered from the west to be delivered in Ontario, which was /not received for about three months. I would regard the Bill as distinctly beneficial to the agriculturists of Ontario to-day. And for this reason: The more western grain is purchased to be ground in mills in Ontario, the larger the amount of offal will be available for the Ontario farmers, and our farmers are principally feeders whose great requirement is more feed, more grain for their stock. To-day, feed can be got only in Ontario, or in the wrest, but principally in the west. Sometimes, you can get only a portion of a carload, if, instead of a few millions of bushels of grain brought down in the year, that was increased to twenty times as many, there would be twenty times the amount of feed to be had here. And the feed we get from the mills here is a better quality for feeding purposes-at least we think so-than what we get from the west.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.



SENATE AMENDMENTS TO PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I desire to call the attention of the House to rule 113, which refers to amendments made by the Senate to private Bills. The rule is as follows:
When any private Bill is returned from the Senate with amendments the same not being merely verbal or unimportant such amendments are previous to the second reading referred to the standing committee to which such Bill was originally referred.
I fear that this rule has not been as rigidly adhered to as it is desirable, very frequently amendments which are in reality important being treated as ' verbal or unimportant.' Lengthy reference is made to this rule by Bourinot, pp. 794-5, to which I would call the attention of the hon. members. I shall be obliged in future to in-

sist that this rule be more carefully observed than has recently been the custom. Bills Nos. 107, 61, 46, and 114 respectively, now before the House, should be referred to the proper committees before being concurred in. These four Bills contain important amendments, and under the rule I have read they should now be referred to the committee.


Mr. TALBOT.: Does not this rule apply only to Bills having important amendments? We do not yet know what the amendments are.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am informed that in the present case the amendments are important.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the question is one entirely for the Speaker to decide.


George Perry Graham: I ask for information. When these Bills come back are they, as reported, referred to the Committee of the Whole House with certain instructions, or can they be again revived?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am informed that the committee can only consider amendments made by the Senate.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 165) for the relief of Elmore Walker Scott.-Mr. Tolmie.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: 1.	What was the average production of spring and fall wheat, oats and barley, the amount produced, and the value in each province for 1909?
2.	What was the total value of production from the following branches in each province for 1909: The mines, fisheries, forest, animal produce, agricultural produce, manufactures?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM:: 1.	Average production of spring wheat, fall wheat, oats and barley, together witli the total production of such grains an-i their values in 1909 in the provinces of Canada:
Grains by provinces.	A verage yield per acre.	Total production.	Value of production.Prince Edward Id.	Bush.	Bush.	$Spring wheat	20 00	522,000	513,000Oats 	3370	6,201,000	2,480,000Barley	
Nova Scotia-	27 61	109,000	69,000Spring wheat	19-80	404,000	477,000Oats	3L56	4,358,000	2,214,000Barley 	
183	2F77	221,000	170,000Grains by provinces.	Average yield per acre.	Total production.	Value of production.Bush.	Bush.	$New Brunswick-	Spring wheat	20	15	395.000	440,000Oats	27	87	5,775,000	2,801,000Barley 	20	26	94,000	65,000Quebec-	Spring wheat	1G	71	1,679,000	1,960,000Oats	27	00	42,501,000	19,891,000Barley	
..	24	02	2,604,000	1,867,000Ontario-	ball wheat	24	24	14,086,000	14,255,000Oats	34	75	109,192,00u	45,315,000Spring wheat	17	45	2,176,000	2,115,000Barley	29	04	20,952,000	11,670,000Manitoba-	Spring wheat	18	77	52.706.000 55.267.000	45,854,000Oats	39	76	17,178,000Barley	29	98	20,S66,000	7,929,000Saskatchewan-	Spring wheat	23	13	85,197,000	68,669,000Oats	49	70	91,796,000	23,224,000Barley . *	33	28	4,493,000	1,618,000Alberta-	Fall wheat	24	80	2,009,000	1,587,000Spring wheat	24	no	7,570,000	5,450,000Oats 	46	80	38,376,000	9,287,000Bariev	32	25	5,999,000	2,016,000
British Columbia-
No data later than the crops of '1900 for this province are available from which to compute reliable estimates.
The value of the total agricultural products of Canada in 1909 was $532,992,100.
2.	With regard to animal produce and manufactures, figures have not yet been collected for the year 1909. A preliminary estimate of the mineral production of Canada published by the Department of Mines shows the total value of the mineral production in Canada in 1909 to have been, approximately, $90,415,763. The subdivision by provinces is as follows:
Nova Scotia	$12,598,004.
New Brunswick	 623,333
Quebec	 6,526,185
Ontario	 36,729,089
Manitoba	 790,495
Saskatchewan	 410,069
Alberta	 5,953,928
British Columbia	 22,798,909
Yukon	>
3,985,751



$90,415,763 BOAR'S BACK POST OFFICE.

Mr. JAMESON:: Adverting to question as to Boar's Back post office, and the reply of the honourable Postmaster General to the effect that since the receipt of the petition of the 7th September, 1901, asking for the opening of an office there, an office had been opened within a short distance of Boar's Back, and that there would be even less need of a post office at



Boar's Back than there was in 1901-
1.	What is the name of the new office referred to?
2.	How far is it distant from Boar's Back?
3.	AVhen was it opened, and on whose recommendation ?
4.	Has no petition been received asking for the opening of a new post office at Boar's Back since 7th September, 1901?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1 and 2. On inquiry it is found tire department was in error in its statement that an office had been opened within a s-hort distance of Boar's Back, the facts being that the office recently opened at Mayflower is west, not northwest, of Hectanooga, and therefore about seven and one half miles from Boar's Back, instead of one and one-half miles as supposed.
3.	It was opened on the 1st August, 1907, on the recommendation of Mr. A. J. Copp.
4.	There is no record of any petition subsequent to the one received at the department on the 7th September, 1901.
Further inquiry will now be made as to whether there has been 'any change in the circumstances which might render an office at this point more necessary.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	How many post offices are located in federal owned buildings, and how many are housed in leased quarters?
2.	Has the Post Office Department any system for rating post office employees in cities, towns and villages, as to their efficiency, faithfulness, general conduct, quantity of work employees perform, accuracy in doing it, and their general conpliance with postal regulations ?
3.	Has the government any knowledge of the salaries paid clerks and assistants in post offices in smaller cities, towns and villages of Canada? If not, when may we expect regulations dealing with their salaries and duties?
4.	How many rural free mail delivery boxes has the government purchased, what are the names of the firms from whom they were purchased, the price of each, including the original cost, the date when purchased, amount of freight, express and duty paid, when delivered, number now on hand and the amount of storage ?
5.	How many routes on which rural free mail delivery has been established, did the government change from weekly to semi-weekly, and from semi-weekly to tri-weekly delivery ?
6.	Why does the government refuse to furnish locks for rural free mail delivery boxes, when the pamphlet issued advises all patrons that locks will be furnished at cost?
7.	What amount of second-class mail matter was carried for the Post Office Department in 1909, and the amount of money collected for same?
8.	What was the weight of government matter for departments other than post office,


Clarence Jameson: carried and charged to Post Office Department in the year 1909?
9.	W'hat was the total weight of franked mail matter in the year 1909?
10.	W'hat was the total amount paid railroads for carrying mail in 1896 and the total amount paid for the same purpose in 1909?
11.	What was the total amount paid in subsidies and subventions to steamships in 1909?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	In federal buildings, 174; In leased buildings, 10.
2.	Yes, in city offices and semi-staff offices.	.
3.	Not unless the office is on the city or semi-staff basis. Postmasters other than the above are paid by percentage on revenue, and are required to furnish whatever clerical assistance is necessary for the proper performance of the duties of their offices out of the emoluments they receive. The department does not purpose altering its policy in this regard.
4.	(a) Number of boxes purchased, 10,-
000 boxes and fittings. (b) From whom purchased, International Mail Equipment Company, New York, (c) Price including cost, $3 per each box, and fittings complete. (d) Date when purchased 6,000 on August 14, 1908; 4,000 on September 18, 1909. "(e) Amount paid for freight, express and duty, $10,028.32.	(f) When delivered,
first 6,000 between September, 1908 and January, 1909; second, 4,000, December, 1909. (g) Number now on hand and amount of storage, 3,486 boxes and fittings being stored without cost (257 at Ottawa, and 3,229 at Toronto).
5.	(a) Weekly to semi-weekly 2.	(b)
Semi-weekly to tri-weekly 3.
6.	In deciding not to furnish locks for these boxes, the department has been guided by the experience of the United States post office, where it was found that the use of locks and keys was a fruitful source of trouble, the locks becoming damaged, out of repair, &c., occasioning very much delay to the couriers in delivery, and adding materially to the cost of the service.
During the winter season, moreover, the danger of trouble with these locks from frost would be considerable, and the couriers would lose much time in locking and unlocking the boxes, several of the couriers employed by this department having signified their intention of discontinuing their contracts provided locks and keys were brought into use. Since deciding to discontinue the use of locks and keys on these boxes, the clause contained in the pamphlet issued to patrons by the department, advising that locks and keys would be furnished at cost if desired, has been eliminated.
7.	The sum paid in cash for postage on newsnapers during the year ended 31st March, 1909, was $133,773.23, but, having

regard to free newspaper area, and the different rates chargeable on various classes of second-class matter, no information is available as to the quantity of second-class matter carried.
8.	The department has no statistics on the subject.
9.	The department has no statistics on the subject.
10.	$1,285,353.18 in the year 1896; $1,750,017.76 in the year 1909.
11.	$1,684,683.44.



ACCOUNT OF MR. L. F. CLARRY.

Haughton Lennox: Referring to the answer of the Minister of Railways given on the 17th February last, what is the total amount of the account of L. F. Clarrv approved by the Department of Justice and standing for payment?


George Perry Graham: The whole amount of the account of Mr. L. F. Clarrv for services rendered the Department of Railways and Canals, as approved by the Department of Justice, and standing for payment is $597.12. This amount includes $249.17 in respect of the eight claims mentioned in the answer of February 17, 1910, referred to in the question.



ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE-SERVANTS QUARTERS.

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to tear down the stone cottages formerly occupied as servants' quarters at the R.M.C. ?
2.	Has any proposition been made or offer received by the government to remove the said cottages? If so, from what person or persons and on what terms?
3.	Has the government received any request from any person for the stone in said cottages? If so, from whom and for what purpose?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: It is the intention to sell these buildings by public auction, at the market square, Kingston, at noon on Saturday, April 2, proximo, the purchaser to undertake to tear down and remove the buildings and to level the ground upon which they stand, to the satisfaction of the Commandant of the Royal Military College, by not later than June. 1 next.



LEASE OF BUILDING FOR ORDNANCE STORES.

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	For what purpose has the government leased the building in Kingston formerly occupied by the Clarified Milk Company?
2.	From whom was it leased, for how long and what is the annual rent to be paid?
3.	Is the building being renovated at the expense of the owner or of the government?
183}
4. Were tenders asked for the heating of the building? If so, to whom was the contract awarded and at what price?


Frederick William Borden: So far as question 1 is concerned, the building is required for ordnance store purposes.
The other three questions appertain to the Department of Public Works, as that Department leases the building and has carried out the repairs.


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	For additional ordnance stores.
2.	(a) T. J. Polley; (b) five years, renewable for a further term of five years, with option to purchase at $10,000 within term of lease; (c) $1,000.
3.	At the expense of the owner.
4.	The heating apparatus was installed by the owner.



NAVAL SERVICE FOR CANADA.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	Have any petitions praying for the creation of a Canadian navy been received by the government? If so, from whom?
2.	Have any petitions praying for the creation of a Canadian navy (been received by the House of Commons? If so, from where?


Wilfrid Laurier: No petitions praying for the creation of a Canadian navy have been received by the government, nor by parliament, as neither the government nor parliament had to be reminded of such an obvious duty, as both the government and parliament have already expressed their determination to at- -tend to it.



COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THE PORK INDUSTRY.

Mr. S. SHARPE:: 1.	Did the government appoint a commission to investigate the pork industry in Europe or elsewhere?
2.	If so, who composed the commission and what points have they visited?
3.	What were the expenses of this commission?
4.	Has the commission reported? If not, when may the House expect the report?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The commission consisted of W. W. Ballantyne, Stratford, Ontario; Wm. Jones, Zenda, Ontario; Gedeon Garceau, Three Rivers, Quebec; Joseph Rye, Edmonton, Alberta; J. E. Sinclair, Emerald, Prince Edward Island, and J. B. Spencer, of the Live Stock Branch, as secretary.
The commission visited England, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark and Holland.
3.	$6,125.40.
4.	The commission has reported. The report is now being printed and may be

expected by the House during the first week in April,



ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Royal Military College Act, chapter 43 of the Revised Statutes, 190(i, by repealing section 7 and substituting therefor the following:-
7. The salaries, pay and allowances of the commandant and of the superior and subordinate staffs of the college shall be as fixed from time to time by the Governor in Council. -Sir Frederick Borden.
Hon.  W. S.@: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is introduced for the purpose of founding upon it a Bill to amend the Royal Military College Act. The object, as indicated, is to leave to the Governor General in Council the fixing of the salaries. To-day, as a matter of fact, the salaries paid to the professors in the Royal Military College are all fixed by order in council, excepting that of commandant. It is proposed also by this Bill to withdraw the limitations as to the total amount of money to be expended in the college. There have been several amendments from time to time increasing the amount, which was limited m the first place by the Act, and later on increased as the college has grown and the expenses have increased, and it seemed to me that instead of having to come to parliament every few years, it would be better to leave the adjustment of the amount of salaries and of the expenses to the Governor General in Council. Each year after parliament assembles, a statement is laid before parliament under the law, and it is proposed to continue this part of the Act.


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister kindly read the section?


Frederick William Borden: The details of such salaries shall appear in the annual report laid before parliament by the minister.
That part of the clause is continued. 1 will read the proposed Bill.


Mr. U. WILSON.: Would the minister read what the law is now?


Frederick William Borden: I will read the law as it is, and then I will read the proposed amendment. The existing law is:
The salary of the commandant shall not exceed $3,200 a year, and the salaries of the staff-adjutant, professors, instructors, assistant instructors and staff shall be fixed and may be readjusted from time to time by the Governor in Council, and shall not exceed the total sum of $30,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is now proposed to give the Governor in Council unlimited power as to the salary of the commandant.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, just as with regard to other professors. The Auditor General has pointed out that in the last two or three sessions the amounts voted have been in excess of the amounts authorized by the Act, but of course this has been done with the consent of parliament.


Richard Blain: Does the minister consider increasing the salaries?


Frederick William Borden: No, except in the case of the commandant. In connection with the general staff, which has been arranged in conjunction with the war office as part of the military scheme, it has been found desirable that an officer of a higher grade and standing should be at the head of the college. We must have a first-class officer, who has passed the staff college in England with a first-class certificate, and must pay him what he would be paid in the army.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the total amount of salaries now paid?


Frederick William Borden: With allowances, about $51,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it wise to give the Governor in Council unlimited power in regard to salaries? Would it not be well to place a limit, say of $60,000.


Frederick William Borden: I accept the suggestion, although I thought there were sufficient safeguards through the voting of estimates by parliament each year. I am content to put the amount at $55,000 or $60,000 but I think it would be better at $60,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the pay of the staff adjutant?


Frederick William Borden: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would impress on the minister that it is important to have a staff adjutant of high qualifications and great tact. He has to act as the intermediary between the commandant and the cadets, to make the orders of the commandant effective, and should be a man of very high qualifications. I know that Staff Adjutant Lafferty was such a man and did more work than he was paid for, and the minister should always have a first-class man as staff adjutant.


Frederick William Borden: I quite agree with my horn, friend. Captain Kaulbach, the present staff adjutant, is a son of the late Senator Kaulbach, a graduate of the Royal Military College, and well suited to perform those difficult duties.


John Graham Haggart: I see that in the school that is being founded in Australia

a condition is imposed that the cadets shall he at the absolute disposition of the country which gives them their education. Would it not be well to make it obligatory on these cadets to place themselves at the disposal of the country when their services are wanted for military purposes?


Frederick William Borden: It is now.
Graduates of the Royal Military College pass immediately into the active militia and within two years have to become connected with some corps of the active militia in Canada. Immediately their names pass into the Militia List and are there recorded for service if required. That has always been the case. Recently we have added a regulation that within two years these cadets must connect themselves with some definite corps and we (also require them to attend two camps.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Young men are a little retarded in doing that, as they sometimes cannot get lieutenancies because the positions are occupied by other gentlemen.
I am not saying that these lieutenants should be removed, but if you want to get the services of your graduates you must devise some scheme of making vacancies without insulting somebody. My own son graduated last year. He has a good record for artillery 'and he wants to become lieutenant, but he cannot do so without asking for the resignation of some one else and that is something which no manly young man wants to do.


Samuel Hughes: Under the rules to-day they can add a supernumerary to any battery.


Frederick William Borden: Then, too, to-day we are giving a preference to graduates of the Royal Military College in our permanent force. Every month almost we are taking them on. Where there were two graduates of the Royal Military College in the permanent force of Canada fifteen years ago, I think there are seventy-five to-day, certainly seventy, in the employ of the Militia Department,


Haughton Lennox: Does this resolution cover anything more than was covered by section 7?


Frederick William Borden: It is an amendment of section 7 by eliminating the first part.


Haughton Lennox: It does not say so.


Frederick William Borden: It should.
* Mr. LENNOX, (reading):
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Royal Military College Act, chapter 43 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by repealing section 7 and submitting therefor the following:-
7. The salaries, pay and allowances of the commandent and of the superior and subordinate staffs of the college shall be as fixed from time to time by the Governor in Council.


Frederick William Borden: It is intended to leave the second part of that section.


Haughton Lennox: The second part only provides that the detail of such salaries shall appear in the annual report laid before parliament. That is not what I wa3 directing my attention to more particularly. As far as the range of officers is concerned, it is intended to provide for the payment of the same class of persons.


Frederick William Borden: Not necessarily the same. As the college grows, more professors are necessary. It is the same class, but not limited as to numbers.


Haughton Lennox: Under the Act, the salary of the commandant shall not exceed $3,200 a year, and the others $30,000, so that, under section 7 of the Act, we have a limitation of the amount to $32,200. Now the minister suggests that we should make the limitation $60,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understood the minister to say that he was already expending $51,000.


Frederick William Borden: $51,500 is what we shall require this year.


Haughton Lennox: That is a pretty big jump from $33,200. We have a statute in force which provides that the salaries shall not exceed $33,200, and yet we are spending actually $51,500. We have been voting this larger expenditure, but our attention was not called to the statute in any way. Although I quite recognize the necessity for a change, and do not want to limit the salaries to an unfair amount, still we have been exceeding the statutory limit.


Frederick William Borden: I stated frankly that we had, as we supposed, obtained the authority of parliament for our expenditure, and no attempt was made to conceal the fact that the Act in question was on our statutes.


Samuel Hughes: The minister's wording of this is incorrect.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, whoever drafted the Bill made a mistake. There was no intention to repeal the second part. I quite agree to the limitation suggested. Perhaps on the whole it is desirable for the department, as well as parliament, that there should be a limitation, and I think that the amount of $60,000 will be satisfactory for many years to come.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister will still come down every year, and give the: specific amounts.


Frederick William Borden: Certainly.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The resolution is to be amended by inserting after

the word ' repealing ' the words ' of section 1 of


Samuel Hughes: In case the Royal Military College were to be extended you would require a larger staff.


Frederick William Borden: We would have to come back to parliament.


Samuel Hughes: I think it should be made much more serviceable than it has been. In place of having the small number of men who are there now, there should be a great deal many more.


Frederick William Borden: We have over 100 now. The examination to enter has become competitive. We have about thirty places each year, and fifty or more applications, so that the College is in a very sound condition, indeed.


Haughton Lennox: You have only vacant room for thirty.


Frederick William Borden: The number of each class is about thirty-three, and the course is three years. Thirty-three go out this year. We open the examinations to the whole country under certain conditions. Of the fifty or sixty who apply, we can only take thirty-three, and we take them in order of merit, so that the examination is competitive.


Haughton Lennox: Would it not be better to take all who apply, and who can pass a fair examination?


Frederick William Borden: We have only places for 100.


Haughton Lennox: If it is a good institution, I do not see why any young man who passes his examination, and is in a position to enter, should be denied that opportunity. The country cannot afford any extravagances, but can afford everything necessary for the education of its sons, and we ought not to limit the opportunities for education by the want of space, or teaching staff.


Frederick William Borden: I agree in that view, but we are limited as to space.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister propose to amend this resolution by adding something to make the limitation $60,000?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The motion is to add the following words: Such salaries, pay and allowances as shall not exceed the total sum of $60,000.


John Graham Haggart: You have the assent of His Excellency to the unlimited amount?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to draw attention to this aspect of the case. These cadets have on various occasions given exhibitions of their skill in drill, &c., in Toronto and Montreal. I am sure it would only be a trifling expense, heartily endor-Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
sed by parliament to bring them to Ottawa, 30 that the members and senators, the people's representatives, could see what these young men are capable of in the way of physical training. I would be pleased if the minister would give the House the details of the studies and exercises of these cadets. He owes that to the country, and it would be a good advertisement of the institution.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The object of my hon. friend is all right, but it would be better attained by the members of parliament going to Kingston. I do not think it would be wise to bring a lot of cadets from their studies to exihibit themselves more or less as a circus for the benefit of members of parliament. The members of parliament ought to know how they live and what they are doing, and they could learn that a good deal better by going to Kingston. I would suggest that an arrangement should be made to take the members of parliament to Kingston on some Saturday, or several Saturdays, and there make themselves acquainted with the workings of the college.
I believe that it would be better that the members should go to the college, and learn there the work that is being done. I think that we ought to encourage members of parliament to see the college. Many members,
I believe, have a wrong impression of the benefits resulting from that institution, and if they went there, I think they would be agreeably surprised at the good work done.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Are officers brought out from England given a preference in appointments over graduates in the Royal Military College? I understand that to be the ease. It may be thought right to bring' English officers out here to give our young men sound ideas, but, if the college is doing its work properly, I do not see why we should not have in this country young men who are qualified to take their places alongside of any in the world. If there is to be a preference, I think the preference should be given to Canadians.


Frederick William Borden: Before answering my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), I would like to say there is a great deal of merit in the suggestions made by both the hon. members who preceded him. I think it would be an excellent thing to have a visit from the Royal Military College cadets here, and I think it would be a better thing for hon. members to go to Kingston, and see the college.. So far as I am concerned, I shall do every-* thing in my power to further either of these ends. At this moment we are considering the question of having a visit from the college cadets in a short time. Something is going, on here, and I believe it is rather desirable that the cadets should

come. As to the other suggestion, I shall be glad to do what I can to arrange to have an excursion to visit the college, if any considerable number of members will make known their desire or their willingness to go.
Now, as to the selection of British officers, I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) has no personal feelings against British officers.


William Cameron Edwards: None whatever.


Frederick William Borden: I may tell the hon. member that the former commandant was a Royal Military College graduate. And, while I am not going to discuss his regime, I will say that we have had more successful commandants. At the present time there are two officers of the staff who are Royal Military College graduates. True, they are British officers, but it seems to me that in supplying teachers for the college, men are required who have had experience in military matters of the highest character, and that is the kind of men we try to get. The present commandant is a man of first-rate qualifications. I hope the day will come when, through a process of exchange which is now being carried on, between the permanent force officers of Canada and the British army, and the officers of the permanent forces of Australia and India, and other parts of the empire, we shall have in our own college our own officers who have had experience of service abroad to a sufficient extent to make them efficient teachers. At the present moment, I think the course we are following is decidedly the best one.


William Cameron Edwards: I was not referring- though I admit that there was nothing in my words to make that clear-to the higher officers such as the commandant, but to such officers as instructors. As an instance to illustrate what I mean, I may mention a gentleman by the name of Phillips, who, I am told, was brought out in 1909, as instructor of gunnery in Halifax. I understand that he took his qualifying course twelve years ago, and three years is supposed to he the period after which a man gets behind the times-I am not much of a military man, but that is what I am informed. Again, the officers who come here from England are granted two months leave of absence, while our own Canadians are granted only one month's leave. Yet these Canadians have passed the qualifying examinations of the Royal Military College, and I think we have a right to assume that those examinations are of a high enough standard to prove that the men have the qualifications to fill vacancies that occur from time to time. I am told that two of the graduating class wished to take commissions in the artillery-


Frederick William Borden: This of which the hon. member is speaking, does not relate to the Royal Military College, I think.


William Cameron Edwards: These were graduates of the Royal Military College, and, in that respect, I think this pertains to the subject. I am told that two of the graduating class wished to take commissions in the artillery, and though there were, according to the militia list, five vacancies, only one position was given to a graduate of the college. If that sort of thing be true, it may be all Tight. I confess I am not a military man, but looking at it from the standpoint of a non-military man, I think it is not right.


Frederick William Borden: Were these vacancies all filled?


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know.


Frederick William Borden: They were not.


William Cameron Edwards: How many of them were filled?


Frederick William Borden: I cannot say exactly; but I can say that, owing to not having sufficient and, perhaps, not really requiring officers at that particular time, these vacancies were not all filled. There are always vacancies in the permanent force-sometimes as many as fifteen. But I will look into the case to which the hon. member has referred. I am glad that he has brought it up. But, meantime, I may tell the hon. member that we give preference to graduates of the Royal Military College, if they are recommended by "the commandant over and above every other person and regardless of any consideration except that of merit.


William Cameron Edwards: I think that is very fair. I would ask the minister to look into the case of T. F. Grant. I believe he stood at the head of his class in the Royal Military College at Kingston, he came out at the top of the graduating class; and I am informed that he resigned as a protest against the advancement of an Englishman by the name of Ellison, who was brought out in 1906.


Frederick William Borden: I remember the case. Ellison was. an English officer, who was stationed at Esquimalt, whc had had considerable experience, and he was appointed because we thought it was more in the interest of the public that he should be appointed. It is sometimes necessary for us to ask for the loan of an imperial officer, because at the moment we have not qualified officers of our own. We borrow these officers for a period, and if, at the end of that time, we have a Cana-

dian officer who is fit for the position, he gets it. I remember the case of a young Grant, and we are very sorry to lose him. I think he made a great mistake in going out.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 180) to amend the Royal Military College Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into. committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council: (a) To sell and dispose of the Baby farm, situate in the township of York, in the county of York, and province of Ontario, the acquisition of which was ratified by chapter 51 of the statutes of 1908. The purchase moneys received from the purchaser of the said land to he appropriated and used for the purchase of a site and the construction of barracks and buildings thereon for the housing of the militia and other military purposes in, or in the vicinity of, the city of Toronto, (b) To sell and dispose of that parcel of land situate in the municipality of As-siniboia, in the province of Manitoba, and now used and known as the Winnipeg rifle range. The purchase moneys received from the purchaser of the said range to be appropriated and used for the purchase of land for a rifle range in, or in the vicinity of, the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba.
Frederick William Borden: Two years ago a Bill was passed by this House of a similar character, by which the government was enabled to sell certain properties, one in the city of Montreal and one in the city of Toronto, and utilize the proceeds for military purposes as stated in that Bill. This resolution proposes the sale of a property owned by the Militia Department, in or near the city of Toronto, known as the Baby farm. There are several reasons why we wish to sell this property. One is that it is not quite large enough. We are establishing in Toronto a new depot for the permanent force, and we want to have that depot advantageously situated. This farm was purchased for $20,000, it contains 160 acres, and we can sell it to-day for $160,000. So the country will have a very fair profit. I do not think it wise to state exactly where the property is situated which we propose to purchase, but it is situated near the city of Toronto, and in a position even more favourable than that of the Baby farm. It is very accessible, and in every way advantageous. It is proposed to acquire that property by expropriation, and steps will be taken to do that as soon as this legislation is assented to.


Frederick William Borden: 


Mr. WALLACE.: Where will it be?


Frederick William Borden: I would rather not state that, because I am afraid the price of land might go up in that locality. But I have had the country examined all around adjacent to Toronto, and a very suitable place has been found.


Clarence Jameson: What is the estimated cost?


Frederick William Borden: It is expected that we can buy the property we want for about one-third the price that we will get for this property. It will contain from 300 to 600 acres.


John Graham Haggart: If vou are going to expropriate it, why do you decline to tell us wrhere it is?


Frederick William Borden: I think it is undesirable, even in that case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose the government will sell this property privately, for any price they choose?


Frederick William Borden: No, we will ask for bids. We will advertise it for sale, but probably we will not sell it by public auction.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has the minister had any valuations made of it? Because $1,000 an acre is not a very large price for land in the suburbs of Toronto.


Frederick William Borden: We bought this property less than four years ago for $20,000. There are no buildings very near it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the hon. gentleman have a valuation made, and fix a reserve bid?


Frederick William Borden: Certainly, we propose to sell it openly.


Thomas George Wallace: Do I understand the minister to say that all the moneys received from the sale of these lands will be used in building?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, every dollar.
On paragraph (b),


Frederick William Borden: The same thing is true of the second part. The rifle range at Winnipeg is rather near the city, and we have not land enough there. With the strength of the modern up to date cartridges, the danger area is very much greater than it used to be, and we have been notified that it will be necessary to buy more land. We find that to buy land adjacent to the rifle range would cost as much as it will cost if we sell this land, go a little farther out of the city and buy about three. times the amount of land, which will enable us to have a rifle range there and to move our depot if we choose,

from the city of Winnipeg, which we will have to do in the near future. It will not cost the country a dollar, and it will be as convenient as the present range is to-day, because it is on the same line of electric railway.


Thomas George Wallace: Have you a new site for the rifle range?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, we have selected the land. I do not know that it has been made nublic yet.


Clarence Jameson: Is it the policy of the department to sell or lease lands of the department which are not used?


Frederick William Borden: If the military authorities report that these lands are never likely to be required, and a reasonable price can be secured, the policy would be to sell them, but the policy since I came into office has been to lease them on condition that the department can take them over at short notice.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister had under consideration the removal of the troops from St. Johns, Quebec, and the selling of some public buildings there?


Frederick William Borden: No, that has been reported m the newspapers, but it has not been under consideration.


Thomas George Wallace: What will be done with the present Stanley barracks site?


Frederick William Borden: The barracks have been sold to the city.


Clarence Jameson: In regard to the leasing of the lands of the department, is that done openly after tender, or is there any competition for them, or does it just happen that any person who makes application and is esteemed satisfactory by the officers of the department is allowed to lease these lands?


Frederick William Borden: That would depend. A good many leases have been given without competition because the lands were not believed to be valuable. I usually leave that to the officer commanding. I believe there are some lands at Digby. I think the officer at Halifax would require to go there and make a report, and we would be guided very much by his report. We always put into the leases a provision that the department can take possession, without having to pay for buildings or improvements, at any time it sees fit, for military purposes.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 181) to authorize the sale or other disposal of certain public lands, and the acquisition of certain other lands in or in the vicinity of
the cities of Toronto and Winnipeg, respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to enable the Governor in Council to authorize the expenditure of a sum not exceeding fifty thousand dollars for investigating the processes used in the production of zinc, for making experiments, and for any other purpose that may be deemed advisable for the promotion of the production and manufacture in Canada of zinc and zinc products from Canadian ores.- Mr. Templeman.
Hon. AVM. TEMPLEMAN.: The Bill which will be introduced on the passage of this resolution will provide for the diversion of $50,000 from the fund for present lead-bounty fund, for the purposes stated in the resolution. About $2,500,000 was voted several years ago for a bounty on lead and about $1,000,000 of that is still in the treasury. Lead and zinc are so closely allied, particularly in the ores in British Columbia, that the lead miners are deeply interested in the handling of the zinc product, and this proposal has the approval of all the lead mining interests. Upon a petition presented to the government and backed up by the lead mining interests, this step has been deemed advisable. The money is to be expended under the control of the Department of Mines. There are numerous metallurgical difficulties connected with the smelting of zinc. The presence of zinc is a detriment to the lead ores, and in this country the zinc product is absolutely lost under the present system of smelting, although zinc is the more valuable mineral of the two, quantity for quantity. It is proposed to investigate all known methods of electrical smelting of zinc. There are at present in Europe some new processes, one has been in use for years and the others are comparatively new, so that it is not known whether these are commercially successful or not. There have been two attempts at zinc smelting in British Columbia, one the well known process of smelting in retorts, and the other an electric process whereby it was hoped by the one operation to separate the lead and zinc in smelting, getting from the smelter the lead bullion and zinc bullion. That smelter was carried on experimentally for several years, but only with measurable success. The desire of the min-

ing men of the Kootenay is that the Department of Mines should carry to completion the experimentation that has gone on thus far in the zinc smelter at Nelson. After a thorough investigation of all well knowm processes, the one which is best adapted to the condition of Canadian ores will be adopted. I believe the object to be a very laudable one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How will these investigations be carried on?
_ Mr. TEMPLEMAN. We hope that the investigations in Europe will be carried on by Mr. Harbord, a mining engineer of the city of London, who was on the commission which this government sent to Europe some years ago, and who is now employed investigating for the British government in South Africa. We have been in communication with this gentleman, and we hope to secure his services. The investigations in this country will be under Dr. Haanel, who will no doubt obtain the services of the best metallurgists he can in this country or elsewhere.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where will the experiments he carried on?


William Templeman: If we come to the conclusion that the electrical process may be applied to the refractory low grade ores of British Columbia, the further experiments will in all probability be carried out at Nelson, British Columbia, where an electric smelter with all the necessary equipment, as well as the electrical power, has been offered to us free of charge, for the purpose of experimentation. I assume that these experiments will be carried on at Nelson, although we want to have a free hand to carry them on in the city of Ottawa, or at any well equipped laboratory of a university, if we deem it wise to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has Dr. Haanel made any success of the experiments in smelting iron by electricity?


William Templeman: The smelting of iron by electricity is an accomplished fact.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there has been no practical application of it?


William Templeman: Oh yes, it is carried on in Europe to a considerable extent, and to some extent in the United States, but its application is more to the manufacture of steel than of iron. The chief problem in electric smelting in this country is to get cheap electricity. If electricity can be produced cheaper than heat can be generated by the ordinary process there is no question at all but that electricity will quickly supersede the ordinary process of smelting iron.


William Templeman: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the extensive water-powers in British Columbia you ought to have the cheapest electricity in the world.


William Templeman: We have also large deposits of coal in British Columbia, but strange to say electrical power is not quite so cheap in British Columbia at present as it is in Ontario. British Columbia is an enormous country in extent, and some of the water-powers are not contiguous to the iron. Progress has been made in the electrical smelting of iron, but I do not think Canada has taken advantage of the knowledge obtained along that line. Of course, the development of iron mines and the smelting of iron involves the expenditure of millions of capital.


Richard Blain: Will any portion of this grant be used to send a commission to the old country to make an examination of conditions there?


William Templeman: This matter has been under consideration for some considerable time, but it is not the intention of the department to send any one to Europe. There are metallurgical engineers fully conversant with the industry whose services can be obtained at comparatively little cost. We will obtain the latest information as to the development that has taken place in the smelting of zinc ore, but it will not be necessary to send a commission to Europe. The necessity is more apparent now than it was a few years ago. Formerly, zinc ores went to the United States from Canada at a comparatively low duty, but under the Payne-Aldrich tariff the duty was made prohibitive. ' Hence the necessity to provide some method of handling m this country these zinc products. This money is being diverted from the lead bounty. The beneficiaries of the lead bounty are practically the beneficiaries of this, as lead and zinc go hand in hand, zinc being a great detriment to the lead men, and absolute waste at present, so that all those, whj profit by the lead bounty have virtually asked the government to take $50,000 off it and carry on the -work of experimenting in zinc production and manufacture.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: As I understand the ore formerly went to the United States and was smelted there, with every satisfaction to the producers of zinc ore m British Columbia, this $50,000 is practically a bonus to a smelter in that western country. Is not that the situation?


William Templeman: Of course it is not, as my hon. friend will see if he reads the resolution. Only a comparatively small quantity of zinc ore ever went from British Columbia to the United States. There is a vast quantity of low grade ore -which cannot be concentrated sufficiently to pay the

cost of transportation, and we propose to devote thi3 money to the purpose mentioned in the resolution, and no other. We could not possibly give one dollar of it to subsidize a smelter in British Columbia. It will take several years to expend the money, and the entire amount will be spent by the Department of Mines in carrying out the objects of the resolution.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The last clause distinctly says ' and for any other purpose that may be deemed advisable for the promotion of the production and manufacture in Canada of zinc and zinc products from Canadian ores/ Would not that justify the inference I have made?


Haughton Lennox: What does the minister aim at in using the language my hon. friend 'has just quoted?


William Templeman: We aim, in the first place, at a full investigation of the known electrical processes of smelting zinc. We aim at a full examination into the zinc and zinc products in Canada. We aim also at a full examination of the known deposits in Canada to ascertain what tonnage we could have to keep a smelter running. In addition, we aim at carrying on experiments by the department, under properly qualified men, if we can get them-and there are not so many-who have a knowledge of the electrical processes of smelting zinc, and we expect to- carry on that experimentation in Nelson, where a smelter already exists, the use of which has been offered the department for that purpose. It may be necessary to ask some of the metallurgists of the School of Mines in Kingston or at other places to carry on certain experimentations in order to ascertain whether it is possible for them to separate lead and zinc at one process, and it may be necessary for them to call in tfie assistance of other experts. [DOT]


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. minister should then have no objection to strike out the words ' and for any other purpose.'


William Templeman: I do not know what effect that would have. I want to have the fullest liberty and authority to spend the money for the purposes I have named. There is no intention to bonus any zinc smelter, and you could not possibly bonus one with this sum. We have no objection to prohibiting the use of any of this money for bonuses for any zinc industry, for that is not contemplated.


Mr. BEATTIE.: Has the hon. minister received any intimation of a discovery of zinc ore m the counties of Grey and Bruce, Ontario? I have had some letters on that subject, and I understand they have a very good sample of zinc, but they want some assistance in working the prospect out. Is it the intention of the minister to give any such assistance?


William Templeman: The very thing that the Department of Mines is trying to do is to afford assistance to the mining industry, but not financial assistance. We attempt work of research, experimentation and publication; we try to show the way in which things are to be done, that the mining interests may take advantage of the information placed at their disposal to develop our mineral resources. I am aware that there are considerable zinc deposits in Ontario, and have had some letters on the subject since this resolution was placed on the order paper; but in the case of the zinc industry in Ontario, as well as m British Columbia, we can only assist by showing the way-that is, if we can manage to solve the questions ourselves. But the problem is one in which we cannot be sure of success altogether. When you take up the question of electric smelting, you are up against considerable difficulties. I think it most likely that we shall require all this money for the purpose contemplated, 1 can assure the House, and my hon. friends opposite, that I do not desire to change the wording. The Bill which will be submitted to the House on the passage of this resolution, was prepared by the Deputy Minister of Justice, and the notice on the order paper was prepared by the law clerk, The notice practically follows the wording of the Bill. But, not being a lawyer, I am rather chary of giving consent to striking out words when such a change, though, apparently, innocent enough, may have the effect of rendering the Bill nugatory.


Thomas Beattie: But the point is that the minister is going to place his smelter in British Columbia, where it can hardly be expected to treat the ores of Ontario. And I have understood that it is too expensive to send this ore for treatment to the United States. If the smelter had been more centrally placed, I think the minister's position in this matter would be much stronger.


William Templeman: Of course, the question of where the smelter is to be placed is purely an economic problem. A smelter for zinc ores, or for any other ores, must be so placed that power will cost, as little as passible. It may be possible to haul the ore a long distance where you get cheap power. One of our serious problems, in western Canada at all events, is to combine all the conditions. One of the great difficulties in British Columbia was that the cost of operating the Frank smelter was too great, although there were other defects. That may be found to be the case with electric smelting also. But the conditions must be learned. In the smelting of iron, it is sometimes cheaper to take the iron to the coal than the coal to the iron.


Thomas Beattie: I am glad the minister 1 mentioned the subject of cheap power, for,

that being so important, I think he will find that the city of London is the best place for the smelter. We have excellent conditions there, and we expect to have the Niagara power at very cheap rates. Of course, I cannot vouch for that. But I do not know of a better place thon London for such an industry, and I trust he will take it into his careful consideration.


Haughton Lennox: We do not wish to embarrass the minister by urging him to strike out words, for I can well understand that sometimes it is difficult to know just what the effect of striking out words will be. However, the minister can probably obviate that by giving us information which we are entitled to have, and which he has no doubt at his fingers' ends. I understood him to say that he would require the whole of this $50,000 for the purposes indicated.


William Templeman: The hon. member (Mr. Lennox) is pausing for an answer. That means ' yes ' or ' no.' I said I had no doubt that this money would be needed. If we are going into experiments in electrical smelting, it is very difficult to estimate how much money may be expended. Frankly, I admit that this whole $50,000 may be expended, and no positive results in regard to electric smelting may be obtained. The House ought to understand that. But, on the other hand, we might hit upon a plan of smelting before we had exhausted the $50,000. So, I do not say absolutely that we shall require all this money, but I believe the probabilities are that ive shall require it, and more.


Haughton Lennox: The minister, I think, has hardly treated us fairly. When he comes to ask for $50,000, he does not ask it for pocket money, to spend or not to spend as may happen; he is asking for something which he knows he will want, in other words, he has some plan, some estimate, showing how the money is expected to be applied. He says he wants $50,000 for experimental purposes. Well, we have the right to know, and, of course, he wants to tell us, to what purposes he proposes to apply the money. If he does not know, even in a general way, to what purposes he intends to apply it, he has no right to ask for it, and we have no right to grant it. What I ask the minister to do is to give us the various items of this proposed expenditure. We shall then be in a position to judge whether it is our duty to join with him in the appropriation of this money, or whether we should oppose him in it. I have stated this in support of his plea against striking out words m this resolution.


William Templeman: There is an estimate, but I did not suppose it would be required at this stage, and did not bring it Mr. BEATTIE.
with me. This is merely the introductory resolution. If my hon. friend will accept the explanation he asks for on the second reading of the Bill, I shall be glad to give it then.


Haughton Lennox: I take the minister's word, and am quite willing that the course he proposes should be taken.


Mr. GOODEVE.: I am aware of the difficulties that have been met in finding methods for the treatment of zinc ores.
I feel inclined to agree with the minister, particularly as I understand that a portion of this money will be taken from the grant already passed by parliament for treating lead ores. That grant has proved very beneficial not only to this particular industry but to the Dominion as a whole. Heretofore all the lead for paints ground in oil were imported from the United States; but, I am glad to say, that we have very large works of this kind established in Montreal, so that a large portion of the lead used in Canada is mined, smelted, ground and manufactured in the Dominion. As to zinc ores, I can speak with some little knowledge, because our own government has expended a good deal of money trying, to discover an electric process of treating these ores. One of our difficulties is that, owing to the action of the United States, we have found it difficult to market the lead ores containing zinc. Particular ores containing a certain percentage of zinc are practically prohibited by the duties, so we are unable to take out the slocan ore which contains a large percentage of zinc. The result is that many of the mines have been closed down, and many others have large dumps of second-class ore containing zinc in their composition, but as they cannot be treated in any way they are now comparatively a waste product. If by assistance from the government we can devise a process whereby these ores can be treated, it would be of great benefit to the whole Dominion, and a great stimulus to the production of zinc in our own country. On that ground I will support the proposition of the minister. I may add from my experience of this question that it is difficult to say just how much experiments of that kind would cost. We have spent large sums of money, many of us have lost money in trying to discover successful processes; and the feeling is that as the project is a benefit to the whole people of Canada, it is a subject of fair consideration by the government. It is on that ground ' that representations were made to the minister asking a grant of this nature. These experiments cest a lot of money, and sometimes produce little results, but we have to do these things if we are going to develop mining in our country. We were

the first country to adopt the electrocly-tic process in the refining of lead, and the result is that we are now doubling the capacity of one of the largest smelters on the American continent, and we are turning out the purest lead produced on the American continent. I have thought it well to give these few facts to the House in order to induce the House to support the minister in the object be has in view.


Haughton Lennox: I sympathize with the view presented by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve). But what I desire to say to the minister is that when he comes and asks us for money he should be able to set forth a method by which he proposes to spend the money. I will be prepared to join in expending far more than $50,000 for the development of mining. But when the minister asks us for money I ask him to tell us how he proposes to spend it. I do not know anything about this particular grant of money, but I regard $50,000 for the purpose of developing any useful industry as a very small sum of money. I will be glad to assist the minister in getting a larger sum of money so long as the plan he outlines to parliament seems calculated to benefit the country. I could apply in this case that hackneyed expression so often used in railroading Bills through this House, that the development of mining in British Columbia, or anywhere else in Canada, is a work for the general advantage of Canada. I am heartily in accord with any proposition for the development of mining, and I hope the minister will bring down information to show us that this money is going to be wisely expended.


Mr. HERRON.: I desire to ask the minister if the government has done anything towards investigating the zinc smelter enterprise in the town of Frank. It was to some extent a failure when first established. It is a very extensive plant.


William Templeman: The government has not investigated the zinc smelting industry in the town of Frank, but I think that mining men of the country generally have investigated it. It was a failure, probably built on the wrong lines to smelt the zinc ores of the Kootenay country. At all events, it was a metallurgical and financial failure, and if I am not mistaken the plant has been dismantled.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 182) respecting the payment of bounties on lead contained in leadbearing ores mined in Canada, and to promote the production in Canada of zinc.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 102) respecting immigration-Mr. Oliver.
On paragraph (k): stowaway.
Frank Oliver: That ' the word ' conveyance ' in the 20th and 21st lines of paragraph (k) be struck out and the word ' vehicle ' substituted.


Uriah Wilson: This clause is about the same as one in the American Act, is it not?


Frank Oliver: I could not answer that question as to its being exactly the same, but it is very much the same as in the Bill of last year. The principle is the same.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 3, prohibited classes of immigrants.


Frank Oliver: That after the word ' citizen ' in the 2nd line there be inserted the words ' or has Canadian domicile.'
He said: We have established a meaning for the word ' domicile,' for the purpose of permitting British subjects who have established their residence in Canada to claim the same rights as Canadian citizens on their return, and it is proper that these words should be inserted here carrying out that idea. Canadian domicile is acquired by a three years' residence in Canada.
Mr. BARKER, Do I understand the minister to mean that a British subject acquires the right of domicile by residence?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: Are you going to stick to the three years' qualification?


Frank Oliver: I wish to.


Uriah Wilson: I am sorry for that. In Great Britain it takes five years to become a citizen of Great Britain. In the United States it is five years, and they wish to make it longer.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Can the minister by this Act make a foreigner a British subject?


Frank Oliver: All we do in this is to give the privilege of Canadian citizenship to a man, who although not born in Canada has resided here for three years.


Mr. BARKER.: And who had already been a British subject?


Frank Oliver: He need not have been a British subject. If he has lived in Canada
5803 *

for three years he has thereby established Canadian domicile.


Mr.   BAEKEE@: He is not naturalized by that?


Frank Oliver: No.


Mr. BLACK.: What do you mean by the yrords 'loathsome disease'?


Frank Oliver: The disease which is most frequently met with is trachoma, which is rather loathsome than dangerous.


Judson Burpee Black: The word ' loathsome ' as used there simply expresses the condition of the nervous system of the person who is looking at the disease. A medical man would not consider any disease loathsome.


Uriah Wilson: What word would the hon. gentleman suggest in lieu .of ' loathsome '?


Judson Burpee Black: It is not necessary at all; the words contagious and infectious are sufficient.


Frank Oliver: While there may be no scientific warrant for the use of the word I think it will be found very desirable to retain it for the purpose of administering the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are diseases which are neither contagious nor infectious, but which are loathsome, such as cancer and ulcers. I do not think you could select a better word.


Judson Burpee Black: I do not think trachoma would be loathsome in the eyes of a medical man. From a medical point of view there is not any such thing as disgusting or loathsome disease.


Frank Oliver: In connection with this section I might say that it has been urged that it is too restrictive in that it purports to restrict the landing of persons to whom money has been loaned. If the restriction were confined to loans by charitable organizations, it would probably meet all necessary requirements. Loans advanced by a friend should not come under this prohibition.


Mr.   BAEKEE@: What is the distinction?


Frank Oliver: A loan that is given by pne friend to another is a different thing from a loan given by a charitable organization in carrying out the purposes of the organization.


Uriah Wilson: I do not think that persons should be excluded simply because they borrow money. It is quite sufficient to restrict those who are sent out here by charitable organizations who may wish to get rid of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Eecently a number of Scotchmen landed in Canada who had not Mr. OLIVEE.
sufficient money to comply with the requirements of the Act, and the money was furnished by a Scottish society. What position would these men be in under this Act?


Frank Oliver: That was not a loan by a charitable organization for the purpose of sending out these immigrants.


Uriah Wilson: And it was given after they landed in Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think it would be right to make a restriction that would shut out such persons who were aided by their compatriots in this country.


Mr. CEOSBY.: As a matter of fact quite a number of immigrants secure passage from the steamship companies to the ocean port in Canada, and they may want to go to Toronto or Winnipeg, or some western point, but have not sufficient money, although they may be otherwise desirable immigrants. The steamship agent will say to them, you have plenty of money to go to Halifax or St. John, and we will give you passage, and these people assume that once they land in Canada, they will have no difficulty in reaching any place to which they intend going. Frequently families of that kind, good people, have come to Canada, and have been assisted by our national societies. We have in Halifax three such societies, the Charitable Irish Society, the North British Society, and the St. George's Society, organized principally for the purpose of assisting such needy immigrants, their own compatriots. There was a case the other day to which my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) has just referred. The North British Society took that case up and furnished those people with sufficient money to get to their destination. There is no doubt that they were people of very creditable character as immigrants, and it would have been a great hardship had they been turned back, and, under the strict letter of the law, they would have had to be deported. I think that the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia interested himself in their behalf. There should be some provision to enable such immigrants to get to their destination. I think there is a case of the kind now in St. John, of a man who has been there some eight or ten days. His brother-in-law, who is a well-to-do citizen in Toronto, wired sufficient money to qualify him, but there is this difficulty, that, according to the strict letter of the law, he should be deported. I am sure that the minister must have had many demands made on him in regard to the character of immigrants. When a man is of good character, and shows cause why he should not be deported, and has friends, as sometimes happens, who are prepared to help him there should be some way of preventing his being deported as an undesirable immigrant.


Frank Oliver: This section, as it stands, represents the position which the government take to-day, and which it enforces under orders in council, which are authorized by the present Act. It was with the desire to place upon the statute the' policy of the government, so that whatever might be done would be done in the light of day, that we proposed this section. I quite appreciate the fact that many a good man is poor, and that, Jf poverty were a bar to admission into this country, many of us would have been excluded, but this provision was rendered necessary by the conditions which arose in the fall of 1907, and which would very likely arise again if it were not enforced. Everybody will remember that in the winter of 1907, there was a great deal of distress in many cities of Canada among newly arrived immigrants, and the Immigration Department was subjected to a great deal of very severe criticism in consequence. We found that the large majority of these cases arose as the result of the efforts of charitable organizations operating on the other side. There had been a good demand for labour in Canada during the summer, and there was considerable dearth of employment in the old country. The charitable organizations there spent in consequence considerable money in sending out their unemployed to Canada, where employment was found for them during the summer months; but as soon as employment began to slacken in the fall of 1907, we had this large number of people on our hands, and had nothing for them to do. A great deal of distress resulted, and a great deal of harsh criticism on the Immigration Department, and the cause of legitimate immigration to Canada was seriously injured'in England by the reports that went back of this distress. An order in council was then passed prohibiting people, who had been assisted by charitable organizations, from landing in this country, unless before sailing they had passed inspection, and been approved by our immigration officers. I am quite aware that cases of hardship arise, and would be very glad if we could find some means of avoiding these cases, but that does not seem possible. We found the provision we made by order in council not only necessary, but useful. I believe it absolutely saved the situation in Canada, and I would like to see that provision embodied in this Act so that all the world would see exactly what our policy is.


Clarence Jameson: WTould this provision interfere in any^ way with the measures which the Salvation army has been taking lately in the way of aiding immigration to this country?


Frank Oliver: The Salvation army complies with this requirement. They always
have the people in whom they are interesting themselves pass inspection in the old country before our immigration officers; and of course, once they pass that inspection, we become responsible for the character, and standing of these immigrants, and they are allowed to enter at our ports. Some other charitable organizations comply with that provision also. We do not forbid the bringing in of people by charitable organizations, but they must first pass an inspection on the other side by our officers.


Clarence Jameson: I think that is very proper.


Adam Brown Crosby: We have in Halifax three incorporated societies, not exclusively charitable, but national as well, which assist people of their nationality who come to this country. Very often when a family of such people land in Halifax or St. John, they imagine that they are close to every place in Canada. Take the case of a family of Irish people coming to this country, intending to go to Toronto or Winnipeg to join friends, but without the necessary money. We have frequently supplied the funds to take these people to their destination, and in many cases have afterwards received the money back from them. None of these incorporated societies would take hold of a family, and forward them to their destination without being reasonably sure that they were suitable immigrants for this country. The Charitable Irish Society, and the North British Society were established a hundred and fifty years ago to help immigrants coming to this side-sometimes they have received people who were shipwrecked on the coast of Nova Scotia, and sent them forward to their destinations. I think that these societies would be perfectly willing to give any reasonable guarantee in the case of the people they assist. But some regulation should be incorporated in the Bill to provide foT cases of this kind so that desirable immigrants may not be deported.


Mr. STRATTON.: I think there is something in what the hon. member for Halifax has just stated. I have known of cases of hardship in my own riding It sometimes happens that people having a father or brother coming from the old country are not in a position to supply the $25 referred to, but they were ready to put up bonds that, if these people should ever become a public burden, they would undertake to send them back. Yet, in the face of that, these immigrants have been deported to the great regret of their friends. Such cases are certainly cases of hardship. It seems to me, however, that the only way in which we can meet them is by tire appointment of intelligent agents, and giving

these agents some little latitude to discriminate between the desirable and undesirable.


Mr BARKER.: We are getting a little ahead of the Bill. I think that under section 13, providing for a board of inquiry where an immigrant has been rejected, the minister has made provision to meet such cases. We can discuss the_ matter more understandingly on that section.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: If this section be amended by making it refer to assistance by a charitable organization, should it not be made clear that it applies to charitable organizations in Canada?


Frank Oliver: This section applies only to organizations outside of Canada,. It provides that, in the case of parties aided by charitable organizations, they must be inspected and approved by our officers on the other side of the water, or we do not allow them to land here. We assume that a charity-aided immigrant is an undesirable immigrant, and the burden of proof of the contrary is on him. We provide means for trying out cases on the other side of the water. With regard to what my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) has said, I may explain that if the people are of the class and character suitable for farm work, we do not require them to have any money in possession, we only require that they should be able to reach their work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How about domestic servants?


Frank Oliver: They are in the same position as farm help. Everybody recognizes that there is need of farm labour and domestic service, and we impose no restriction as to money qualifications in these cases. But there is a clear distinction between these and other classes who come, and we think that when people come in to engage in other callings it is right that there should be a proper safeguard that they will not become a public burden.


Uriah Wilson: What classes does the government bonus now?


Frank Oliver: Farmers, farm labour, and domestic service.


Uriah Wilson: Have you dropped the railway navies?


Frank Oliver: Yes, over a year ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would fraternal or national societies come under this clause?


Frank Oliver: Certainly, if they are on the other side of the water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know some such societies on this side that contemplate bringing out immigrants, selecting desirable ones.


James Robert Stratton: 


Frank Oliver: There is no objection whatever, provided their efforts are directed to securing farmers, farm assistants or domestic help.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And people of these classes are not required to have the $25 on landing?


Frank Oliver: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Nor do you take a bond from the society that they shall not become a public burden?


Frank Oliver: No. We know that there is such a demand for this class of people, that, if they are sound physically and of reasonably good disposition, there is no question as to their getting employment.


Uriah Wilson: The clause as amended should be acceptable to the House. We have been trying for years to have only a desirable class of immigrants come into this country, and I think we might reasonably go a little too far in that direction rather than stop short. It is most desirable to keep up the standards of our people.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: A case arose in the town of Trail, which is next to my own town. Some Italians communicated with me with regard to some of their friends coming out from Italy. These people landed in New York. Some had bought their tickets through to British Columbia, while others had bought only to New York. They were held by the agent there. A number of telegrams passed between myself and Mr. Scott, the commissioner of immigration. I learned that all these immigrants got through except one, and as to that one I did not get any definite answer. I may say that one of the men who communicated with me on the subject was an expert metallurgist, a man in good position. I desire to ask the minister on what ground people would be refused admission under the circumstances to which I have referred?


Frank Oliver: That was under a short amendment of the Immigration Act that was passed in the session before last, what is called the indirect passage provision. It provides that we may exclude immigrants who come otherwise than by direct passage, or on a through ticket purchased in the country of which they are citizens. I suppose I may mention the reasons for this somewhat peculiar provision. The necessity arises from the exigencies of deportation. If an undesirable arrives and is rejected after he has been in the country for some time, we-then call unon the transportation company which brought him here to take him back to the country to which he belongs. But, if the transportation company which brought him into Canada did not bring him from the coun-

try to which he belongs, then we cannot compel them to take him hack to that country. We can only compel them to take him back to the country they brought him from, and if he was an undesirable in our country he may be just as undesirable in that country. So in order to secure ourselves we had this amendment passed, which gave us a right to exclude passengers who arrive otherwise than by direct passage or on through tickets purchased in the country in which they were citizens. That is the general statement. The particular condition was that there was a prospect, in fact a certainty, of a large movement of Japanese from Honolulu to British Columbia, and there was also the prospect of a large movement of Hindus from Hong Kong. We had an arrangement -with Japan whereby Japan prohibited emigration direct from that country to Canada, but Japan had no authority to prohibit emigration from the 'Sandwich Islands to Canada, they being part of the United States. There were a good many thousands of Japanese in those islands, where times were dull, and -prospects were good in British Columbia. There was every prospect of a large movement, and we successfully adopted this means of preventing that movement. The same provision applied to the movement that we apprehended from Hong Kong, and it also had the same effect. Of course it is a general provision, and is just as necessary and suitable in the case of undesirables coming through the United States as in any other case.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the case of immigrants who enter our ports with through tickets to the United States. They are carried through the Dominion as far as Sarnia, we will say, to the port of entry into the United States. I have knowledge of a case of that kind, where some 30 immigrants, who apparently had tickets to the United States, were turned back at the port of entry at Port Huron. Those men were placed on the Grand Trunk train and brought back to London, Ontario. So far as I could gather they were employed in London by the agents of the Grand Trunk railway, and in some other districts where they wished to make use of them; they were sent up into those districts to work. Now, if these immigrants were not fit for entrance into the United States, why should we be burdened with them in Canada?


Frank Oliver: I do not understand how that occurrence could take place if there was fair play on the part of all parties concerned. Every immigrant who lands at a Canadian port destined tor the United 184
States is examined at the Canadian port of landing by a United States officer, under a tacit arrangement between the two departments. When the United 'States officer at the Canadian ocean port has examined an immigrant and approved him, the immigrant is then free to enter the United States when he reaches the border. If the examination made by the United States officer at the port of Halifax, St. John or Quebec, is not effective in allowing the immigrant to pass into the United States when he reaches the border, I shall be glad to be informed of the circumstances. and we will have the situation readjusted.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I hone the minister will investigate that circumstance, because hundreds are turned back in the same manner. Personally I made inquiries about these people, having noticed them in Sarnia, and riding back to London in another car. They were taken off there, and I made some inquiries as to what was going to be done with them, and I received the information I have given to the minister. I am satisfied from what I can learn from the residents in our western country, that not only at the port of entry of Port Huron, but at other ports, many immigrants who have passages paid through to the United States are turned back at the border.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend has the particulars in regard to this case I would be glad to get them from him, or of any similar case hereafter that comes to his notice. Such a proceeding as he mentions is entirely contrary to our arrangement and understanding. I may say that our requirements in regard to the standard of immigrants are somewnat higher than the requirements of the United States, consequently there is a possibility of immigrants taking advantage of the more lenient law's of the United States in order to get into Canada; that is to say, ostensibly they are going through, but really they never intend to go through, and take advantage of the examination of the United States officers at the Canadian port in order to get into Canada. That is a very difficult situation, and one of the purposes of the Bill is to meet it as well as it can be met. We have certain provisions further on in the Bill which will go as far as we think it is possible to go in meeting that condition.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister certain officers in England for the purpose of bringing out immigrants to the province of Ontario?


Frank Oliver: No.


Samuel Hughes: Has he not a gentleman by the name of Burnett in his department, and what is he doing?


Frank Oliver: He is a salaried a'gent resident in York. We have no agents in England or on the continent who are conducting parties of immigrants to Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Are his functions to send immigrants to Ontario or to the Northwest?


Frank Oliver: To any part of Canada that the immigrant desires to go. He is not to give anybody advice, but to give all the information he possesses.


Samuel Hughes: This officer has been receiving letters from people who desired to come to this country. A man and his sons were sought to be induced to come to Canada to go to work as hired men. I think these people should be told that hired men only get employment for a few months in the year. To my mind that is one of the most serious things in connection with this business, that these men are rushed into the country under great inducements to work as harvesters when the work only lasts a short time. There should be some settled policy on the part of the government in this matter, whereby the immigration officers should show these people plainly and frankly when they come out as hired men what they have to expect. Whether they come out as labourers or as homesteaders, they should have all the facts placed before them; this family comes from near Carlisle. A young man who wrote me in Africa; I knew him very well. Burnett recommended this man with his family to come out here and hire on a farm in Ontario. I do not think there is any future for an ordinary man coming out here with a family to depend on a few months work only in each year.


Frank Oliver: I do not altogether agree with my hon. friend. The business of our agent there is to give information in regard to all parts of Canada, and the immigrant then makes his own choice as to where he wishes to go. It might not suit some men to go to the Northwest to take up farms, and it might suit them, if they so please, to seek employment at farm labour in Ontario. I am aware that there is at the present time a very strong demand for farm labour in Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: For the summer.


Frank Oliver: And in the dairying districts for the winter as well.


Samuel Hughes: And then these fellows hang around the towns in the winter.


Frank Oliver: Very true.


Samuel Hughes: Oshawa is an instance of it.	.
Mr. OLIVER


Frank Oliver: I am well aware of that. 1 do not think it would be taken very kindly by the people of Ontario if we made a business of advising men who might be desirous of entering upon farm labour not to go to Ontario. There are, I think, every year cheap excursions from Ontario to the west for the harvest season, and it seems to me that the fact that a man goes to Ontario to take employment there is no guarantee that he is not going west to take a free farm in due course. I do not find any fault with our agent in giving this man and his son such information as they desired, and which led them to go to Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: They have not gone; I am sending them to Alberta.


Frank Oliver: I hope they will do well in Alberta.


Clarence Jameson: I intend to move a couple of amendments to this sectipn and I think that probably the minister will find that he will be able to adopt them, but before I do so I wish to say that I have no desire to be understood as obstructing this measure. There is an editorial in the Ottawa ' Free Press ', of to-day, the last paragraph of which reads as follows :
Should the obstruction continue the opposition must not complain if the suspicion gains ground that they are influenced by the shipping interests who are known to oppose the proposed new immigration regulations.
I presume this alludes to the discussion which took place when the hon. Minister of the Interior moved the second reading of this measure some days ago. Upon that occasion I was one of those who spoke. I spoke very briefly as did other members interested in this measure, and we did not take up any great amount of time. I do not think that three hours discussion on the second reading of an important measure of this character should be construed as obstruction, and I sincerely hope that this editorial paragraph which I have read was not in any way inspired by any member of the government. It would seem to me that when an important measure of this character is brought down it is not only the privilege of every member of this House to offer such suggestions a3 he believes to be in the public interest, but it is the duty of every man who is interested in the Bill to make such suggestions as in his opinion will advance the well being of the country, and the observations that were offered by myself, and other hon. gentlemen on that occasion were entirely along that line. I wish to say a word with regard to paragraph (a) of section 3, which has reference to prohibited classes. It reads:
(a) Idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons and persons who have been insane within five years previous.

Shall be excluded. I wish to move an amendment that:
The word ' previous ' be stricken out and that in lieu thereof there shall be inserted the words ' who had two or more attacks of insanity previously/
I find that the American Act is very much along the lines, so far as prohibited classes are concerned, of this Act, and it seems to me that that would be a very proper addition to make to that section. There can be nothing objectionable in it. At a later stage I wish to move another amendment to section (d).


Frank Oliver: I would very much prefer that my hon. friend would not press his amendment. I am quite aware that it is contained in the United States Act, and while we have taken advantage of a good deal of the work that has been done in the drafting of the United States Act we have not found it advantageous to follow it in all particulars. The reason we do not follow it in this particular is that we desire to have the Act as clear as possible, so that it can be administered fairly to all parties. We think that if the prohibition with regard to insanity is fixed at a period of five years it is within a period that i3 capable of demonstration and proof on one side, or the other, whereas, if we accept the amendment that my hon. friend has suggested, and which speaks of two periods of insanity at any time in a person's life, there arises a difficulty in regard to the evidence on one side or the other that renders very difficult the administration of the law. I do not think it is really necessary that the provision should be such as my hon. friend has suggested, and I know that it would render the provision very much more difficult of fair administration. The great purpose we have in bringing in this Act before the House, and the country is that we may have something which will appeal to everybody as setting out a certain policy and as providing for a fair administration oi that policy, an administration that everybody will understand, and that everybody will have a fair chance under, leaving as little as possible to the uncertainty of the law. For that reason I ask my hon. friend not to press his amendment.	'


Samuel Barker: I do not see the difficulty of the minister. What the mover of the amendment asks is that a man who has been insane within five years of his attempt to enter into this Dominion shall be excluded. The word ' previous ' is absolutely needless. It cannot refer to the future; it must be in the past. A man who within five years from the time of his coming to this country has been insane should be excluded. The minister admits that, and therefore it is unnecessary to put in the word ' previous '. The proposed amend-1841
ment is this: ' or who had two or more attacks of insanity previously '. My hon. friend from Digby does not limit himself to a man who within five years has been insane, but if at any time during that man's life he can be proved to have been twice insane he shall be excluded. I cannot understand the objection to it.
Amendment negatived.


Clarence Jameson: I would propose an amendment to subsection (d) which reads:
Persons who have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.
I hope the minister will adopt this suggestion because I think it is along the lines he had in mind when drafting this Bill, although it seems to have been overlooked in this instance. Again, I have borrowed somewhat from the American Act and I propose, in substitution of this section, as follows:
Persons who have been convicted of a felony or other crime or misdemeanour involving moral turpitude, polygamists, anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain, of Canada, or other British colony, possession, or dependency, or any foreign government.	.
We have no need for such persons in this country, and they ought to be excluded. In section 41 the Bill provides for the removal |Or deportation from Canada of certain persons of this class, and it seems to me that if we are going to deport people-who exhibit tendencies of that character, it would be but the part of prudence to prevent them from entering Canada. My amendment is drawn with that idea in view. I can see good reasons why this amendment should canv, and I cannot see any reason why it should not. I move it, seconded bv Mr. Barker.


Frank Oliver: The law already in force in Canada is practically in the words of tire present Bill, and I believe that the provisions are satisfactory and sufficient. That provision of the United States Act has not had the slightest effect in preventing the entrance into the United States of any of these persons, because knowledge of the fact with regard to them in this respect can only be obtained by the confession of the person himself, and if he wants to come into the country he is not likely to make that admission.


Samuel Hughes: Can you exclude a polygamist under the present Canadian law?


Frank Oliver: He can be deported.


Samuel Hughes: Who pays the cost of the deportation?


Frank Oliver: The transportation company who brought the person here. At

present we can deport him any time within tw(o years, but the Bill makes it three years, and the transportation company which carried him here must take him back.


Uriah Wilson: But the government has expended money for deportations.


Frank Oliver: That was in cases where it was not possible to establish that the person arrived by a certain transportation company.


Samuel Hughes: If the undesirable immigrant were bagged at the port without being allowed to land, you would get over that difficulty.


Frank Oliver: That is true.


Samuel Barker: The minister uses the somewhat extraordinary argument that if an anarchist is admitted they will deport him, but. if they know he is coming in they will let him in and deport him afterwards.
Amendment (Mr. Jameson) negatived.


Frank Oliver: I move that the following be added as paragraph ' I.'
Persons who do not fulfil or comply with the conditions or requirements of any regulations which for the time being are in force and applicable to such persons under sections 37 or 38 of this Act.
The section provides that regulations shall be passed by the- Governor in Council with respect to persons mentioned in sections 37 and 38 as among the prohibited classes, and this puts it in the statute. I wish to put as much as we can on the face of the Act.


Uriah Wilson: I think the regulations would be just as effective without this, but I believe in the principle of incorporating it in the statute.
. Amendment agreed to.
On section 4,


Frank Oliver: This is a provision of the Australian Act. I need not enlarge on the difficulties of administering an immigrant exclusion provision. These provisons must be strong if they are to be of any value at all, and if we make them strong there necessarily will arise from time to time exceptional cases, so that without such a provision as this the law might work contrary to what is considered to be in the public interest. In Australia they found it desirable to give authority to the minister, who is responsible, to make an exception, and we have thought it would tend to perhaps do -away with instances of difficulties which would seem to discredit the drastic provisions of the Act if he had this power.


Samuel Hughes: There will be a record of all such cases?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Frank Oliver: On section 5,
The Governor in Council may appoint a superintendent of immigration, commissioners of immigration, and such other officers as are deemed necessary for ca'rrying out the provisions of this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any stipulated salary attached to each of these positions?


Frank Oliver: We have a general scale of salaries, but no statutory provision.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do these agents, who are employed at Ottawa, come under the Civil Service Act?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
On section 10,
Every officer appointed under this Act shall have the authority and power of a special constable to enforce any of the provisions of this Act relating to the arrest, detention or deportation of [DOT] immigrants, aliens or other persons.


Uriah Wilson: Why should a constable have the power to deport?


Frank Oliver: He has not the power to deport, but has authority to use force in restraining nr compelling detention or the movements of people under deportation.
On section 12,
Eor the preservation of the peace, and in order that arrests may be made for offences against the laws of Canada, or of any province or municipality thereof, wherein the various immigrant stations are located, the officers in charge of such immigrant stations, as occasion may require,, shall admit therein any constables or other peace officers charged with the enforcement of such laws; and for the purposes of this section the authority of such officers and the jurisdiction of the local courts shall extend over such immigrant stations.


Samuel Barker: Why do you want the word peace ' in line 6?


Frank Oliver: We borrow-ed this section from the United States Act, and have followed the very wording -of it.


Samuel Barker: I think it would be stronger without the word ' peace.'
On section 13,
The minister may appoint three or more officers, of whom the immigration officer in charge shall be one, at any port of entry, to act as a permanent Board of Inquiry for the summary determination of all cases of immigrants or passengers seeking to enter Canada or detained for any cause under this Act,


Uriah Wilson: Where are the board of inquiry now established?


Frank Oliver: We have power to establish them, and we propose to do so, and the object, is to do away with the arbitrary

methods of dealing with detention or deportation cases which prevails now. At present any action depends directly on the action of the superintendent, and we wish to have, as it were, courts of inquiry, the proceedings of which shall be of record.


Uriah Wilson: How many do you.intend establishing?


Frank Oliver: We intend to have boards of inquiry at Halifax, St. John, Quebec and possibly at Montreal, and the principal ports on the Pacific coast.


Samuel Hughes: What about the border points?


Frank Oliver: By the following section we have the saqie provision with regard to border points. Where there are not sufficient officers to constitute a board, we give authority to the one officer there who shall keep a record.


John Herron: I would like to know if the powers are to extend merely to investigation into the character of the immigrant and the mode of deportation and matters of the kind, or is it intended that the board is to have broader powers extending to the details of immigration generally? I think it would be worthy of consideration whether the board would be able to handle this matter better than having the work all in the hands of the minister, who is already overworked.


Samuel Barker: I am not sure, but that, under section 13, the minister is encumbering the procedure unnecessarily. He has an officer at the port of landing, and all these proceedings are taken only in the event of a dispute as to that officer's action. If the minister sends twro officers, in case of a protest against the port officers' ruling there may be a further dispute. If he were to send dowm one competent officer, and that officer agreed with the port officer, that should settle the matter. But, in case of difference, there could be such appeal as the minister provides.


Frank Oliver: Our object is to give the person who is the subject of detention an opportunity to present his case, to give him, so to speak, a fair trial, rather than, as at present, the department takes the responsibility of an arbitrary action without a form of trial.


Samuel Barker: It is clear that the minister is trying to afford the immigrant-an appeal. But-, in the case of a difference between the port officer, and the special officer of the department, why not have an appeal at once to the minister. You do not add anything to the advantage of the immigrant by sending two men. If you *send one officer, and there is a difference of opinion between him, and the port officer the immigrant would have an appeal to the department.


Frank Oliver: That is true. Still, I should think that if there were a board of three, and two decided against the immigrant, he would be more apt to accept the decision of the two against one, than if it were a decision upon which the two differed.


Samuel Barker: Still more, if you made it four against five.


John Herron: I would ask the minister to answer the question I mentioned a moment ago. Under the clause the operation of this board would extend merely to detention and deporting of immigrants. But has the minister taken into consideration the extension of the power of this board to the whole system, so that a board whose members shall devote their whole time to the work may deal with the whole range of immigration, thus relieving the minister of a great deal of work?


Frank Oliver: The provision of this Bill only looks to dealing with the administration of the Act at the port of landing. The suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Herron), goes very much further than that. We have not made any provision in the Act looking to that end.


Frank Oliver: For the reasons I gave in a previous case I ask that the words 'and persons who have Canadian domicile' be inserted after the word 'citizen' in the second to the last line.


Samuel Barker: You mean, I. suppose, a British subject having domicile?


Frank Oliver: Any person who has acquired Canadian domicile by residing in Canada for three years would have the right to come back if he once went away.


Clarence Jameson: What is a Canadian citizen as distinguished from a British subject?


Frank Oliver: We want a definition that will show' the distinction between a Canadian and a British subject who is not a Canadian, and we use the words 'Canadian citizen' for that purpose.


Clarence Jameson: Then British subjects are not permitted to land in Canada as a matter of right?


Frank Oliver: No, not because he is a British subject. He has to be either a Canadian citizen or he must have Canadian domicile before he can land in Can-, ada as a matter of _ right.
On section 23, jurisdiction of courts in cases of rejection and deportation re-I stricted.
[DOT] ! -


Frank Oliver: This is a new provision. It has been considered by the Justice Department so far as its form is concerned, but the policy of the section is a matter for the consideration of parliament. The Justice Department says that we have a legal right to pass such a section.
On section 25, passengers to be landed only at places designated by officer in charge-penalty for infraction,


Samuel Barker: Who imposes that fine?


Frank Oliver: There is a provision in the latter part of the Bill.


Clarence Jameson: Why is the very great latitude between the fine of $20 and $1,000 allowed?


Frank Oliver: It would depend on whether the Act was done with intent or with malice aforethought. There are possibilities in the case of steamers deliberately allowing prohibited passengers to get off at points where they would avoid detection and exclusion by our officers, and it is very necessary that there should be the power of a very drastic procedure in such cases. There are people who are prohibited from coming into Canada except on payment of a very high fee, and there is a great deal of money involved in the landing of such people free of charge. It is, therefore necessary that the punishment should be severe. If two Chinamen were landed outside the regular port of entry the saving would amount to this fine.


Clarence Jameson: I am not objecting to the maximum, but I think the minimum is too low. It might be that it would be to the advantage of some transportation companies to be a little lax in their supervision of the landing of passengers because the passage money might exceed the amount of the possible penalty. My own observation in cases of this sort has been that as a rule the minimum and not the maximum penalty is applied. I do not know how the minister intends to have these new sections carried out. I suppose it will largely depend upon the instructions as to what the fines exacted shall be, but in my own experience I have found that the minimum fine is usually collected, and I think that $20 is too small.


Haughton Lennox: This is intended to be the penalty with respect to each individual that shall be landed?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: It should be applied to each individual who is landed.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I would think it would be in each individual case, but this is not absolutely clear.


Frank Oliver: 


Haughton Lennox: I would move that after the word 'dollars' in line 32 the words 'in respect of each such passenger or person' be inserted, and that the words 'in each case' in line 31 be struck out.
Section as amended agreed to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As we have made considerable Drogress, would it not be proper to rise and report progress and then let us adjourn?
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will we take up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take up several of the minor Bills on the order paper that are likely to occupy the whole day.


Uriah Wilson: Will we go on with this Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and then we will take un some of the minor Bills.


Uriah Wilson: This will be taken up first?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 22, 1910.