1910-01-19

IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill
(No. 102) respecting immigration. He said: This Bill, in amendment of the Act which was passed in 1906, is made necessary principally because of changes of condition that have occurred since that time. While the principles of the Act of 1906 are not altered by this Bill, the law is amended in its method of operation to meet the necessity of adopting active exclusion provisions along the international boundary. When the Act of 1906 was introduced, it was framed with a view of dealing with immigrants from overseas. Although it applied to immigrants from across the line, it was especially framed to meet the other conditions. Now, it has become necessary to make similar provision for the exclusion of undesirables along the three thousand miles of frontier between Canada and the United States that we formerly had carried out at the ocean ports. And, as the Act was drawn with a view to applying to the ocean ports, it is necessary that it should be amended in its definitions and operation so as to clearly and definitely provide for the exclusion of undesirables who arrive in Canada by rail or by road. There has also arisen, since the passage of the Act of 1906, the question of Asiatic immigration. And while in that respect the Act does not require much change, still it has been thought advisable to provide for effectively dealing with that class of immigration, not so much bv the introduction of a new principle but to provide specific means for the enforcement of the existing principle. This Bill also provides for relieving the situation as it at present exists in which the government has to exercise an arbitrary authority in the exclusion of immigrants. This Bil1 provides that, under certain circumstances, a board of inquiry shall sit and decide on the merits of the cases brought before it, a record of each case being kept. When the existing law was introduced, it was not expected that there would be such an extensive enforcement of the exclusion provisions, and practically there was no machinery provided-authority was given and under that authority an order issued. This is felt to be an arbitrary method for this country, so it is deemed advisable that machinery should De provided for dealing with these cases, each case to be on record so that its merits may be understood by the public. While that provision is proposed, there is another which I place before the House now as being important. While we provide for a board of inquiry for the consideration of cases of proposed rejection at our ports or at the boundary line, we also make provision that, until an immigrant has been received into Canada-that is to say until he has passed our officers-he is not able to avail him-
- COMMONS
self of tlie protection of the courts. In other words, until a man has actually and legally entered Canada, he is not entitled
to claim the protection of ttie courts of Canada. I state this provision of the Bill clearly and thus early in the proceedings, that its) merits-or demerits-may be understood and every opportunity afforded for discussion. If it does not meet with the approval of the House, of course the Bill can be amended in that particuiar.
Mr. HUGHES.: That is, if an immigrant is stopped by one of our immigration officers at the border before entering Canada-


Mr. OLIVER.: He would not have the right to appeal to the courts, but once he passes he is entitled to appeal to the courts. We believe that that is a reasonable and proper provision, and necessary for the better enforcement of the Act. So, while we are making provision on the one hand for a method of inquiry into each case, on the other hand we do not admit the immigrant to the protection of the courts until he has passed that inquiry.


Samuel Hughes: And who; will bear the cost of the appeal to the courts? The immigrant himself?


Frank Oliver: Provision is made in the ordinary way that if an immigrant appeals to the court he puts up a certain amount for expense, and if the appeal is successful any unexpended balance is returned to him.


Mr. MAGRATH.: Is this the same Bill that was introduced last session?


Frank Oliver: To all intents and purposes the same. The provision of which I have just spoken was contained in the Bill of last year. In the interval we have taken advantage of the information gathered, and, we think, have made improvements in the wording of the Bill.


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

Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 103) to amend the Navigable Waters_Protection Act. He said: This Bill, if it becomes law, will repeal sections 4 and 5 of chap. 115 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Let me read these two sections, after which 1 will state to the House what the changes are which are made by the substitution of the proposed new sections:
4.	No bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau shall be constructed so as to interfere with navigation, unless the site thereof has been approved by Mr OLIVER
the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau is built and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Governor in Council.
5.	Any bridge to which this part applies, which is built upon a site not approved by the Governor in Council, or which is not built in accordance with plans so approved, or which, having been so built, is nob maintained in accordance with such plans, may, in so far as the same interferes with navigation, be lawfully removed and destroyed under the authority of the Governor in Council.
It will be seen that section 4 makes provision for bridges, dams, booms, and aboiteau, It is a curious thing that it makes no provision for wharfs or other structures of that nature which might be erected in a navigable water although, by section 2, a work under this chapter is defined to include any bridge, boom, aboiteau, dock, pier, or other structure and the approaches or other works necessary appurtenant thereto. In the drawing of section 4, the work provided for in this section is limited in character to these four classes. Then section 5 curiously is limited to a bridge; it does not even include the other works mentioned in section 4. Another curious feature of these two sections is that they apply only to cases where these works interfere with navigation, and the question naturally arises and has arisen, as to who is to be a judge of what works interfere with navigation. By section 7 it is provided that the local authority, company or person proposing to construct any work in navigable waters, may file his plan and then if the plan is approved of he may proceed with the work.
The change which we propose making in the statutes is to extend the provisions of section 4 so as to include bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, dock, pier or other structure of any kind. The new section also pro- [DOT] vides that if such a structure is to be erected in a navigable water the plans must be filed and the usual notice given and the application made to the Minister of Public Works.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 104) to control the rates and facilities of Ocean Cable Companies, and to amend the Railway Act with respect to Telegraphs and Telephones and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. He said:	Briefly this Bill is intended to bring under the control of the Railway Commission the cable companies and also the cable companies operating in

conjunction with the land telegraph lines of Canada. As the subject is rather a complex one I intend to prepare a synopsis of this and the following Bill and send them to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and then on the second reading of the two Bills I shall fully explain their purpose. Everybody is aware that the railway companies, the express companies, the telegraph and telephone companies are all placed under the control of the Railway Board and we intend to bring the cable companies also under that control.
Samuel Hughes: Will it include Marconi wireless?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Yes, I intend to include under this Bill the wireless companies also. When this Act comes into force, the companies will have four months within which to file with the board their tariffs. In case there are difficulties in filing the tariffs that time may be extended but not to a greater time than one year.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 105) to amend the Telegraphs Act. He said; The same explanations as I have given in reference to the preceding Bill apply to this Bill.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. FOSTER:: What lias been expended each year on the analytical index to ' Hansard ' for preparation and printing, respectively, to whom has the amount for preparation been paid, and what number have been printed each year ?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: -	-	Printing.	Copies.	Preparation.	To whom paid.1904-	5	| 1905-	6	J 1906-	7	| 1907-	8	
j	English	
French 	
English	
French 	
English	
French	
English	8 cts. 1,345 16 528 52 1,935 62 1,001 65 2,255 71 1,039 82 1,984 93	2,680 too 2.925 775 2,750 500 2.925	8 eta. 750 00 750 00 250 00 600 00 1,000 00 450 00 250 00 1,175 00 1,200 00 820 00 750 00 255 00 750 00	D. McGillicuddy. M. Sauvalle. D. McGillicuddy. M. Sauvalle. D. McGillicuddy. M. Sauvalle. D. McGillicuddy. H. R. Holmden. M. Sauvalle. H. R. Holmden. M. Sauvalle. H. R. Holmden. M. Sauvalle.190S-9	
... | 1909-10	|	French	
English	
French	
English	
French 	1,384 21 2,239 27 1,334 27 814 12	775 2,925 775 * 525	
* In printer's hands.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC ARBITRATION.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Was the agreement re arbitration between His Majesty the King, represented by the Minister of Railways, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, of date the 14th of May, 1909, and executed and forwarded by the company, ever submitted to the honourable Minister of Railways? If so, how and when?
2.	Did this agreement come before the Transcontinental Railway Commission? If so, what action did the commission take in reference to it, and when?
3.	Why was the agreement not accepted by the commission, and to what portions of it did the commission object?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	There was no agreement, but one was
suggested by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. A copy of the proposed agreement was not submitted to the minister. See sessional papers, pp. 17, 18, 19 parliamentary return 42a.
2.	A copy of proposed agreement was submitted by Mr. H. D. Lumsden, May 15, 1909, who was advised that the execution of such an agreement was unnecessary, as the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the chief engineer of the commissioners had already signed an agreement appointing a third arbitrator, and providing for the arbitration of the matters in dispute, as provided bv the National Transcontinental Railway Act.
3.	Answered by number 2.
<N CO O CO


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC CLASSIFICATION.
Mr. LENNOX:: Referring to the memorandum re Hodgins, of the Chairman of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway, to the Prime Minister, of date the 23rd of April, 1908, in which he says: * The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company make objections when they see fit and these are looked into at once with due care.' 1. Was the Chairman of the Commission, at the time of presenting this memorandum, aware of the existence of the letters of complaint and objection by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, through their assistant chief engineer, Mr. H. A. Woods, of the 7th October, 1987, October 8, 1907, November 4, 1907, February 4, February 20, 1908, March 24, 1908, and March 30, 1908?'
2.	At the date of said memorandum, had the matters of complaint referred to in Mr. Woods' letters, or any of them, been carefully and fully looked into or looked or inquired into at all by or on behalf of the commission? If so, when, how, by whom, to what extent, and with what result?
3.	If not, what was the meaning of the chairman's statement?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2	and 3. The objections of Mr. Woods as stated in his letter of October 7, 1907, were investigated by Chief Engineer Lumsden, of the commission, assistant Chief Engineer Woods and Inspecting Engineer Armstrong of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and the district and other engineers of District ' B.' October 25, 1907, and resulted in disclosing a difference of opinion between Chief Engineer Lumsden and his staff as to the interpretation of the classification clauses of the specifications, which subsequently resulted in Chief Engineer Lumsden modifying and correcting his interpretation of these clauses of the specifications in January, 1908, all of which is fully set forth in the report of the special committee appointed to investigate the charges of
Major Hodgins. Mr. Woods' letters October 8, to March 24, inclusive related to the same matters as were covered by his letter of October 7, and the engineers in District ' B,' advised Chief Engineer Lumsden that the classification in that district was in conformity with his interpretation of the specifications dated January, 1908. Investigation of the classification could not proceed during the winter months, consequently further investigation was deferred by Chief Engineer Lumsden until April 24, 1908, when he wrote Assistant Chief Engineer Woods of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company with respect to arbitration of matters in dispute.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC PROGRESS ESTIMATES.
Mr. LENNOX:: 
Mr. GRAHAM:: There is no record of amounts claimed by the contractors, but the amounts returned by the engineers, under the terms of the respective contracts, and paid by the commissioners, are as shown on the annexed statement.


THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Amounts returned by Engineers and paid on Progress Estimates under the headings of Solid Rock, Loose Rock and Common Excavation, from December 31, 1908 to January 13, 1910; also total amounts so returned and paid during same period.
District ' A.'
Contract
Number.
1	
Name of Contractor.	Solid Rock.
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway	 , .. J. W. McManus & Co			8 cts. 49,963 50 26,500 50 47,813 63 514,435 68 549,937 40 99,623 52
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway		
	
Willaid Kitchen & Co	 		
Lyons & Whit*?		
	
Loose Rock.
$ cts.
294,851 21 12,971 25 99,425 70 228,989 84 71,955 14 110,667 60
Common Excavation.	Total Amount Paid.
$ cts.	$ cts.
10,176 30	894.732 22
1,053 68	153,227 55
33,608 97	454,714 35
39,443 04	1,113,723 82
1,879 20	1,235,677 62
18,850 05	519,771 51
George Perry Graham: 


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-ENGINEER'S COMPLAINTS.
Haughton Lennox: Did the commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway take any measures to ascertain whether the complaints of Engineers Huestis, Doucet and Poulin, against the action and proceedings of the arbitrators, Messrs. Schreiber, Kelliher and Lumsden, were well founded before passing the resolution of June 25, 1909, or before sending the commissioners' letter ef protest, inclosing the resolution to these arbitrators on that day? If so, what measure and investigation did the commission take and institute?


George Perry Graham: The reports referred to were confirmatory one of the other, and were further confirmed in part by verbal statements made by Mr. Lumsden and Mr. Schreiber.


INTERCOLONIAL DERAILMENTS.
Mr. TALBOT:: 1.	How many derailments have taken place over the Intercolonial Railway during the year 1909?
2.	At what points of the railway did each of these derailments take place, and at what dates?
3.	Was a regular inquiry made in each case?
4.	Has a report been made in every case? If so, is the cause or causes mentioned in such report ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand as a notice of motion.


BEAUHARNOIS CANAL LEASE.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Is the lease of the Beauharnois canal from the government to Messrs. McIntyre & Robert still in force?
2.	Has the amount of the lease been paid regularly? If not, since when, and does the government intend to exact payment?
3.	Are the obligations of the lessees carried out according to the lease?
4.	Have the company, the lessee, spent $60,000 for repairing canal banks, bridges, &c. ?
5.	Has the said company spent $20,000 a year as per lease, besides special work of $60,000 mentioned above, for keeping canal in good condition for navigation?
6.	Are all the bridges in good order and kept at the disposal of farmers, according to lease? If not, why not?
7.	Is the government aware that some bridges are said to have been out of use for nearly two years?
8.	Is it the intention of the government to remedy such a state of things alleged to exist?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes, except as to the operating of bridges over lock No. 3 and lock No. 6.
4.	No, not up to the present time.
5.	No stipulation in the lease as to the spending by the company of a sum of $20,000 a year. The amount actually expended for staff and repairs for the calendar years 1908 and 1909 is $34,234.54.
6.	All have been kept in good working
order except those mentioned in answer No. 3.	.
7.	Yes, the bridge over lock No. 3, which has not been in operation since the summer of 1908. The bridge was past repairing and the company did not see fit to go to the expense of providing a new one.
8.	Yes, it is the intention of the government to compel the company to live up to the conditions of the lease.


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What has been the cost of administration of the Government Annuities Act for the fiscal year 1909-10, under the following heads:
(a)	Salaries at Ottawa and to whom paid;
(b)	Lecturers and agents, salary and expenses, respectively, and to whom paid, giving the number of meetings addressed by each lecturer; (c) Interest cost, counting the effective rate of interest paid on the government loans in that year as 41 per cent?
2.	How much has been received to end of year from purchase of annuities, and in what way has the money been invested?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	(a) From April 1, 1909, to December 31, 1909:
S.	T. Bastedo	$2,999	97E. G. Blackadar	
1,199	97Margaret McKain	
533	28Helen Houston	
486	07M. E. Fleming	
374	94Caroline Blair	
374	94


Helen M.: Jones	
349	94J. B. Racette	
277	82P. Colonnier	
90	86E. Turcotte	
165	87Loretta Lally	
166	64J. T. Rowan	
133	04A. S. O'Gilvie	
130	89Florence Driscoll	
165	83Mae George	
165	78Alice Periseau	
165	78lima Merkley	
239	21


Tlios.   J.@: Coughlin	
20	16J. M. Deroche	
10	75II. A. McDonald	
12	10E. Swettenham	
374	94


$8,438 78 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Lecturers and Agents.	Salary.	to 0>
to 1 a, X W	No. of meetings.
	S cts.	$ cts.	
Mr. Jas. Samson, Windsor, Ont	749 97	1,565 70	Allowance for lectures	1,290 00	68Edwin Dickie, Toronto, Ont..	1,125 00	338 94	Duncan McArthur, Kenmore,	Ont	1,125 00	310 05	21L. N. Santerre, Quebec	374 94	449 62	Allowance for lectures	670 00	67Georges Belleau, Plessisville,	Que	366 21	463 75	750 00	75
Nelson V.: Brown, Middle			
Southampton, N.B		1,070 83	978 98	67


Rev.  W. G.@: Lane, Yarmouth, N.S	249 96	912 81	Allowance for lectures	480 00	488,250 91	5,019 35	
(c) The total amount received on account of the purchase of Canadian government annuities up to and inclusive of the 31st December, 1909, was $371,174.70, which amount includes payments on account of the purchase of both immediate and deferred annuities. From this amount and the interest which the payments have earned at 4 per cent, the sum of $7,103.15 has been paid to immediate annuitants, such payments including a return to the purchaser of a portion of his purchase money. After deducting this sum of $7,103.15, there will be carried to the credit of interest account on the whole fund up to the 31st March, 1910, the sum of $9,563.71. This amount will, however, be increased by the interest on the payments received from 1st January, 1910, to the 31st March. The amount of purchase money increases with interest accumulations, and decreases as annuities are paid. The rate of interest paid on annuities account is 4 per cent compounded. In addition, deferred annuitants will be credited with the difference between the 3 per cent which may be returned to the estates of persons dying before their annuities fall due and the 4 per cent with which their payments had been credited for the purchase of annuities, so that the annuitants who survive to draw their annuities will have at their credit not only the sum which their own payments improved at 4 per cent compound interest will amount to, but an additional amount of about one-quarter per cent from the mortality benefits referred to.
2.	The total amount received on account of the purchase of annuities to date, up to and inclusive of the 19th January, is $413,510.40. Moneys are at present deposited to the order of the Receiver General, and are not treated as a separate fund. The Act so provides.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


SALES OF LAND FOR HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	How many acres of land have been sold to date on account of Hudson Bay Railway construction ?
2.	What amount of money has been paid in thereon and how has this been invested?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	No land has been sold on special account of Hudson Bay railway construction.
2.	4,106,560 acres have been sold as purchased homesteads and pre-emptions "up to 31st December, 1909. Payments on_ purchased homesteads, $278,006.62; payments on pre-emptions, $118,107.86, exclusive of entry fees.


SCRIPS TO SOUTH AFRICAN VETERANS.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	How many South African Veterans' scrips have been issued to date, and covering how many acres of land?
2.	How many of these still remain in veterans' hands, and covering how many acres of lands?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	6,678, covering 2,136,960 acres.
2.	Up to 31st December, 1909, (January returns being incomplete), .there have been located 2,748 land certificates, covering 879 360 acres. Leaving in the hands of the veterans or their substitutes 3,930 certificates, covering 1,257,600 acres.


PURCHASE OF WAR VESSELS FROM BRITISH ADMIRALTY.
Mr. FOSTER.: 1.	What orders in council have been passed authorizing the purchase of war vessels from the British admiralty, at what dates, and for what vessels?
2.	What vessels have been contracted for or purchased, at what dates and prices?
3.	On the authority of what appropriation by parliament have the negotiations, orders and contracts been made?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	One order in council was passed dated the 22nd November. 1909, authorizing the purchase of a vessel of the ' Apollo ' tv-e, for protection of fisheries on the Pacific coast.
2.	Negotiations are proceeding for the purchase of such a vessel, subject to the approval of parliament.
3.	The vessel purchased as stated in No. . 1, was so purchased under the fisheries protection vote in which $250,000 was provided for a new fisheries protection vessel in British Columbia.


REGIMENTS OF GARRISON ARTILLERY.
Mr. BARNARD:: 1.	How many regiments of garrison artillery are there on the force of the militia, exclusive of the permanent force?
2.	How many in the permanent force?
3.	How many companies are there in each regiment?
4.	What is the strength of each regiment?
5 (a) What are the respective stations of
the different regiments, and (b) what fortresses are manned by them?
6.	What is the fixed armament of each fortress ?
7.	What is the movable armament of each fortress?
8.	What place was taken by the different companies of the 5th regiment C. A., as compared with companies of other regiments, at the last firing competition of fixed guns?


Mr. OLIVER (for Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	Seven.
2.	One.
3	and 4.
No. of
Com- Strength panies.
Royal Can. Garrison Artillery 5	G90
1st Halifax Regiment	 4	513
2nd Montreal Regiment____ 3 (batteries) 355
3rd New Brunswick Regiment	
3	"	3554th P.E.I. Regiment	
3	3555th B. C. Regiment	
3	389
6th Nova Scotia and Levis
Regiment	 3	374
7th Nova Scotia Regiment. 4 (batteries) 396
5	(a). 1st Regiment Garrison Artillery Peace Station, 4 companies, Halifax...
5tli Regiment Garrison Artillery Peace Station, 3 companies, Esquimalt.
6th Regiment Garrison Artillery Peace Station, 3 companies, Quebec and Levis.
(b). It is not in the interest of the public that an answer should be given to the latter half of this question.
6	and 7. It is not in the interest of the public that this information should be published.
8. Garrison artillery regiments do not compete against each other, but companies of each regiment compete amongst themselves.
5th REGIMENT CANADIAN ARTILLERY.


Mr. BARNARD:: 1. Has any dissatisfaction been expressed to the department or any complaint made by any officer of the 5th Regiment of Canadian Artillery or by the D.O.C. 11th Military District, iu connection with the addition to the armouries at Esquimalt of the battery of 12 pr. B.L. guns, recently sent there, or in connection with the proposal that No. 1 or any other company of the 5th Regiment is to train on these guns?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the complaint or cause of dissatisfaction, and by whom and when was such complaint made?
3.	Will horses be required for the use of the battery? If so, how many?
4.	At whose expense are the horses to be supplied, and who is to bear the expense of maintenance of them?
5.	Is the present strength of the 5th Regiment Canadian Artillery considered sufficient to man the fortress at Esquimalt and also to operate the above guns?
G. Is it the intention of the government to authorize the enrolment of another company in the said regiment?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	An application has been made by the district officer commanding military district No. 11 in connection with the training of this regiment.
It is not considered desirable to make the change he asks in the scheme of training, and the district officer commanding will be so informed.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes; 25 horses, on such occasions as it may be necessary to horse the guns.
4.	Under the usual conditions and terms of military training.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.



MAIL PRIVILEGES UNDER POSTAL REGULATIONS.

Mr. C. A. WILSON:: Referring to Rule 119 of the Postal Regulations, which reads as follows:-' Members of either the Senate or House of Commons may, during the recess of parliament, send by mail free of Canada postage, all papers printed by order of either House; and members of the legislature of any one of the provinces of the Dominion may in like manner send by mail, free of Canada [DOT] uostage, nil papers printed by order of such legislature/ does it authorize the persons therein mentioned, to send by mail during recess, from their office or private residence, free of Canada postage, all documents therein mentioned?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, in so far as the documents mentioned in the regulations in question are concerned.



LIFE BOAT AT SEAL COVE, N.B.

Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	What is the present condition of the lifeboat at Seal Cove, New Brunswick?
2.	How often has it been inspected since it was placed in service, and by whom?
3.	When was it last inspected, what was the nature of the inspection, was it inspected in the water as well as out, and what was the report of the inspector?
4.	When was this boat placed in service, how many drills have been held with this boat .since its purchase, what are the dates

of such drills and the length of time occupied in each drill, and who composed the crew or crews of each of those drills?
5.	What amount of money has been paid to the crew or crews of this boat for drills for each year to December 31, 1909.


Sir WILFRID LAITRIER:: 
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Has any report been received by the government or the Department of Marine and Fisheries from the person or persons appointed to investigate the lobster fisheries during the past summer? If so, when will such report be available for the members of this House ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The intention was that the report of the commissioner and the evidence adduced by him would be for the use of the Special Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries. The report will be ready for the committee when it convenes.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing in the construction of drill halls or armouries, or the leasing of sites for camps of instruction, in how many and what instances municipalities, regiments, or individuals, have contributed to the cost of the same in the way of concessions, sites, or moneys, and the amount in each ease since 1904.-Mr. Worthington.
Return showing :	1. All amounts which
may be deducted from the allowance due officers commanding corps of the active militia to cover deficiencies in clothing, &c., deposited to the credit of the receiver general of consolidated revenue.
2.	The amount of money that has been received fi'om officers commanding corps of active militia during the five years ended 31st March, 1909, in payment for clothing issued to such corps, including deductions from allowances to cover repayment to replace deficiencies.-Mr. Worthington.
Return showing what tenders were called for in all cases by the Department of Militia for the manufacture of tents during the five years ended 31st March, 1909; what public advertisements were published calling for such tenders, and in what places and in what newspapers such advertisements were published; from whom tenders were received, and the amounts thereof.-Mr. Worthington.
Return showing what tenders were called for by the Department of Militia for harness and saddlery during five years ended 31st March, 1909 ; what public advertisements were published calling for such tenders, and in what places and in what newspapers such advertisements were published; from whom received, and the amounts thereof.-Mr. Worthington.
Copy of all correspondence between the government, or any member thereof, and the Imperial South African Service Association, or any of its officers, in reference to a proposed military reserve to be formed by the members of the Imperial South African Veterans' Association.-Mr. Macdonell.
Copy of all declarations, affidavits and solemn declarations made and sent to the Post Office Department, or to the honourable the Postmaster General, since the first day of September, 1907, up to the fifteenth day of January, 1910, respecting the franking privilege asked for the Arthabaska ' Gazette,' with copies of the lists of pretended subscribers to that newspaper with the said
declarations, affidavits and solemn declarations ; also a copy of the report of Mr. A. Bolduc, post office inspector, respecting the said Arthabaska * Gazette.'-Mr. Lavergne.
Copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions and other correspondence in connection with the establishing of a post office to be named Charleston or Kelmont, on the south side of the Assiniboine river, in the parish of St. Charles, province of Manitoba?-Mr. Staples.
Copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, documents and correspondence, occurring during the first six months of 1908, in connection with suggested amendments to the Northwest Irrigation Act.-Mr. Magrath.
Copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, documents and correspondence in connection with the establishment of the experimental farm near Lethbridge, Alta.-Mr. Magrath.
Return showing:	1. The amount of Canada's copper, silver and gold coinage respectively, for each of the last ten years, and the cost and profit of each year's coinage, counting the interest and depreciation of the cost of the Canadian Mint at 6 per cent, and the cost of maintenance and staff for the years during which it has been in operation.
2. The amount of United States silver, and at what cost that has been deported each year, and the estimated amount of United States silver current in Canada from year to year. -Mr. Foster.
Return showing:	1. How much money has
been paid by this government from 1896 to the present time to the firm of Sullivan & Langdon, contractors, of Kingston, or to Mr. Sullivan, contractor, Kingston.
2.	What public buildings or other publio works that have been let by contract to either of the above firms since 1896, the contract price in each case, and the total amount paid to the said contractors in each case.
3.	The total cost of each building or publio work in which either of the above mentioned firms was interested.-Mr. Edwards.
Return showing how much money has been paid by this government in each year from 1896 to 1909, both years included, to the firms of Elliott Bros., and of R. Carson, of Kingston, Ontario, for supplies furnished to, or services of any kind performed by the gov ernment.-Mr. Edwards.
Return showing all tenders called for by the Department of Railways and Canals, or the purchasing agent of the Intercolonial railway at Ottawa, at any time during the year 1909 for wire fencing; a copy of any tenders received for such fencing, with the names of the tenderers, and the prices quoted by the said parties tendering for the different kinds of fencing; the names of the successful tenderers, and the particular kind of fence bought, the gauge of wire, number of strands and distances apart of the brackets in uprights; the price per rod. and where the wire was manufactured.-Mr. Wilcox.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That in the opinion of this House the prevailing system of party patronage constitutes a menace to honest and efficient government, incites to great waste of resources and extravagance of expenditures, tends inevitably to corrupt and lower the tone of publio
[Stage Direction]
morals, and should forthwith, he eliminated from our federal administration.
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice that I would move that to-day, hut at the request of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) I will not move it today, but next Wednesday if it he reached.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands.



MANITOBA FISHERIES COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Mr. CAMPBELL.: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), but as I would like to say a few words, perhaps I will be pardoned if I rise to a question of privilege instead, my excuse for doing so being the statement of the right hon. First Minister to me the other day that I was somewhat out of date. It is in regard to the report of the fisheries commission. The right hon. gentleman took exception to my calling it a report, and told me when I called it a report that I was out of date. But the right hon. gentleman, in several parts of his speech, called it a report; so that if I was out of date, he must not make fish of one and fowl of another.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad that I was in good company.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am glad to know that the Prime Minister thinks he was in good company. I estimate it at the same value as himself. He was absolutely out of date, and I will prove it from his own words. He said that the report had been signed by two commissioners and sent to a third for approval and signature. He was absolutely out of date when he said so as he will prove if he lays the report before the House. It is signed by the three commissioners who are existent to-day. There were three commissioners appointed in the first place, one of them resigned because he was appointed to a judgeship, and after the resignation a third commissioner was appointed in the place of the commissioner who had resigned to accept a judgeship. The three commissioners came here together, spent a week or ten days, made a report, presented that report, that repost has been printed, and all I ask is that the report as printed and signed by the three commissioners be brought before the House. May I not suggest to the First Minister that I have a right to ask for that, and that I have a right to have it brought down. It must be authentic if it is signed by the three existing commissioners. When I ask for this report, I want the First Minister to understand that I am not here in a spirit of joshing at all, but that I am here in deadly earnest. This report refers to people in my county. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) last Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
year promised me that he would have those commissioners inquire into matters that are of great interest to some of my constituents. For instance, one man has sent an affidavit to the effect that he worked for the men who had these closed leases granted by this government, and when he wanted to sell his fish to an outside buyer, the government officials forbade him to do so, although the lease holder offered him only $8 per ton while the outside buyer offered $140 per ton. Even at that the lease holder has not paid the man and now owes him $800. This unfortunate position is entirely owing to the interference of the government officials, as otherwise he would have sold to the outside buyer. Will the government protect that man and others who are in the same box? We take the position in the west that Canada is not in a hurry to get rid of her output of fish, she ought not to be in a hurry to deplete her lakes for the benefit of the United States markets. It costs us nothing to keep the fish in those lakes, and I think it is in the interests of the people of Canada, until such time as Canada requires that fish, not to have these lakes depleted. Would the Prime Minister give me the report so that I may see it?


Wilfrid Laurier: When my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) the other day charged me with not being up to date I must say that I somewhat resented the imputation. Of course I am an eastern man and I cannot expect to be up to the standard of western men, but I try to be, I do my best, and when the hon. member charged me with not being up to date in the new department which it is my misfortune to administer just now owing to the illness of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I sent for the papers and looked them over. I found that a commission was appointed consisting of Messrs. Metcalfe, Reid and Professor Prince, the government fishery inspector. They were to investigate the four lakes in Manitoba and the Northwest, Lac du Bonnet, Lake Winnipegosis, Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg. I found a report prepared and ready for publication concerning Lac du Bonnet which was investigated by the three commissioners I have named. I understand that after this report was prepared Mr. Metcalfe was appointed a judge. I have not yet found whether he resigned ,or not, but it was thought that his new duties were not compatible with the exercise of his functions as a judge and a new commissioner was appointed, Mr. Hogg. Mr. Hogg and the two remaining commissioners have been investigating the three other lakes. The report concerning Lac du Bonnet is printed, but the original of it has not been signed by Judge Metcalfe. It has been sent to him for signature. I have looked into the report and can see no rea-

son why it should not be brought down. The same remark applies to the interim reports on the' other lakes. This morning I called on my colleague who, I am glad to say, is better and could talk business, and I suggested to him that I saw no reason why these reports should not be brought down for the satisfaction of my hon. friend and his friends. My colleague saw no reason why the reports should not be brought down and they will be presented to-morrow morning.


George Eulas Foster: Now you are up to date.



INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS.

Mr. HENDERSON.: I would remind the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that on Friday last he promised to give me an answer on Monday as to the report of Professor Prince and Dr. Starr Jordan with regard to the regulations that were being prepared concerning fishing in international waters.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have looked into the matter and I find that the regulations have been made, but there was an agreement that they should be published simultaneously in Washington and Ottawa. We are communicating with Washington now to have them brought down. We are pressing the matter. I sent a new despatch to-day.



UNITED STATES MINIMUM TARIFF.

George Eulas Foster: I notice in the press that President Taft has issued a proclamation or made known his view with reference to the relation of certain countries to the United States as regards the minimum tariff. Amongst those mentioned as being subject to the minimum tariff is Great Britain. Does the Prime Minister know whether that includes Canada or not? I take it that it does.


Wilfrid Laurier: I take it so, but I would rather my hon. friend would put the question when the Finance Minister is in his seat.



INTEREST ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No.73) to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Miller.
On section 1,
Mr. MILLER.: When we were in committee to consider this Bill some objection was made to the wording and its consideration was deferred until some amendment might be considered. I have now to move to add this provision:
Provided, however, that nothing in this section contained shall restrict the rights of any mortgagor to repay anv overdue principal 69
or interest, whose rights to pay the same have not been affected by any contract by him entered into.
I think this amendment will get over the difficulties suggested by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley).


George Eulas Foster: I have not been able to look into this. What is the result of the section, when carried?


Henry Horton Miller: It provides that overdue principal upon a mortgage may be. repaid at any time by the mortgagor upon giving one month's notice of his intention to pay or bv paying one month's interest by way of bonus.


George Eulas Foster: That is, it nullifies any agreement between the borrower and the lender made at the time the mortgage is given as security, and without consulting the wish or will of the lender?


Henry Horton Miller: It provides that he cannot demand more interest in case of the money having been tendered or the notice given.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Is provision made in the Bill to meet the case of a mortgagor giving a month's notice but not fulfilling his notice? I have known that case to occur frequently, and it is a hardship to the mortgagee, who, on receiving notice, makes arrangements to reinvest his money, which arrangement he is prevented from carrying out.


Henry Horton Miller: It is not necessary, because it is in the hands of the mortgagee to penalize the defaulting mortgagor. He may, if he chooses, take action to enforce the covenant.


William Barton Northrup: But he may not wish to penalize. He may not wish to throw costs on the mortgagor. At the same time he does not like to be disappointed in making the investment he has promised.


Henry Horton Miller: He would be in the same position as though he had taken a mortgage for five years and the mortgagor had notified him, before the maturity of the mortgage, that he would repay it, yet fails to do so.


William Barton Northrup: In other words, two wrongs are to make a right.


Henry Horton Miller: I do not think that applies.


Mr. CARVELL.: I think that if the hon. member. (Mr. Northrup) will read the section carefully, he will find that it provides that the mortgagor must pay or tender as well as give the notice. Therefore, it is in the hands of the mortgagee to accept it or not.


Mr. ALEXANDER HAGGART.: ^ It appears to me that this is of very doubtful



benefit to the borrower. It can easily be got around by the mortgagor. As the mortgage becomes due he presses for payment of a renewal. If the mortgagor is not ready to pay, he gives a renewal which costs $5 or $10, and then mortgagee and mortgagor are back in the same position as before. I agree with what has been said by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) that this is a class of legislation very frequently brought before the House and often enacted, but of very little use to the parties whom it is expected to benefit. I think that is the experience of all practitioners.


Henry Horton Miller: I am sorry that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Alexander Haggart) was not in his place the other evening when the Bill was under discussion. I think that in practice, when a mortgage matures, if it is permitted to continue in arrears, it must be by the consent of the borrower and the lender. The mortgagee will usually permit the money to remain in arrears until' the time comes when he may call it in and lend it at an advanced rate of interest. He takes the mortgagor at that much of a disadvantage, and the mortgagor must then pay -him the increased rate of interest or go some place else and borrow the money at a higher rate. If the effect of this legislation is to make the parties at the maturity of a mortgage, enter into a renewal agreement, it has the advantage of nutting both parties on an equal footing, and each can take hia chance whether the rates go up or down.


Alexander Haggart: Look at the expense and trouble.


Henry Horton Miller: Usually, in practice, there is little or no expense as most of the loan company mortagees, at least in the province of Ontario, are sufficiently willing to retain their investment, to renew the mortgage by agreement without charge. There is sometimes a charge, rarely more than $5 and usually -only $2 or $3.
On section 2-application of sections 6 to 10.


George Eulas Foster: What is the effect of this?


Henry Horton Miller: If the hon. member (Mr. Foster) will look at the section, he will find that this is absolutely necessary. Section 11 of the Act says that the provisions of the five sections last preceding shall apply only to moneys so secured by mortgage executed after 1st July, 1880. The legislation I seek to carry to-day is not retroactive, and I am slipping in section 10a immediately before section 11, and still making section 11 apply to the sections to which it was intended to apply, but it would be absurd to make it apply to the new section I am putting in.
Bill, as amended, reported.


Mr.   ALEX@: 



HAGGART


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	,
Second reading of Bill (No. 26) respecting Co-operative Credit Societies.-Mr. Monk.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: The promoter of this Bill, who is laid up ill, has requested me, on account of another Bill that is on the Order Paper and will be moved, to move this.


Wilfrid Laurier: Several hon. members want to speak on this Bill.


George Taylor: If it stands, the similar Bill of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Harris) should stand also.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know how it has been arranged. What applies to one should apply to the other.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stand.



RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill (No. 53) to amend the Railway Act.-Mr. Meiglien.
Mr. MEIGHEN.: At the present moment, I would request that this Bill be allowed to stand. If it be in accordance with the rules, I would suggest that other orders be called and this one taken up a little later.


Wilfrid Laurier: All ri<dit.


George Perry Graham: If it stands only while one or two of these orders are dealt with, that will not help me out of my difficulty.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister in difficulty again?


Arthur Meighen: I simply ask that it stand until such time as we can complete the negotiations that are pending.


George Perry Graham: Better go on with it.


Arthur Meighen: I move the second reading of this Bill.


George Perry Graham: This is where we differ a little. This Bill and one from my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Martin) and one from my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) are Bills which materially affect the railway companies, and these companies have requested that the Bills be sent before some committee where the companies can be heard. In the case of the other Bills, with the consent of the promoters they were sent to the Railway Committee where they will be dealt with by special sub-committees. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has two Bills before special committees now. Once these Bills go before the Railway Committee, that committee will appoint a sub-committee to deal with them. Any committee we would select here would probably consist

of members of the Railway Committee. My hon. friend perhaps does not quite understand that there are 180 members on the Railway Committee.


Arthur Meighen: The ground of my objection is this, that the Bill is in the nature of an amendment to a public Act and is; in no sense a private Bill, and therefore should not go to the Railway Committee at all, but go before the Committee of the Whole House in the usual way. I am quite aware that other Bills, perhaps of a similar nature, proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, have gone to the Railway Committee and thence to special committees, and I believe also that one introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln met the same fate.


George Perry Graham: And South Toronto.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that the Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln went from this House to the Railway Committee with the consent of the mover. If the principle prevails, that amendments to public Bills should come before the Committee of the Whole House, there is no reason for sending this Bill to the Railway Committee. I am quite aware that this Bill affects railway companies and affects them very materially, but it is a Bill of a public character and there is nothing in it to affect one company more than another. It deals simply with the principle of liability, and I do not see how a subcommittee of the Railway Committee is better fitted to deal with it than the Committee of the Whole House. The principle involved is that of liability, and the Committee of the Whole House is clearly the one to discuss a principle of that sort. If it were a question of incorporating or limiting the powers of a company, the case would be different, but that is not the character of the Bill. If this Bill goes to the Railway Committee and then to a subcommittee, it will be likely to be very successfully steered outside of this session. I am very anxious such should not be the case. If the Minister of Railways will consent to the Bill going to the Committee of the Whole, I shall be willing to oblige him and wait until it is called again, but I do not want to be a party to shunting the Bill as it is likely to be if referred to the Railway Committee.


George Perry Graham: I have no desire to shunt the Bill to one side at all. I have in my make-up a good deal of fairness, and no matter what may be my own opinions, I think that tnose who are to be affected by legislation should be given an opportunity to express their views before we adopt it. Strictly speaking all these 69 i
Bills should go to the Committee of the Whole House, and not to the Committee of Railways or a sub-committee of that body at all; but when those deeply interested say they want an opportunity to be heard, I feel I ought to try and meet their views. My hon. friend from South Toronto has a Bill regarding commutation of tickets, and he consented readily to have it go before the Railway Committee where all parties might be heard. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has one which is largely a legal question, and he arranged with me, before the Bill came up, that it should go to a committee. We had some little difficulty as to the outcome but I said to him, as I say to my hon. friend, that the object was not to detain the measure at all, but rather to expedite it. I do not think that we are in a position to discuss these Bills fairly until we hear the other side.


Arthur Meighen: With regard to the Bills referred to, I heard my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) protest vigorously against his Bill being sent to a committee. The position I take this afternoon is endorsed by my hon. friend. It was he who suggested it. As regards the Bill introduced by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), it is on a subject of quite a different character. It affects the details of the management of the road regarding which the companies should be heard, but this Bill simply affects the principle of liability of railway companies in the event of loss, which is a matter this House ought to deal with in Committee of the Whole. I do not want the Minister of Railways to take it as an act of discourtesy on my part that I object to the reference to the Railway Committee. I object because I believe that means de lay. I do not believe that the railway companies have any right to be heard on a question of general public policy. I move therefore that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said Bill.
Mr. GRAHAM^ moved in amendment that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS moved the second reading of Bill (No. 74) to amend the Canada Shipping Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the same Bill that I introduced in the House last session. At that time the Bill was brought down too late to receive the consideration it would other-
[Stage Direction]
wise have received. It is a very simple Bill, its object being merely to place vessel owners of the province of Ontario on a parity with vessel owners of the other provinces with reference to pilotage dues at Montreal. The amendment proposed has been the subject of negotiations between the Ontario government and this government and has also been the. subject of very frequent representations on the part of the Dominion Marine Association which represents practically all the vessel owners on the great lakes. Sec. 477 of the Canada Shipping Act discriminates against Ontario vessels in a manner which I do not think is warranted or justifiable. That section reads as follows, speaking of ships exempt from pilotage dues:
(a)	Ships belonging to His Majesty;
(b)	Ships wholly employed in His Majesty's service, while so employed, the masters of which have been appointed by His Majesty's government, either in the United Kingdom or in Canada;	_
(c)	Ships propelled wholly or in part by steam;
(i)	Employed in trading from port to port in the same province, or
(ii)	Employed in trading between any one or more of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward Island and any other or others of them, or
(iii) Employed in voyages between any port or ports in the said provinces or any of them and the port of New York, or any port of the United States of America on the Atlantic north of New York, or
(lv.) Employed in voyages between any port in any of the said provinces and any port in Newfoundland, or
(v.) Having a draught when loaded not exceeding 16 feet, and employed exclusively in voyages between any port or ports on Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, or on any of the waters connecting those lakes and any port or ports on the River St. Lawrence, or between any ports on the River St. Lawrence.
Prior to June, 1908, subsection 5, the last section I have read, granted exemption to vessels with a draught, when loaded, not exceeding 16 feet and employed exclusively in voyages between any port or ports on the Great Lakes and the rivers connecting them and any port or ports on the St. Lawrence or between ports on the St. Lawrence. But this partial exemption was denied by the repeal of that subsection in 1908, while at the same time the vessel owners of Ontario were urging and earnestly asking to be. placed on a parity with those of the other provinces. I ask the House to fairly consider this matter. It is one which affects very large interests. There is hardly a county in the province of Ontario which is not affected by it. certainly every county in the province of Ontario bordering on the St. Lawrence or any of the great lakes, is directly affected by this Act as it now stands. Why should Mr. EDWARDS.
a vessel sailing to Montreal from Halifax or Newfoundland or New York be exempt from compulsory payment of pilotage dues and a vessel from any port on_;any of the great lakes be obliged to pay those dues? It does not seem to me to be fair and I do not think that the Marine Association are asking more than their just rights when they ask that to be changed.
I wish to call attention to by-law 25 of the Montreal Pilotage District. That bylaw reads as follows:
Every vessel liable to compulsory payment of pilotage dues and moved into or out of the limits of the harbour of Montreal or from one point to another within the same, shall pay such dues for the services of a branch pilot, except in the case of vessels which are merely shifting their positions at a wharf and attached thereto by their moorings.
The only vessels that come under that by-law of the Montreal Pilotage District are the vessels of Ontario because all those vessels which are exempt from pilotage dues under the sections which I have read are specifically mentioned as not coming under by-law 25 of the Montreal Pilotage District and consequently that by-law only applies to vessels from Ontario and subjects the owners of vessels of Ontario to an additional tax which vessels from the other provinces are not suDjected to. This is an injustice on the face of it. Ontario vessels, I repeat, only come under section 477 and therefore Ontario vessels are the only ones which come under the provisions of bv-law 25 so they are the only ones subjected to this additional tax. What benefits are received by Ontario vessel owners from this tax? None whatever. Is the liability of the owner lessened? Not in the least. Is the owner's responsibility lessened because he has to pay the tax? Not in the least. Section 474 makes this very clear. That section reads as follows:
Nothing in	this part	shall exempt	anyowner or master of any ship from liability for any	loss	or damage	occasioned by	hisship to	any	person or	property, on	the
ground either of such ship being in the charge of a licensed pilot, or of such loss or damage being occasioned by the act or default of a licensed pilot, or on any other ground.
While	the	Ontario	vessel owner	is
obliged to pay pilotage dues, he may or may not take the pilot on board:	if he
does, the taking on of that pilot does not relieve him from damages which may be caused by his boat even while he has a [DOT] pilot on board. Yet he is obliged to pay these dues from which vessel owners from other provinces are exempt!
Now, when I brought this matter up last session the Minister of Marine and Fish

eries said that an order in council had been passed providing that vessels coming through the Lachine rapids should not be obliged to pay these dues on entering Montreal harbour; he admitted that this did not apply to Ontario vessels passing through the Lachine canal. But I wish to say that the exemption to which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries referred only helped the Richelieu and Ontario boats, and one or two others, and only partly helped even them. But if, as the hon. gentleman say-s, the order in council was passed to meet the serious complaint of the Dominion Marine Association, I would then ask why the repeated protests of that association, representing as they do practically all the vessels on the Great Lakes/ should have been continually ignored? To sum the matter up. It seems to me it is proper to ask: Is there at present a distinct discrimination against Ontario vessels? I do not think any gentleman in this House can dispute the fact that there is a distinct discrimination against Ontario vessels. Secondly, if there is such discrimination, is it just and fair; and thirdly, is not that discrimination not only unfair but un-Canadian, to grant not only to vessel owners of the maritime provinces an exemption which is denied to those of Ontario, but to grant it also to Newfoundland vessels and vessels trading from New England states as far south as New York? It seems to me not only unfair to Ontario vessels but distinctly unpatriotic. I think this is something of which Ontario vessel owners have a right to complain. Large sums of money have been expended in improving the Montreal harbour for the St. Lawrence trade. It is not my purpose to criticise those expenditures, I merely wish to call attention to the fact that a portion of that money, as I may justly claim, has been paid by the people of Ontario. I merely ask what has been asked repeatedly by the Dominion Marine Association, having very large interests in the province of Ontario, that they be placed on a parity with the other provinces in this matter.
Wilfrid Laurier: It will strike every one who has listened to the remarks of my hon. friend that if the law has been framed so as to exempt the province of Ontario from the provisions applied to other provinces with regard to pilotage dues, there must have been some reason for it. Looking at the statute, I agree with my hon. friend that one cannot see the reason why Ontario was exempted,- and was not included in the section of the law which he has quoted. The law expressly mentions ships trading between one or more of the provinces- of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and mentions no others. As the hon. gentleman has said, Ontario seems
to have been purposely left out in mentioning the provinces-, and it would strike one that there must be some reason for it. The reason, as I understand, is altogether local.
I may be wrong, but it is my apprehension of the facts, that the local conditions rendered it advisable not to apply those provisions to the province of Ontario as they were applied to the other provinces mentioned. I would not, with my imperfect knowledge, presume to contradict the position taken by my hon. friend, nor to express any positive opinion. I think this is a matter deserving of more information than we have at the present time. There is on the face of it, as the hon. gentleman says, an anomaly, and surely there must be some good Teason for such an anomaly appearing in the law. Under the circumstances, I think my hon. friend will see that he would sufficiently advance the cause he has at heart by agreeing .to the second reading of his Bill, and then sending it to the Committee on Marine, where all parties can be heard, and let the matter be threshed out there.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I accept the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman that the Bill be now read a second time and sent to the Committee on Marine. I think the more the matter is looked into the more convinced this House will be that the Bill should go through.


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

Mr. GEO.: GORDON moved the second reading of Bill (No. 85) to amend the Criminal Code. He said:	As I explained on
the introduction of this Bill, it is an exact copy of an amendment which was brought .in during the last session of this House, and which was sent to the Senate on almost the last day of the session; and owing to want of explanation it was thrown out by that body. It is designed to meet the circumstance that very valuable ore, in some case nearly pure silver, has been carried away from the mines at Cobalt, and sold at what are commonly known as ' blind pigs/ where it passes in exchange for drinks. It is sold to parties who make a business of it. When these parties have accumulated a quantity worth while they take it to Toronto and other cities and sell it. The object of this Bill is primarily to put these receivers out of business. If this is done there will be an end to this business. No injustice will be done to any person by putting these receivers out of business because the mine owners do not sell mineral in small quantities. It has been found necessary both in the Transvaal and in Australia to have legislation enacted such as is sought for in this Bill. If the words in the last

line of the Bill ' prove that he came lawfully by the same ' seem too drastic there might be substituted therefor the words ' account satisfactorily for or prove his right to the possession of the same.' If this change is made I submit there should be no danger of the possessor of ore getting into any trouble. It is easy for him to prove where he got the mineral. It was brought up in the Senate that danger might arise to a person for instance a broker who held ore, but I do not think there is any danger in that regard because any broker who has ore in his possession must necessarily know where he got it from or it would be of no use to him. The ore which he has in his possession is no doubt from a person who is interested in a mine, to show what he may expect to get from that property.
I may say that recently what has taken place has proved very conclusively that unless such legislation is passed there is no knowing where the thefts which are now going on at Cobalt may end. While it would be improper to say anything here about the convictions which have recently been made owing to those thefts it might be proper for me to say, to show how valuable some of this ore is, that it was given in evidence in court in Toronto that one party had obtained in one month two tons of ore, and it was shown that this ore was worth $5 per pound; so that, in one month, that party had received $20,000 worth of silver from the Cobalt region. I therefore trust that this House, in its wisdom, will see the advisability of having this legislation enacted.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWOETH (Minister of Justice).: I am not disposed to take exception to the views which the hon. gentleman has just expressed as to the merit of this legislation. It seems absolutely necessary if any check is to be given to the evil which has been described that legislation of this nature should be passed. This House was of that opinion last session and in passing the legislation in question did so simply from the conviction, as I understood the action of the House, that it would be impossible without it to afford any effective redress in cases or this description. The evil seems certainly serious. It is a crime in respect to which there ought to be prosecution and conviction where there is guilt, and it is practically impossible to secure a conviction, no matter how plain a case, according to ordinary ideas, the evidence may show, simply because it is impossible to identify the particular piece of ore, or any quantity of ore, which may be found in the possession of the person accused, as ore which has come from a particular mine. The difficulty about the matter which was felt in the Senate last year Mr. G. GORDON.
was that it was reversing the well understood rules of criminal procedure as to the burden of proof, and that, instead of putting upon the prosecution the whole burden of proving an accused person guilty, this legislation would require the accused person to prove himself innocent.
No doubt that representation of the effect of this legislation is quite true, but the question is whether that is not justifiable in the particular case in hand and in view of the evil which it is desired to repress. It is not an unknown thing in the course of either a civil case or a criminal prosecution that the burden of proof should rest upon the person who is charged with either responsibility for the payment of damages or responsibility upon a criminal charge. There ,are many instances of it perfectly well known to practitioners in the courts, and apart altogether from instances in which the burden or presumption is at once upon or against the person charged with any particular course of action. it is an every day occurrence in trials that the burden shiits from the one side to the other side according to the special evidence which may from minute to minute or hour to hour in the course of the proceedings be given. That is all that this legislation seeks to do; it puts at the outset the burden upon the person in whose possession the ore is found to account satisfactorily for such possession. That is only another form of stating that the possession of ore, when there is a charge that it is wrongfully in the possession of the person accused, at once puts that person in the position of having a presumption raised against him. In the case of honest possession it will not be a difficult thing to rebut that presumption. Many instances have been suggested where some innocent person might be wrongfully prosecuted if this change in the law were made. It has been said for instance that a mining broker might have samples of quartz or ore in his possession and be unable to state where they came from. That has not occurred to me as any serious difficulty. The presumption which this Act might create if it became law would, in the case of the mining broker, be Te-butted the instant it arose by the circumstance of the character of his business and the fact that in the ordinary course of his business he was just the man who might be expected to be in possession of a great quantity of samples of quartz which he might not be able to identify himself or whose source he could not prove to a demonstration. However, if the phraseology of the Bill is changed, as has been suggested, the mining broker who might otherwise be charged and might be in difficulty under the phraseology of this statute, would at once rebut any prima facie presumption

which the statute would appear to raise by the mere circumstance that that was his ordinary and proper line of business.
Legislation of this character, as the hon. gentleman has stated, has been found necessary in mining communities. We have the example of legislation, not only of South Africa, but also of different states of the Australian commonwealth upon this very subject, at least as severe as anything which is proposed in this legislation. But in our own Criminal Code there are plenty of instances where such a presumption is already created by the existing law and where no evil has come from it. Take any one found in possession of naval or -military stores bearing the broad arrow or marked otherwise as being public property, at once the burden is put on that person of accounting for it satisfactorily. It is but common sense that it should be so, and in the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with evidence at trials many instances of the same sort of thing are to be found. The presence of cards, dice, counters, tables or other implements of gaming affords prima facie evidence that gaming is carried on in the place where they are found. It is but a statutory statement of the deduction and inference which any man exercising ordinary common sense would make in his own mind on finding such a condition of affairs. The finding in an unlicensed house of an unusually large quantity of intoxicating liquor at once affords the presumption that it is there for an unlawful purpose, that it is kept for sale instead of for private consumption. Things of that sort found in legislative enactment, as I have pointed out, simply state in words and by Act of parliament that which is the ordinary inference that any jury would draw from such circumstances if proved before them in evidence. I think, therefore, that this legislation is meritorious. I regret that it was not adopted last year by the Senate, and I support entirely the motion of my hon. friend for the second reading. When the Bill goes to committee I shall propose that it should not extend to or have application in the Yukon territory, simply for the reason that the conditions o,f placer mining _ are quite different from those of quartz mining. In the Yukon at one time, and perhaps still, it was quite the custom to use nuggets of gold, the results of placer mining, as currency. Each man carried his pouch in which he had such gold dust as he had won during the day or week and it passed current by weight and probably does so still. At any rate that is a very different thing. The possession of quartz of greater or less value having possibly a very high percentage of precious metal and in the whole amounting to considerable sums by some person who is not a regular dealer
is something which seems to require to be accounted for and we have already upon our Criminal Code a provision of that character with regard to workmen and labourers. Section 988 of the Criminal Code provides that in any prosecution proceeding or trial for stealing ores or minerals, the possession, contrary to the provision of any law in that behalf, of any smelted gold or silver or any goldbearing quartz or any unsinelted or unmanufactured gold or silver by any operator, workman or labourer actively engaged in or on any mine shall be prima facie evidence that the same has been stolen by him. That has been our law for ten years or more. I do not know that any one has ever found any difficulty from it or been wrongfully prosecuted under it. This legislation is on the same lines and I cannot but think if its effect and the reason for its introduction had been appreciated in the other House, the Bill would not have met with the fate which bqfell it last year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. The Criminal Code, chanter 146 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, is amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 424:-
424a. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, having in his possession or on liis premises with his knowledge any rock, ore, mineral, stone, quartz or other substance containing gold or silver, or any unsmelted, or untreated, or unmanufactured, or parr.ly smelted, partly treated or partly manufactured gold or silver, is unable to prove that he came lawfully by the same.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think it would be better_ to change the wording. I would suggest The striking out of the words 'is unable to prove that he came lawfully by the same' and substitute 'is unable to account satisfactorily for or prove his right to the possession of the same'. These are the words of the Act of the Transvaal applying to the case of any person found in possession of rough or uncut diamonds, and unable to prove his right to the possession of the same.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I move that the following be added as subsection 424b:
This Act shall not extend or apply to the Yukon Territory.


Mr. CONMEE.: I think the amendment would be more effective if it were made simply to exclude placer gold from the operation of the Act. If confined to quartz mining, it will apply to the Yukon as well as to any other part of the Dominion

If my information be correct, there are very rich quartz veins in that territory, which, if not operated, will be operated in the near future, and the necessity of the law will be as great there as anywhere else. As to the Bill affecting the broker, I do not think that would be the case, because the object is to bring to book not only the person in whose possession the ore may be found but the person who sells it. The broker may have considerable samples in his office, but no broker that I know of sella ore.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I think the wording of this amendment should be modified. This is to be included as section 424b and it might be held to relate to the Criminal Code and to exclude it from application to the Yukon. It should be made to read in some such way as this:
The foregoing section shall not extend or apply to the Yukon Territory.
To provide in the Criminal Code that 'this Act shall not extend or apply to the Yukon territory' might lead to confusion.


Mr. PARDEE.: Section 424 of the Criminal Code is cognate legislation with this which is now being put through the House. It is divided into sub-sections (a), (b), (c) and (d), and the last provides 'the two next preceding subsections' (b) and (c) 'shall not extend or apply to the Yukon territory'.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I say. But I understand that this provision which we are now discussing is to be embodied in the Criminal Code as section 424b. If it were left in the form proposed, it might have the effect of preventing the Criminal Code from having any application to the Yukon territory. It says: 'This Act'-not 'this section'-'shall not extend or apply to the Yukon territory'. That is, according to this amendment, the Criminal Code, shall not apply to the Yukon territory, which would be unfortunate. The words used should be 'the foregoing section',
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 39) to amend the Railway Act. -Mr. M. Martin.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the Ways and Means for rais-Mr. CONMEE
ing the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Mr. OLIVER J. WILCOX (North Essex).: It was not my intention to offer any argument in this debate, but as I have ceased to be the baby member of this House, and as my colleagues on this side, together with some friends whom, I am glad to say, I have on the other, have urged me to speak, I make my first attempt to take part in a debate on the budget. I listened yesterday to the argument of the hon. the Minister of Customs, and from what he said one would come to the conclusion that the Liberal party in this country had accomplished everything they had undertaken by promises to do.	But there
is one thing I am absolutely sure they did not succeed in doing, notwithstanding they were backed by all the force and power of the government- they did not capture the riding of North Essex in the late bye-election. I was opposed by the Minister of Railways and Canals and by the Secretary of State and two very estimable gentlemen from the sister province of Quebec. I welcomed them and gave them almost control of my meetings. The electorate of the riding of North Essex came out and listened to. these hon. gentlemen. Although the people of Essex are a very kind and hospitable people and came out in great numbers to listen to what these gentlemen had to say, the next day they went about their ordinary work and evidently they did not pay much attention to what the hon. gentlemen said, and they had a reason for that. They remembered that these gentlemen, or if not the same gentlemen, those who propounded the policy, came before the electorate of the riding of North Essex in 1881 and in 1892 and addressed the electorate of North Essex with the same eloquence; but the voters had the recollection that these gentlemen, or if not the same gentlemen, had different policies to lay before them in 1881 or 1892. Consequently it is not any wonder that the grand, intelligent electors of the riding of North Essex should go about their business after these hon. gentlemen were there and not pay much attention to what thev said?
Another _ reason for my occupying the proud position of member of parliament for the riding of North Essex is the violation by the Liberals of that plank in their platform of which the Minister of Customs did not speak yesterday, that is the appointing of members of parliament to positions of emolument and public trust. Sir William Mulock declared in this House that any member of parliament who accepted a position of public trust from the hands of the government or any man who was looking for a position was a menace to parlia-

mentary independence, a corrupt agency in parliament, and a parasite upon the administration. It is interesting to inquire what has become of the representatives of ,the people who were sent to this House to [DOT] represent the county for which I now have the honour to represent. In 1896 the policy of free trade was preached in every corner and every school house, upon every hustings in that border riding. The representative of the party which to-day holds the reins of power in this country said to the intelligent electorate in my presence;. Put the rascals out, these customs house officers because we are going to have free trade with the United States if you return us to power. And with all the force and power in their ability they educated the people in the riding of North Essex, who were anxious to get across to. the city of Detroit, into the principles of free trade until the morning after June the 3rd, when William McGregor was returned to this parliament for North Essex. So great a hold did that education take, that for a fact some people of that riding went across the Detroit river and actually refused to pay the duty to the American customs house on account of the promises that had been given . Yet the Minister of Customs, (Hon. William Paterson) rises here as he did yesterday and makes the statement to this House and to this country that they did not preach or advocate free trade in the election of 1896. I took his statement as a joke. I believe the hon. gentlemen opposite took it as a joke and I am sure the people of this country will take it as a joke for there is not a school boy of ten years I believe in the whole of Canada who does not thoroughly understand that it was a plank in the Liberal policy that we should have free trade with the United States if the Liberals were elected.
But I was speaking of what had become of those servants and representatives of the people who had been returned by the electorate of North Essex since 1896, for I am the first man, I am proud to say, upon this side of the House who has had the honour of representing my fellow countrymen in that county in the last twenty-one years. William McGregor, who preached free trade and was elected on that policy in 1896 was, two or three years afterwards, placed by this government in one of the most import-and positions of public trust in the customs house at the port of Windsor. A free trader! Then we have another hon. gentleman who was a representative of the agricultural classes. The government did not, I believe, appoint him to office. I refer now to Mr. Cowan. How we Conservatives and Liberals in the riding of North Essex, believed in the principles which he advocated in the interest of agriculturalists in respect to drainage across railways, a subject on which I hope I will have something to say later on. Sir, what has become of this representative of the people? It was not wrong for one of the great railway corporations of this country to say to Mr. Cowan. We want you in our service, we want you to sacrifice the interests of the grand old farmers you are representing in North Essex. Mr. Cowan took the bait, and he is to-day in the courts fighting against the interests of the farmers. I will not say so much against my friend Mr. Sutherland. He is occupying an important position upon the bench, and I agree that he is a man who will be able to fill the position with dignity, he is a gentleman whom I respect. But let me say this, that his appointment is not a fulfilment of the policy of the government when they were in opposition, that members of parliament should not be appointed to positions of public trust, seeing that they had been sent here to serve the people. It is in the light of these facts that the electors of North Essex and of the city of Windsor have seen fit to pick a farmer like myself out from among the shocks of corn and send him to parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Customs yesterday undertook to make it appear to the members of this House that the Liberal Conservative party had no part in the prosperity that Canada enjoys to-day ; he would make it appear that the great political party which laid the foundation of the government which we enjoy to-day, has done nothing to make this country what it is. Sir, I think that the hon. gentleman made a grossly exaggerated statement. It would be a reasonable question for me to ask him what he actually found within the confines of the Dominion of Canada when he came into office in the year 1896. You might start at the great port of Montreal, and you would find a double line of steel reaching out from that port across the province of Quebec, out along the north shore of Lake Superior to Winnipeg, down across the province of Manitoba to Lethbridge, with rail communication of such a nature in the southern portion of Manitoba that I believe it was not possible for a settler in that province, in the year 1896, to place his foot upon any portion of Canadian soil which was ijiore than 15 or 16 miles from direct rail communication. You found more. You found that great line of railway reaching across the Rocky Mountains, down across the province of British Columbia to the blue waters of the Pacific, through that magnificent stretch of country every foot of which has been opened up by a Conservative administration. That same hon. gentleman who addressed this House yesterday afternoon, was to be found during those years previous to 1896 upon every platform and upon every hustings which it was possible for him to reach, criticising

every act of the administration that brought into existence that magnificent public work which cemented all the provinces of Canada together. Sir, what else could you find? You could start at Vancouver and Victoria, and see there a magnificent line of steamships sailing from those ports to the town of Hong Kong in China. That great line of communication was opened up by a Conservative government in spite of all the Minister of Customs of to-day and his friends could do to harass and impede them and which he said yesterday had done absolutely nothing for this country in which we live and move. What else do you find? Another magnificent line of steamships going out from St. John and Halifax down to the Argentine Republic in South America. What else? You found that the independence of our country had been solved. You found the magnificent waterways which were opened up in 1896. You found the magnificent line of steamboats coming down from the west freighted with the produce of that great country to the port of Montreal, in 1896. .When I think of the advantage which our friends opposite had when they came into power, the knowledge, the experience which had been acquired by the the Liberal Conservative party during the years they ruled this country, it seems to me that a man has a good deal of audacity when he rises before this House of Commons any says that this country is what it is to-day as a rusult of the policy of the present government. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I am a man who would refrain from attempting to take credit for what other men have done, men who lived and moved with power and force in Ibis' country when my hon. friends opposite-were babes in arms, politically; men who lived and moved with power and -force in this land, and whose noble deeds and acts hav.e made the land in which we live what it is. For example, suppose we take an ordinary farmer in this country, a reasonably prosperous agriculturist. I do not blush myself because I am one of and a representative of that particular class, because I realize that I am a representative of one of the most important classes in this country. Now, suppose we take a farmer who has worked his whole life and who has become physically incapacitated to carry on his farm any longer, and he hands it over to his son. His son takes that home, he paints the cornice of the house, he puts up a post here and there, he runs a fence around it, and then he says to the passer-by: Look at my beautiful home, I have done all this- in the last few years. What would his father say? Well, Sir, the position of that son is the position that the Liberal party occupy to-day, men, some of whom were not born when those grand an-d noble men were at Mr. WILCOX.
work in the pioneer days of this Dominion, making it the great heritage for generations to come; and yet, according to the Minister of Customs* all that has been accomplished has all been done in the last twelve and three-quarter years.
As I listened attentively to the speech of that hon. gentleman I was inclined to the view that he was trying to believe what he was saying. But his speech was delivered altogether from a partisan standpoint. It was delivered, as it appeared to me, for the express purpose of going out to the constituencies and making something appear that did not exist. I declare here from the place I occupy in this House that I trust, whether it shall be my privilege to represent a constituency in this parliament for a long or short period, I shall never get so wrapped up within the thrall of party politics that I shall put my party above my country, and above truth. If there is a position that I do admire and one that I would be pleased to take it is the position that was declared by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on the 29th March last when he introduced the motion in the House affecting the naval defence of this country together with the position which the right hon. the leader of the government took upon that question and the position which was taken bv the. hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). This is a great national question, a question of mighty public import, therefore, we shall consider the question upon its merits without having any regard to party politics. This was the position then taken. I admire the position taken by the leader of my party in that regard. It is exactly the position I intend to take myself. I was amazed at the non. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), last evening in speaking upon the budget, when he made the statement that they were of on? accord on that side of the House on this particular question an-d that we on this side of the House were not united. Well, Sir. in view of the position which has been taken by the right hon. leader of the government himself I declare that we are more in accord with the policy which has been laid down by the leaders of this party than is the hon. member for Assiniboia himself. I do not believe it is within the range of human possibility that the 146 members who constitute the party on the government side of the House can be of one accord upon any one question unless they are actuated by party politics. It is not human nature to be that way. Upon that question of such mighty public import. we, as true patriotic Canadians, will express our opinions according to the dictates of our own conscience regardless of party considerations.
The hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) spoke at great length yesterday

afternoon regarding the tariff. In view of what I had read in my past life of the addresses which that hon. gentleman delivered himself previous to 1896, I was amazingly surprised and entertained by the statements which he made. The hon. gentleman spoke of the tariff. He had stood upon the hustings in days gone by and had declaimed about robbers great and robbers small and about the tall chimneys that were being built up by the tariff. Now, it seems to me, that by going over the tariff as it exists to-day it will be found that the average dutv upon dutiable products coming into the country is about 28-75 per cent. The average duty in 1896 was within 89-100th of one per cent the same as it is to-day. So, - the tariff which was in existence during the years previous to 1896 is exactly the same in principle as the tariff which we have to-day.


An hon. MEMBER.: With a different name.


Oliver James Wilcox: Well, yes, with a different name. I know, every hon. gentleman on this side of the House knows and I am absolutely sure that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House know that it is beyond the contol of any government to legislate prices, that all the government can do is to so frame its fiscal policy that when a time of commercial expansion prevails throughout the whole world Canada shall enjoy its fair share of it, and the fact that the rate of tariff is, practically the same today as it was in 1896 this prima. facie evidence that the fiscal policy under which this country has enjoyed so much prosperity is exactly the same as that which was in existence before hon. gentlemen opposite came into power.
There is a remark that I wish to make regarding the tariff unon Indian corn. Two or three hon. gentlemen made reference to that particular item. I am sorry to say that I am not as yet sufficiently acquainted with the House to be able to state their exact names or the constituencies which they represent. Reference was made to the fact that the government had taken the duty off Indian corn and allowed corn to come in for the benefit of the farmers of this country. I represent the riding of North Essex, there is the riding of South Essex, there is the ridings of East and West Kent, and Indian corn is chief product of these ridings. The farmers up there say corn is king. They say it is king because the production of that cereal is their chief industry. So that the action of this government in taking the duty off corn was certainly against the best interests of the people in that particular part of the country which makes almost a specialty of this crop. While the farmers of Essex and Kent produce a large amount of corn they
are not able to produce the amount called for by the demands of the country. Thus while they suffer while having to compete with Indian corn from the United States there is one condition in connection with that trade which is scandalous and ridiculous. That is that we ini the county of Essex are discriminated against by freight rates which give the American farmer the advantage in eastern Ontario over us in the county of Essex. I have to pay to-day 17 cents a 109 pounds to ship my corn to the grain merchants here in the eastern part of the province while it can be brought from Chicago for about the same price, and I believe the rate from Detroit is 13 cents. An hon. member informs me that the rate from Chicago is 12i cents. We shipped a cargo the other day at 17 cents a hundred pounds. I desire to bring this to the attention of the government, I am pointing out to them that if such a condition does exist, as it does, if we are to submit to American competition without any protection-and we are producers as well as the manufacturers, we are producing the raw material, we are producing what is more important than the produce ol the manufacturer, the food stuffs of the country-it is unfair that we should be discriminated against in freight rates in this manner. Incidentally may I ask why, if it is a good policy to take the duty off Indian corn and allow American corn to come in free, would it not be a magnificent policy to take the duty off corn cultivators^ so that we could get a cultivator to cultivate our corn? A free cultivator for free corn. The effect of the absence of duty and of this gross discrimination is that the farmer of the western states has the corn market of Canada on more favourable terms than we who make a specialty of corn growing in Essex and Kent.
Speaking of the tariff, the statement of hon. gentlemen that we wish to build a tariff wall as high as Heaven does not necessarily make that assertion true. I know his statement is not in accordance with the facts but I believe that it is unfair that I as a representative farmer in the riding of North Essex, growing hay, and horses, and cattle, must pay a higher duty if I wdsh to take my products into the United States than the American farmer has to pay to bring his products into Canada. The American farmer can bring his hay into Canada at $2 a ton but I have to pay $4 a ton to get mine into the American market. I believe that is not a proper condition of things. I have pointed out to the government that it can be remedied and I believe by the' expression on the face of the Minister of Public works just now that he intends to

remove it. Another instance of the same unfair condition is the duty on eggs on which I have to pay 6 cents a dozen against the American farmer's 3 cents a dozen. While I am a producer I am a consumer as well in some respects, but in so far as I am a producer engaged in the most important industry in this country, I am entitled to protection as well as the manufacturer. The farmers as a representative class in this country have to pay a great deal in taxation. As the tillers of the soil producing the raw material which keeps the wheels of machinery revolving it was said of the farmers that during the financial crisis of a few years ago they, through the application of knowledge and skill and science to the tilling of the soil we are able to bring from mother earth millions of dollars of, raw products more than had been produced the year before, and when those products went out upon the markets of the world they brought back into the country in which we live those shining dollars which sent this country on her way in peace and abiding peace and we trust we shall have continued pros-peritv. This is the class we represent in this House, and when I represent the agricultural class, then, Sir, I am working in the interests of the merchant, the doctor, the lawyer, the labourer and all classes of men, because it is the foundation industry of the country. I am sorry there are not more of my class here, but I believe that the time is not far distant when the farmers of this country will have more to say upon the affairs of this country than they have to-day. We are the people, we are the men who bear the burdens in this country largely. What have we to pay? We start at the foot of the .ladder and we pay our township tax, we pay our school tax, we pay our ditch tax to drain our soil, we pay our county tax. Then the provincial government comes along and takes another grab at us. Then the Dominion government comes along and we have to pay some $130,000,000, the greater portion of it, to carry on the expenditures of this country when the hon. gentlemen opposite said they would reduce the expenditure when it was only $41,000,000.
Reference has been made by the hon. member for Peterborough and by another hon. gentleman on the other side of the House to the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is one of the grandest institutions ever established in this country in the interest of the common people. But I do not pretend to say that the government is entitled to the credit of creating that body; I say that to parliament is due that credit. If, as a representative of the people and a member of the Liberal-Conservative party, I rise in my place here and Mr. WILCOX.
support any good measure, I am just as much entitled to credit for that measure as if I were a member of the government. Suppose that upon the great and important question now before us, the Naval Bill, we decide upon the principle of considering this question without regard to party politics, that has been laid, down by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the Prime Minister-and I venture to believe that if we carry out that principle honestly and conscientiously, you will find men on both sides of the House for and against it, should not the whole House get the credit? And let me say, I do concur in the position taken by the leaders of the" two political parties in that regard. But that is aside from my present argument. There are some amendments relating to drainage across railways that should be passed in the interest of the community at large. Though, I am, as I have said, a representative of the agricultural class, I am not one of those who would impose a great burden on our railway corporations. I realize that these corporations are necessary and their interests must be protected, and I am ready to stand on the floor of this House or in committee and protect the interests of those corporations so far as justice and reason demand. But there is a provision in the statute which is not necessary for the protection of the railway companies and which works most detrimentally to the interest of the farmery. I might mention several points, but let me speak of one particularly. In Ontario we drain our soil under the provisions of the special Drainage Act of the province, or under the Ditches and'Watercourses Act, or by individual effort. The people's way of draining-not the municipal councils' but the people's way-is under the Ditches and Watercourses Act. The provisions work out in this way: Suppose that there are four or five men engaged in agriculture whose land is immediately adjacent to a railway right of way. The railway has built a considerable embankment which has stopped the natural flow of the water and it is absolutely necessary, in order to bring that land into a state fit for cultivation, that there should be an outlet across this right of way. Under form 9-1 think it is-of the Ditches and Watercourses Act, we will inform all parties interested, including the railway company, that it is necessary to have a drain constructed. The Act is right and fair. But go a step further. After the award is made under the Ditches and Watercourses Act by a competent engineer appointed by the municipal corporation for that purpose, if any of the private landowners is not pleased

with any provisions of the award, he has a right to appeal to the county judge whose decision is final. But if the railway company is dissatisfied to whom does it make appeal? To the county judge? No, Sir, it will appeal to the Railway Commission of the Dominion. In ordinary cases of this kind the expense of bringing the farmer to the Railway Commission is twice as much as it would cost to do the actual work. I say that the appeal of the railway company should be to the county judge the same as in the case of the farmer, for I do not admit that a corporation should have higher rights or privileges, than an ordinary landowner.
Again, the construction of local telephones is a question that is of deep interest to the people in the rural districts-in western Ontario it interests the people more than any other question that I know of to-day. The Dominion Railway Act contains a provision relating to railways which seriously handicaps us from getting our lines across the right of way of a railway, a provision that is quite unnecessary, for the interest of the railway companies can easily be protected without it. I have superintended the construction of at least a hundred miles of rural telephone lines in the county of Essex. When we come to the right of way of a railway, the actual work of making the crossing will cost us about $20. But if we attempt to string our wires across the right of way, notwithstanding that we are the farmers and taxpayers of that community, the men who have made the country by building roads and by other means of development, we are met by some representatives of the railway company from Detriot, New York, Boston, or some other place, who demand to know what right we have to do the work until we have the permission of the Railway Commission. That is ihe law. In my opinion, it is quite unnecessary to have such a provision in the law. I would not hesitate to say that the law should be kept unchanged if it were fairly in the interests of the railway companies to have it so, but it is not necessary. Under the law, we have to procure four plans-one for ourselves, two for the Railway Commission and one to be served on the railway company at a cost of $20. We have to employ a solicitor to make application to the Board of Railway Commissioners for an order to cross our wires on the company's right of way. In most cases, it costs from $50 to $75 to get through the preliminaries when about $15 or $25 will do the actual work. The Railway Act itself ought to contain a provision empowering companies to string their wires across the right of way of a
railway company, according to a standard specification set up by the Board of Railway Commissioners. Let the board make an order setting forth a standard specification and then give the municipalities the right to string wires across the tracks according to that standard, and the officers of the railways will be sure to see that the work is done according to that standard, and we shall be saved from $50 to $100 on every crossing.
I intended making a few remarks respecting taxation, but as that matter has been, fully gone into I shall not detain the House further, and before resuming my seat I would like to thank hon. members for the) kind attention they have given me on this myjirst effort to address the House.


Mr. W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland,-N.B.).: The hon. gentleman from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox), who has just spoken, told the House he was its baby member. Well, considering some of the statements he made, I think he deserves that cognomen. The first point he attempted to make was that free trade had been preached on. every hustings by the Minister of Customs,, and that in addition the slogan of the Lib-, eral party was-:	Put the rascals out. If
the hon. gentleman were present yesterday afternoon and heard the Minister of Customs put forward the platform of the Liberal party, he had no right to make the statement he did. It was my privilege and pleasure to have attended the Liberal convention in the year 1893; and if there was one thing which impressed me more than another, if there was one principle enunciated more clearly than another, it was that the policy of the Liberal party was a tariff for revenue purposes and a tariff bearing as lightly as possible on the necessaries of life which are consumed in the workingman's household. The hon. gentleman, in speaking of his own election contest, said that the farmers in his constituency paid no attention to the speeches of the ministerial representatives but kept on husking corn. I am quite sure they did, or the hon. gentleman would not be here. But it seems to me he has husking of the corn on the brain this afternoon, because when attempting to show that we were continuing the protective tariff of the Conservative party, he, in the next breath turned around and told us that we had taken off the duty from Indian corn for the use of the masses. To my mind the one statement contradicted the other. What we thought wrong about the protective policy of our predecessors was that it was protection for the classes. Now, the masses use Indian corn. It is used down by the sea, where it is not grown. Is it fair that on such a commodity used by the people, there should be a tax in the interests of|

the farmers of any particular locality? It seems to me that the hon. gentleman is not logical. Let me remind him that he omitted to make the statement that the Conservative party had allowed corn to come in free for distilling purposes, hut that the farmers had to pay the duty. It seems to me that his argument is strongly in favour of the policy of the Liberal party, who have changed our tariff policy and put it on a revenue basis rather than on a protective basis.
The hon. gentleman made some references to the giving of positions of trust by this government to those who had been members of parliament, and in that connection he mentioned the name of a gentleman who was a member of parliament many years ago, but who is now solicitor of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I fail to grasp the point which the hon. gentleman made.
I fail to grasp the point the hon. gentleman made on that occasion. It seems to me that if the Grand Trunk railway considered Mr. Cowan a suitable employee, they were right to engage him and that it is no fault of the present administration. If Mr Cowan had the ability it was the right of the Grand Trunk to engage his services.
The hon. gentleman asks what the Minister of Finance found when he came into office in 1896. That was a very pertinent question. One thing that the minister found when he came into office was that for the preceding three years there was not sufficient money in the treasury to pay the ordinary running expenses of the country. He found that in the last five years of the Conservative party they had added to the public debt $21,000,000, that they had expended only $16,000,000 chargeable to capital account; the balance, $5,000,000, was borrowed on the money markets of the world to pay ordinary run-, ning expenses. That is wnar the minister found when he came into office in 1896. If you examine the public accounts you will find that for nearly every year under the Conservative regime more money was borrowed than was expended on capital account.
Another statement made by the hon. gentleman was that every foot of the west had been opened by the Conservative party. That statement is so * extreme it hardly needs an answer, considering the development in the west during the last twelve and a quarter years. Where was the population of the west twelve and three-quarters years ago? Does he take credit for the population we have now? Yes, forsooth, it has all come because of the policy of the Conservative party up to 1896. He speaks of the magnificent lines of steamers. When did the magnificent lines of Mr. LOGGIE.
steamers come on? Have they not been aided by the present administration? How could such steamers as the Allan line now bring to Montreal come up the St. Lawrence river twelve and three-quarter years ago if there was no money available from the revenues of the country to dredge that channel? We know that the St. Lawrence channel has been dredged and deepened so that steamers of that class can reach; the great commercial metropolis of this country, and yet the hon. gentleman has the audacity to tell us that these magnificent lines of steamers are due to the administration of the Conservative party up to 1896. I shall later have an opportunity of analysing the expenditures for such great public works as the dredging of our waterways and show you what a very small percentage was available for that purpose during the regime of the Liberal-Conservative party, when, as I tell you, they were borrowing money for every dollar expended on capital account, and had not even enough to meet the ordinary running expenses. What stockholders would like to have their officials come before them and state that during the preceding three years they had not been able to raise sufficient revenue to pay operating expenses, and had to borrow money to pay their ordinary running expenses? Would an official care to say that if they added a new boiler that would also have to be charged to capital account? That was exactly the position during the last five years of the Conservative regime. The hon. gentleman said that some one had the audacity to say that this country is what it is today because of the work of the Liberal party. I do not know that any one ever said that, but I would judge from the hon. gentleman's sneech that his declaration is that the country is what it is because of the administration of the Conservative party. It seems to me that we should not forget that Providence has not very much to do with the extension of prosperity in the country, but that at the helm there has been a very wise captain keeping the ship from touching the rocks:-and the time of prosperity is the time perhaps when there is the greatest danger. Some two years ago on the horizon out in the west there was a danger flag. Asiatics were coming into the country and over-flooding this land-that was the cry. But the wise captain at the helm advised caution and patience. The interests of British Columbia would be protected and looked after, but higher and above all that, the honoured leader was loyal to the British flag and he said: Treaty rights must have their due place and their first place, and it seems to me that this is an evidence of wise and practical statesmanship.

The hon. gentleman likened the government to a young farmer who, on succeeding his father in the possession of the farm, goes out and paints the cornice of the house and says: Look at my beautiful home. The insinuation is that the Liberal party have taken possession of the beautiful home of the Conservative party, painted the cornices and are now saying to the country: Look at my beautiful home, whereas, it was the father, the Conservative party, who built the house. Mr. Speaker, when we think of the expenditure in this country during the last twelve and three-quarter years and of the public works, great and small that have been erected, of the great increase in trade, both exports and imports, we wonder whether such a statement is the statement of a man of a sound mind?
Now the hon. gentleman made another statement regarding the Minister of Customs, he said that when he addressed the House yesterday he did not believe himself what he was saying. Well, it is all very well for the hon. gentleman to say that, but it does not make it a fact. I do not know on what ground he based his statement; all I can say is that I deny it. I say that the Minister of Customs was fair, he read all the resolutions adopted by the great Liberal party; the Minister of Customs was frank, he told the whole story. Yet the hon. gentleman has the audacity to say across the floor of this House that the Minister of Customs did not believe the statement he was making. I think that if the minister were here he would be justified in asking the hon. gentleman to recall that statement, and I have no doubt he would agree to do so, providing the minister would be a good boy afterwards.
The hon. gentleman also made reference to the naval question, and I concur in much of what he said regarding that matter. X think we ought to treat that as a great national question, and keep it as far as possible outside of party politics. I want to say here that I think the country is to be congratulated on the unanimity of opinion expressed a year ago when this House unanimously passed a resolution on the naval question. I think I can go further, I think I can say on behalf of hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces that we all respect the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) who leads His Majesty's loyal opposition in this House, and it was pleasant to know that that hon. gentleman stands by the resolution unanimously passed in this House. Let me say that I wish he could foster among his followers the same loyalty and fidelity to the British flag. Let us be of one mind and one heart in this great national undertaking. When the Minister of Finance said in his
budget speech that this was a growing time for Canada, I think he might have said that it was an epoch making time in the history of Canada. The departure we are now making in building a fleet and controlling it in times of peace, ii seems to me is a great national event, and might well be considered as forming an epoch in the history of this rising nation.
The hon. gentleman also referred to an argument of the Minister of Customs yesterday when he spoke about the tariff wall being made as high as Heaven. Well, I suppcfse that if the tariff wall was made as high as Heaven, then we should have to resort to direct taxation; but I do not think that is the policy of either political party, and it seems to me the remarks of the hon. gentleman were hardly pertinent to the matter under consideration. Another statement he made, and I suppose he made it on the same principle, in the same sense that he says the Minister of Customs made his statement, whether he was saying it from his mind or not, he said that it was unfair to allow the Americans to bring in hay at $2 per ton, while the United States government charged $4 per ton on hay gome from Canada into that country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that is an unusual doctrine, it is a doctrine that the Canadian pays the rate exacted by the American t.ariff, and that the American pays the rate exacted by the Canadian tariff. I have always understood the very reverse to be the fact, that the Canadian pays the rate exacted by his own government, and the American pays the rate exacted by the congress of the United States. But the hon. gentleman reverses that principle. I fail to understand the policy of imposing a customs duty if the hon. gentleman's argument is a logical one. Sir, I know whereof I speak, I say there may be one case out of a hundred where the exports pays the duty. But in all ordinary transactions in trade, the importer and the consumer pay the customs duty. Therefore I think the hon. gentleman's argument does not bear on the subject before the House, except in this sense, that he wants the duty raised to $4 as a further protection to the farmer. I think the hon. gentleman is like every other manufacturer, he wants to have an undue rate of duty placed on commodities at the expense of the general public. He says further that the farmers are entitled to protection as well as the manufacturers. One would suppose that there was no protection afforded to the farmers in this country. The hon. gentleman ought to know that the farmers have a very liberal share of protection. If he had been in the House last year he would remember that the hon. member from Frontenac (Mr. COMMONS
Edwards) made a plea for an additional duty on hog products, and he was informed that there was at present a duty of two cents per pound on those products. So the farmers who raise hogs are certainly protected. As I had occasion to say once before, perhaps hog and cattle products are the only articles in regard to which the system of protection has been retained by the present administration, because rates of specific duties on these items have not been changed.


William Cameron Edwards: You say that we have a duty of two cents on bacon coming from other countries?


William Stewart Loggie: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: And that the farmer is protected?


William Stewart Loggie: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: From whom is he protected by the two cents duty?


William Stewart Loggie: He is protected by getting a better price than he would ' otherwise get for his bacon.


William Cameron Edwards: But the American duty is five cents a pound on our bacon going into the United States.


William Stewart Loggie: That has nothing to do with my argument-nothing whatever to do with it. The point I make is that if there were no duty on a barrel of pork it would be laid down in Montreal for $4 less than it is to-day and go into the consumers' hands at that much less cost to them. The farmer to-day gets practically two cents a pound more for his hog products than he would if the duty were not ini existence.	,


An hon. MEMBER.: And the artisan pays


William Stewart Loggie: And the artisan-and the consumer-of course, pays. It seems to me that that is the logical conclusion. I cannot explain it if the hon. gentleman does not understand that.
On motion of Mr. Loggie debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock, House adjourned.


William Stewart Loggie: Thursday, January 20, 1910.