1911-05-18

THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GUTHRIE moved that Bill (No. 220) to incorporate the Albert and Moncton Railway Company be placed on the orders of this day, immediately after routine proceedings, for consideration in Committee of the Whole, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twenty-second report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
* Mr. SPROULE. I think there is too much of this kind of procedure of late. It gives very little time for consideration; the Bill will no doubt be taken up at once. 'Then we are not by any means at the end of the session, but only going to adjourn for a while. The Bill cannot be delayed 'long, and I think it should stand over 'until after the adjournment.
Mr. MONK.: The Bill for the Albert railway was adopted by the committee without any amendment, and this seems to be the only opportunity offered to pass the Bill. There is no controversy about it. I do not see any reason why we should not get rid of that Bill.


Mr. EMMERSON.: While agreeing with the general remarks of my hon. friend from Grey (Mr., Sproule), I want to say with respect to this Bill that unless it is passed now it will very materially delay the development of the shale interests in Albert county. They have for many years lain dormant, but there is every prospect now that, if facilities are not afforded, the English capitalists who are on the spot, and have been on the spot, may be delayed in developing that property. The railway runs from Hillsboro, where large plaster quarries are situated, out into the Baltimore district where the shale quarries are found. The distance to Moncton is about twenty miles. It is for industrial development, and simply because we are going to have a recess is no reason why, if it is at all possible, to have this Bill passed, it should be delayed. We want to go into this business at once, and why should the Bill be delayed until September?


Mr. PERLEY.: Will the hon. gentleman state why the Bill was so late in coming before the House?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It came from the Senate. The parties from England only came over late during the session, arrange-

ments were only completed very recently, and I think they have moved in the matter with great expedition. It has only been possible to reach this Bill from the Senate within a 'day or two, and I felt it my duty, in the interests of that section of the country, to attempt to expedite the Bill. I do not see that any interests will suffer; the Bill is not contentious. It is a standard Bill and passed through the Railway Committee unanimously.
1 Mr. SPROULE. We do not touch private Bills to-day, this being Thursday, and we will reach private Bills to-morrow, when it is very likely to pass. Therefore, there is no urgency from that standpoint. If it passed the committee without any amendment. there is not likely to be any delay in the House. Let it take its natural order and come up to-morrow evening with out any motion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is the private Bills ahead of this one that will prevent its being considered to-morrow. We have only one hour. It would only take a minute to pass this Bill.	.


Mr. SPROULE.: I am not opposed to the Bill; I am only drawing attention to what I think is the commencement of a bad nractice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. GUTHRIE moved that the House go into committee on the Bill.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee thereon.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it that the House is moved into Committee of the Whole on this Bill now before we have reached the orders of the day? I see no Teason why we should not go on to the questions put by members according to the order of precedence. Why should we disarrange our Order Paper for the sake of shoving a Bill through a few minutes ahead of time? It does not require to go 'back to the Senate again. What is the urgency?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the objection of my hon. friend is out of order now. If we violated the rules a moment ago when the Speaker was in the Chair, that is no reason why we should continue to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the motion as read out from the Chair that this [DOT]Bill be put on the Orders this day, and that the rules be suspended to allow that to be done. Now it is put on first before we reach the orders of the day. That is what I object to.
1 Mr. EMMERSON. That was not my fault.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: In view of a misapprehension, as my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) understood it was to come after questions put by members, we had better take up questions put by members first.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have no objection.
Progress reported.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated !by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MONK.
1.	At the time of the lease granted by the
government to the National Hydro-Electric Company, Limited, of the water-power on the Ottawa river at Carillon, were tenders called for publicly announcing said alienation and calling for bids ?	.
2.	On the 1st January, 1911, was the sard power under lease to any party ? If so, to whom ?
3.	For how many years was the lease existing in January last of said water-power to run?
4.	When was the National Hydro-Electric Company, Limited, incorporated?
5.	Who are the president, vice-president and directors of this company ?
6.	Will the government lay on the table of the House a copy of the order in council of the 14th March, 1911, authorizing the lease of the Carillon water-power to the National Hydro-Electrio Company, Limited?
7.	Who signed the lease on behalf of the lessee company ?
Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand, in the absence of the Minister of Railways.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I rise to a question of order, as my hon. friend did a moment ago. There is the notice of a question put on the 15th and easily answered; we are just on the eve of adjournment and it would be a great convenience for me if T could get the answer to that question before adjournment.


Mr. FIELDING.: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is not present. On his return, if he has the information, I will be glad to arrange that it shall be handed in. If it is not available we cannot answer it; that is all.


ANNUAL DRILL OF MILITIA.
Mr. SPROULE:: 1.	How many officers, non-commissioned officers, men and horses were called out to perform their annual drill or training in the years 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910, and how many are intended to be called out for drill for the year 1911, with the number from each battalion, and where drill will be performed ?

2.	(a) What length of time was spent in drill and rifle practice in each of these years, (b) were all the officers and non-commissioned officers properly qualified to handle, instruct or drill the militia forces each year, and (c) who were charged with these duties?


Mr. KING:: 3.	Where, how rapidly and in what numbers could the force be mobilized and properly supplied with arms, uniforms and all necessary equipment for active service?
4.	How many additional men could be equipped and put in the field for active service, say in three months?


ACTIVE MILITIA.
[Stage Direction]
Numbers Trained from 1894 to 1910.
Year.	Officers.	N.C.O's and Men.	Total.	Horses.1894 	1,527	17,810	19,337	2,3191895	1,584	20,018	21,602	2,5121896 	1,346	16,547	17,893	1,1251897	2,011	25,463	27,474	2,4781898	1,921	23,375	25,296	2,5652,299	27,700	29,999	2,8881900	2,159	25,416	27,575	2,6101901	2,377	27,885	30,262	3,2601902	1,709	18,510	20,219	3,2271903	2,183	23,807	25,990	4,1841904	2,835	32,839	35,674	5,4941905	2,962	36,530	39,492	6,2591906 	3,024	37,776	40,800	6,9151907	3,178	37,575	40,753	7,3871908	3,053	39,989	43,042	7,5551909	2,904	33,320	36,224	6,7221910	3,260	38,015	41,375	7,997
Numbers to be trained during 1911.
Unit.	Officers.	N. C. O's. and Men.	Total.	Horses.	Place of Training.	Period of Training.	
Cavalry.							
G.G.G.B	32	295	327	280	Niagara Camp..	12 days.	1st Hussars	32	295	327	280	II 11 . .	12	II2nd Dragoons	32	295	327	280	H II . .	12	II3rd ii 	32	295	327	280	Petawawa n ..	12	II4th Hussars	32	295	327	280	1! It . .	12	II5th P. L. D. Guards	32	295	327	280	** II [DOT] .	12	II6th Hussars	32	295	327	280	Farnham 11 ..	12	II7th „ 	32	295	327	280	ii ii ..	12	II8th i, 	32	295	327	280	Sussex H ..	12	II9th Miss. Horse	32	295	327	280	Niagara .1 ..	12	II10th Hussars	32	295	327	280	Farnham h ..	12	[DOT] 1llth Hussars	32	295	327	280	ii ii . .	12	II12th Man. Dragoons	32	295	327	280	Sewell it ..	12	II13th S .L. Dragoons	32	295	327	280	Farnham n ..	12	IIllth Hussars	32	295	327	280	Aldershot n ..	12	II15th Lt. Horse	32	295	327	280	Calgary h ..	12	II16th „ 	32	295	327	280	Sewell ii ..	12	II17th Hussars	26	227	253	215	Farnham * ..	12	II18th Mtd. Rifles	32	295	327	280	Sewell ii ..	12	II19th Alta. Dragoons	32	295	327	280	Calgary n ..	12	II20th Border Horse	32	295	327	280	Sewell it ..	12	II21st Alta. Hussars	12	136	148	130	Calgary ** ..	12	II22nd Sask. Lt. Horse	32	295	327	280	Sewell ii ..	12	II
Numbers to be trained during 1911.-Continued.
N. C. O's.	Place	PeriodUnit. -	Officers.	and	Total.	Horses.	of	ofMen.	Training.	Training.Brought forward	710	7,558	7,268	6,225	Cavalry-Con.	32	295	327	280	Calgary it ..	12 days.32	295	327	280	Niagara * .. II II . .	12 „25th Brant Dragoons	26	227	253	215	1232	295	327	280	Farnham n ..	12 „26	227	253	215	Sewell h ..	12 n32	295	327	280	Sussex ti ..	12 „29th Lt. Horse	32	295	327	280	Sewell ii ..	12 „9	65	74	65	Charlottetown	*	Camp..	12 ..British Columbia Horse..	24	272	296	260	Kamloops it ..	12 „Lt. Horse (Ind. Squad)...	6	68	74	65	Calgary n ..	12 „961	8,892	9,853	8,445	
Artillery.						
1st Bde. C.F. A	12	207	219	134	Petawawa Camp	16 days.12	207	219	134	16 „3rd tt m 17th Battery	i	99	103	64	Aldershot *>
..	16 „6th Bde. C.F.A	12	207	219	134	Petawawa n ..	1612	207	219	134	ii * ii	16 „8th it it 	12	207	219	134	16 „9th „ 	12	207	219	134	16 „10th „ „ 	12	207	219	134	16 „6th Battery, C.F. A	4	99	103	64	16 ,i13th it ii 	4	99	103	64	Sewell ii ..	16 „25th ii ii 	4	99	103	64	Calgary n .. Local Hdqrs	16 „2nd Heavy Bde. C. A	17	225	242	142	16 „ii ii ii (1 Btty).	6	107	113	69	Petawawa Camp	164th Heavy Bde. C.A.	12	214	226	69	Charlottetown	Camp..	16 „ii n ii (1 Btty]	6	107	113	69	Petawawa Camp	16 „23	350	373 373	3	Local Hdqrs	16 „ 16 „23	350	3	7th Regt., C.A. (3 bat-	23	278 88	301 95	132 43	Aldershot Camp Local Hdqrs....	16 „ 16 „7th Regt., C.A., 1 battery Cobourg Coy., C. A	6	6	113	119	16
Total Artillery		222	3,673	3,900	1,724		
Engineers.						
	3	33	36	36	Petawawa Camp	12 days.
1st Field Co. with Tele-						
	9	218 166	227 173	49 22		12 „ 12 „
	7				Niagara Camp..	
2nd Field Co. (Telegraph						
Det.*)		2	52	54	27	Petawawa Camp	16
						
3rd Field Co. with Tele-						
	9	218	227	49		12
4tK ll'ield Co. with Tele-						
	9	218	227	49		12 „
						
	39	905	944	232		
						
*A11 Telegraph Detachments train for 16 days.
Mr. KING.: 
Total C.A.S.: 
Total A.   M.@: Services.	136	1,605	1,791	445	Grand Total	4,109	47,153	51,262	11,873	
2. (a) 12 days, (b) Unqualified officers to instruct are shown as provisionally appointed oflicers in the quarterly militia list of each year. -As regards N.C.O's., it is impossible to say if all N.C.O's., were qualified to instruct as no return is available which gives the information asked for. (c) It is not understood what is meant by ' who were charged with these duties ' as every officer and N.C.O. in their respective capacities are in varying degrees responsible for instructional duties.
ter and eggs imported into Canada from the United States during each of the months of March and April, 1911 ?
2.	What were the quantities and values of butter and eggs imported into Canada from all other countries during March and April, 1911, and the countries from which imported?
3.	What were the quantities and values of various kinds of meats imported into Canada during each of the months of January, February, March and April, 1911, and the several countries from which imported?
3 and 4. These two questions have been dropped. See ' Hansard ' unrevised, May 10, page 8874.


IMPORTS OF FARM PRODUCTS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What was the quantity and value of but-


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	The quantity and value of butter and eggs entered for consumption in Canada, from the United States, during the months of March and April, 1911, was as follows:
-	March	1911.	April,	1911.Pounds. 92,043	Value. * 19,035	Pounds. 244,412	Value. S 45,742Doz. 1,151,496	200,027	Doz. 222,401	39,026-
2. The quantity and value of hutter and I from all other countries during the months eggs entered for consumption in Canada I of March and April, 1911, -was as follows:
-	But	ter.	Eg	g3-March. Great Britain	Pounds. 11,346 67,704 168,938	Value. *2,746 19,035 39,882	Dozen.	Value. $Australia	New Zealand	China	3,469 5,023 5	386 220 10Hong Kong	April. Great Britain	15,120 76,328 35,784	3,631 16,593 8,371	Australia 	New Zealand	China	2,475 3,800	345 173Hong Kong	
3. The quantity and value of the various kinds of meats entered for consumption in Canada, by countries, during the	months of January, February, March and April, 1911, was as follows:			
-	Pounds.	Value.	Pounds.	Value.Bacon and hams, shoulders and sides- Great Britain	Jan 56 225,234 615	iary. S 13 34,673 28	Febr	uary. SUnited States	198,017 23 8,959	33,088 2 1,569Hong Kong	Australia	Total	
,	225,805	34,714	206,999	34,659Great Britain	Ma 762 396,706 62 62 1,170	rch, 208 60,592 4 4 166	Ap 659 223,988	ril. 183 33,371United States	Hong Kong	Japan	
New Zealand					
				
Total					
				
	398,762	60,974	224,647	33,554
Beef, salted, in barrels- Great Britain					
	.Tam 7,902 62,044	iary. 702 4,393	Febr	uary.
United States					
			95,675	6,174
Total					
	69,946	5,095	95,675	6,174
United States					
Mai 133,462	*ch. 8,447	Ap	ril.Canned meats, canned poultry and game	
Great Britain	| 4,o7o	Jam 64,727 8,757 35,348 1,645 125 623 1,604	ary. 7,821 1,987 3,804 469 9 50 78	February.	United States	76,497 4,720 1,237	4,339 3,443 459 417Australia	F ranee	Newfoundland	China	Hong Kong	44 2,374	134Total	112,829	14,218	97,698	8,799


Mr. PATERSON:: 3.	The Quantity and value of the various kinds of Meats entered for consumption in Canada, &c.-Continued.
-	Pounds.	Value.	Pounds.	Value.Canned meats, canned poultry and game-	Mar 48,559 32,986 15,000 2,386 643	ch. 8 6,603 8,868 1,685 359 54	Apr 43.074 29.074 16,068 7,400 no 744	d. 6,169 6,738 1,772 1,850 10 82
Australia							
				
				
	786 5,760 1,440	94 593 106		
				
Uruguay					
Total	107,560	18,262	96,470	16,621Mutton and lamb, fresh-	Janu 54,665 125,676	ary. 5,027 8,521	Febri 99,359 136,379	lary. 8,903 8,761Australia	Total	
-	180,341	13,548	235,738	17,664Ma 95,190 190,469	rch. 8,992 12,496	Ap 91,314 158,471	ril. 8,178 10,634Australia	Total	285,659	21,488	249,785	' 18,812Pork, barrelled in brine-	Jan 45,000 834,765 302	nary. 5,919 80,913 19	I'ebr	uary.447,386 398	41,991 30
Hong Kong					
Total	[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]	880,067	86,851	447,784	42,021United States	
Poultry and game-	Ms 352,445 Jan	irch. | 32,742 uary. 1,034 7,656 365 82 43 720	A 324,403 Feb	iril. | 25,196 ruary. 578 2,962
1,431
				
				
				
				683
		9.900		5,654
					-	_ .	

3. The Quantity and value of the various kinds of Meats entered for consumption in Canada, &c.-Continued.
Poultry and pmc- Great Britain... United States..
Australia	
China	
Hong Kong_____
Total
Dried or smoked meats
Great Britain...
United States...
China	
Italy	
Hong Kong	
Japan	
Total
Pounds.
Value.
March.
J anuary.
47,914
1,243
21,900
74,847
4,716
51
5,829
7,674
35
1,778
9,635
March.
Pounds.
Value.
April.
1,107
1,870
1,294
11
4,301
February.
103,121
1,068
17,898
16,456
120,645
1,285
19,224
April.
Great Britain___
United States....
China	
Italy	
Hong Kong	
New Zealand_____
Total
Other meats, fresh- United States... Australia..
Total
Great Britain United States Australia....
Total
Other meats, salted- Great Britain....
United States___


Hong Kong .. .: China	
Total
United States
China	
Hong Kong..
Total
104 137,390 923 529 10,089 800	20 21,037 79 151 710 61		
		39,878 72	6,165 3
		1,236	75
			
149,835	22,058'	41,186	6,243Jan 29,559 11,902	uary. 4,550 595	Febr 41,115 506	uary. 5,403 6041,461	5,145	41,621	5,463March. 13,004 1.032	Ap	ril.142,381 16,373	13,185 1,164	75,732 10,653	8,409 677171,758	15,381	86,385	9,086Jam. 36,800 21,438 200 200	ary. 2,228 2,830 10 12	Febru	ary.20,093 840	3,205 7258,638	5,080	20,933	3,277Mai 15,800	[DOT]ch. 2,456	Ap 17,638 54	ril. 2,630 380	5	
15,880	2,461	17,692	2,633


William Paterson: 


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What was the value of Canada's exports to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, British South Africa and British India, for each of the fiscal years 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911, classified respectively, as to agricultural implements, all other manufactures, and agricultural and farm produce of all kinds?
2.	What -was the value of all kinds of agricultural farm produce imported into Canada from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, British
India and British South Africa for each of the years 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911? _


Mr. PATERSON:: 1. The total value of agricultural implements, all other manufactures, and agricultural and farm produce, &c., exported from Canada to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, British South Africa and British India, during the fiscal years 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911, was as follows, (Canadian produce):
1906.
Agricultural
Implements.
All other Manufactures
Agricultural
Products.
Animals and Produce.
Australia	
New Zealand	
Japan	 [DOT]
British South Africa. British India	
523,030
143,304
94,042
891,655
453,984
113,689
447,952
9,257
53,274
35,722
65,700
800,659
4,540
15,384
2,985
16.132
289,972
9 months, 1907-
Australia	
New Zealand	
Japan	
British South Africa.... British India	
603,289
114,638

Australia	
New Zealand	
Japan


British South Africa.   ...@: British India	
706,113
140,959
98,550
1,314,081
616,545
97,225
389,449
11,547
17,007
55,075
129,546
1,227,874
21,870
1,590
15,813
76,362
1909.
Australia....
New Zealand.
669,468
202,723
Japan	
British South Africa. British India	
64,500
1,350,311
493,599
163,865
332,223
300,657
20,963
31,393
49,623
1,158,719
4,818
16,746
3,528
25,030
47,658
1910.
Australia	
New Zealand	
Japan	
British South Africa	
British India	
1.264,690
226,016
151,762
1,284,118
455,971
142,345
414,340
29,106
1911.
Australia	
New Zealand	
Japan	 [DOT]
British South Africa

British India	
1,349,130
194,698
' 230,3ii 2,742
1.350,701
609,369
200,806
432,399
54,442
31,275 35,696 58,370 1,490,375 443	14,726 14,905 19,141 126,866
40,753	18,763
38,751	961
14,021	38,487
1,193,293	148,525
76	751
2.	The total value of agricultural farm produce entered for consumption in Canada from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, British South Africa and British India during the fiscal years 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911, was as follows:
Australia	
New Zealand	
Japan	
British South Africa. British India	
8 24,532 5,039 8,820

1907-
Australia	$ 89,276
New Zealand	 7,537
Japan	 13,823
British South Africa	
British India..		
Australia	 $156,381
New Zealand	 217
Japan	 24,164
British South Africa	'	
British India		.
Australia	 $193,388
New Zealand	 5,377
Japan	 26,698
British South Africa	
British India	
Australia	$175,591
New Zealand	 12,086
Japan	 32,646
British India	 50
British -South Africa	
Australia	$114,606
New Zealand	 115,240
Japan	 42,587
British India	 63,716
British South Africa


MILITIA EXPENDITURE.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: What were the amounts spent, respectively, on agriculture and militia in the following years, viz.: 1867, 1874, 1878, 1888, 1896, 1905, 1910?


George Gerald King: The information required so far as the Department of Militia and Defence is concerned is as follows:
Fiscal Year.	Expenditure.
1867-68*	 $1,013,016
1873-74	 1,222,282
1877-78	 618,136
1887-88	 1,273,179
1896-96	 2,136,713
18994900	 3,624,615
-19044905	 3,950,284
19094910	 5,921,314
*No figures before July 1, 1867, available.


SUBSIDY FOR RAILWAY FROM GRAND FALLS TO ST. JOHN, N.B.
Mr. CARVELL:: Has any, and if so, what, correspondence been carried on between the government of New Brunswick, or any member or members thereof, and the government of Canada, or any member thereof, with reference to changing the Subsidy Act, 1910, with respect to a suR sidy for a line of railway from Grand Falls, in the province of New Brunswick, to the city of St. John, in the same province?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: This question is of such a nature that, in my opinion, the reply should be in the form of a return. Pursuant to clause 4, rule 37, I beg to state that I .have no objection to laying the return u-pon the table of the House.


William Paterson: 


CENSUS-ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF JACQUES CARTIER.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	What are the names and occupations of the officers in charge of the census for the electoral district of Jacques Car-tier?
2.	Where are the said officers domiciled?
3.	On what date were said officers appointed?
4.	By whom were said officers recommended for appointment?
5.	Did the government consult any one from the said district before making the said appointments ?
6.	From what person or persons did the government seek advice regarding said appointments ?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend the Minister of Agri-culture (Mr. Fisher) is not here to reply. On his return the reply -will be handed in as if the question had been answered at the moment.


CENSUS-ELECTORAL DIVISION OF HOOHELAGA.
Mr. MONK:: 
William Stevens Fielding: That will be the same.


CANADA CEMENT COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the leader of the House (Mr. Fielding) if the government contemplate doing anything with regard to the complaint made -by Sir Sandford Fleming regarding the organization of the cement company known as the merger?


William Stevens Fielding: We understand that the matter is already before a committee of this House. I am not advised as to the particular shape in which it stands at this moment, but I pre-snme that whatever investigation is necessary in regard to the company's application and the letter of Sir Sandford Fleming will take place "before that committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the Private Bills Committee?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


THE BAHAMAS AND CANADA.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have seen a number of articles of late regarding the proposal to annex the Bahama Islands to the Dominion of Canada, and some, what I should regard as strong reasons why it would be advisable to do so. The people of the Bahama

Islands appear to be especially anxious that it should be done, for their legislature, I notice, have passed a resolution to that effect. I would like to asic the government if they have had any representations on the subject from their legislature and, if so, if the government have given the matter sufficient consideration to take the House into their confidence, and tell us what they propose to do, if anything.


William Stevens Fielding: We are aware, as my hon. friend has pointed out, by the general representations in the press, of a desire in the Bahama Islands to open negotiations with Canada. I think I am correct in stating that we have had no official negotiations on the subject. What has happened is that several enterprising citizens of Canada, residents, I think, of Montreal, who have been visiting the Bahamas, have taken a very warm interest in the matter, and m that way a good deal has been heard of it in the Canadian press. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked a question a day or two ago on the subject, and I said that while I did not think there was any official correspondence on the subject I thought it not unlikely that during the visit of the Prime Minister to England it might be the subject of conversation between the colonial office authorities and himself. I think I am quite correct in stating that we have had nothing official on the subject. I should have made a further search of the records, but I am pretty certain I am correct. If I find there is any official communication I will be glad to have it brought down to-morrow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would think that there should be some when their legislature has passed a resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: I am quite sure there has been nothing but what has already appeared in the public press. There have been no negotiations whatever on the subject. It is a matter which might engage attention in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that, while it has been reported in the press that the legislature passed the resolution alluded to, it had not come in an official form to the attention of the government up to the time that the Minister, of Finance made his statement on the subject to the House a few days ago.


William Stevens Fielding: I will ask the Secretary of State to make a further examination. It is possible that the resolution has been officially communicated. Of course, we are thoroughly aware that they have passed the resolution. The channel of com munication with the colony "would be by way of the colonial office. They would hardly communicate directly with us.


DALHOUSIE PILOTAGE DUES.
Mr. CROCKET.: I would like to ask the hon. acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lemieux) if he has an answer to the question I put yesterday.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I was just going to rise to give my hon. friend the answer which has been communicated to me by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and which is as follows:
With reference to the telegram which Mr. Crocket read in the House to-day, to the effect that the Department of -Marine and Fisheries had notified the collector of customs at Dalhousie not to collect pilotage on vessels carrying pulpwood from Dalhousie to Portland, Maine, -the facts are these:
Early this spring the department was appealed to for a ruling as to whether a vessel carrying pulpwood from Dalhousie to Portland, Maine, was obliged to pay pilotage dues in the pilotage district of Dalhousie. The reply was to the effect that such a vessel came within the list of exempted vessels named in section 477 (c) (iii) of the Canada Shipping Act, which reads as follows:
'Ships propelled wholly or in part by steam employed in voyages between any port or ports in the said provinces-Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island- 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 were exempted^ ships.' .
The Bill now before parliament to amend the Canada Shipping Act retains this clause. It is, however, proposed to give the power to every pilotage district to say what ships in the list of exempted ships shall be exempted iu so far as that particular pilotage district is concerned. Any pilotage by-law varying such list of exempted vessels would, of course, be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. It will thus be seen that if this amendment to the Canada Shipping Act passes it will be -competent for every pilotage district to regulate this matter in such a manner as is best suited to its own requirements.


Mr. DANIEL.: Would the minister state why this- matter is placed in the hands of the collector of customs? Is it usual for the collector -of customs to collect pilotage dues in a pilotage district? It is usually done by the pilotage authority, but this telegram states that the collector of customs has this matter in hand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not say exactly. It is a matter quite new to me, but I will get more information and communicate it to my hon. friend early in the day.


William Pugsley: I presume it will be a question of the collector clearing the vessel, and I take it that it has allowed the vessel to clear without payment of the pilotage dues under that section of the law.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is not the way the telegram read.


NAVAL CORONATION CONTINGENT.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I desire to give the answer to the question asked the other day by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) regarding officers of the naval service who will attend the coronation. The answer given to me by the naval service department is as follows:
In reply 'to question of Mr. Crosby in the House on 16th instant regarding officers who will attend coronation: Lieutenant Lord Alas-tair Graham, in command of coronation contingent; Midshipman Percy W. Nelles, Midshipman Victor Brodeur.


Mr. CROSBY.: I would mention to the acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries that that statement does not say anything about the ' Rainbow.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: They give the names of the officers, but they do not give the name of #he ship to which they belong. -do not know whether these officers belong to the ' Rainbow ' or the ' Niobe.'


Adam Brown Crosby: I think the ' Niobe.' DELUSIVE PROMISES OF MARRIAGES.


Mr. DOHERTY.: Has the Minister of the Interior any information concerning the report which has been widely circulated in the press that a certain transportation company or some immigration agents in the United Kingdom, have by means of advertisements or other public announcements been seeking to bring, about the immigration of young women, using as an inducement the representation that there were husbands in plenty waiting for them, more particularly in the western country. I am quite aware that this is a matter that perhaps lends itself to a more or less facetious treatment, that it has, in fact, been treated in that way by some newspapers but it has a very serious side. Such an action if even in appearance sanctioned by the government might lead to very false impressions and possibly mislead some not overwise young women into coming into this country with anticipations that were fated not to be realized. This has formed the subject of very^ serious consideration amongst organizations in Montreal and other places which concern themselves with taking care of young women immigrants on their arrival in the country and endeavouring to protect them. These ladies think it is a matter that ought to be officially cleared up, that it must be quite understood that no one on behalf of this government or no transportation company, at least with the countenance of the government, should be permitted to hold out inducements of that kind to young women who might be misled thereby and might, on coming to this country, be ex-Mr. DANIEL.
posed to very serious temptations, which these organizations seek to protect them against.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is this in anticipation of the amendment to the Bank Act by my friend from East Grey?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not understand that bank clerks are held out as especially desirable husbands.


Mr. OLIVER.: No inducement such as this has been held out by the government or any officers of the government with the knowledge of the government, and if it can be brought to the knowledge of the government that any of _ these officials have held out the inducement that my hon. friend has spoken of, I can guarantee that the connection of these officials with the government will cease there and then. I have some knowledge of the rumour referred to. I think it arose from some advertising said to have been done by the Canadian Northern or some of their agents, but while I am not able to give any particular details at the moment, my impression is that on inquiry being made of the Canadian Northern Company they absolutely repudiated any action of that kind and placed the blame where it is very frequently placed, on the newspapers, and intimated their belief that it was a misinterpretation of an interview to give occasion for a startling headline. No such announcements or statements have appeared recently, which would indicate that this was done without authority and that the practice, if it existed, has been checked.


Mr. STAPLES.: Has the minister had any communication from a Miss Wileman who has been organizing the bringing out of domestic servants to this country? It appears that Miss Wileman before leaving for England had some understanding with the minister and according to the advice I have, the minister promised to give her all the assistance he could in the home immigration office but has failed to make good his promise. Therefore she has been detained over there with the domestic servants whom she had ready to bring to Canada. Has the minister had any communication with or made any promise to the lady which he has not fulfilled.


Frank Oliver: I have had letters from a Miss Wileman, and she has discussed immigration matters with me. She said that her purpose was to bring out domestic servants. I told her that the government could not make any special grants to her for that purpose, that if she wished to engage in that effort she would be subject to the same conditions, and considerations as anybody else. She has no promise of any consideration from me as far

as her work in the old country is concerned. The only promise she had from me was that if she could make arrangements here in Ottawa for the proper entertainment, and care of young women who were brought out by her as domestic servants, I would consider the bearing of some part of the special expense thereby incurred in their entertainment, and care on their arrival here. Beyond that she has ho promise, and never had any from me.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 220) to incorporate the Albert and Moncton Railway Company-Mr. Emmerson.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 197) to amend the Railway Act.-Mr. Graham.
On section 4,
Mr. LANCASTER.: This section is absolutely necessary in some form for the purpose of meeting the state of law as found by the Supreme Court of Canada in a recent decision, and with the principle of the section I am in entire accord. It has been found by a majority decision of the Supreme Court that where railway lands are not expropriated, but where a registration of a plan takes place, thus declaring the lands to be subject to the Expropriation Act, the railway company can practically wait forever without taking any other proceedings. The only suggestion I would make is to insert in the third line of subclause (b), after the word 'sanction,' the words, 'whether made before or after the passing of this Act.' Otherwise the effect of this section would be to make one law for the owner, and another for another, because it would mean that this remedy would apply onlv to orders sanctioning the location of the right of way made after the passing of this Act, and would not be any benefit to the people who are affected by an order made before the passing of this Act.


Mr. GRAHAM.: From my standpoint, I do not see any objection to the proposed amendment; but I would like to hear some legal view as to whether or not it would wrongly affect cases that are now pending.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is the legal effect which I have in my mind. The order referred to granting the sanction, is the order of the board which has located the right of way, and therefore allows the railway company to register their plan which covers the land through which the railway passes, and the registration prevents the owner from selling. Whether the order sanctioning the taking of the land and the locating of the right of way is made before or after the 296	,	'"1


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
passing of this Act, no railway company can be hurt by this provision, because in either case the owner should have the right which this section contemplates to apply to the Board to have the railway company say w'hether they are really going to take the land or abandon it.
George Perry Graham: I see no objection to the proposed amendment.
Amendment of Mr. Lancaster agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 7,
Section 235 of the principal Act is amended by striking out the words 'the railway' at the commencement of the said section and substituting therefor the words, 'Subject to the company making such compensation to adjacent or abutting landowners as the board deems proper, the railway of the company '


George Perry Graham: This section was left over until I would consult concerning it. It was feared it might give cause to litigation, but after close scrutiny, it appears to me that it will have the opposite effect. It merely provides that when a railway asks to go on the highway opposite a man's property, the board may say:	You must pay this man so much
damages or you cannot go there. The damages will be appraised by the board who have every facility to do so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The only objection is that you make the board both judges and arbitrators I am not afraid of the board abusing its jurisdiction, but I question whether we should give them the right not only to say that damages must be paid but determine the amount.


George Perry Graham: If a railway runs through a man's land, there is a provision for arbitration, but in this case it does not run through its land, and- the board will only grant its application on the condition of its paying this man a certain amount of damages. The clause is drafted in the handwriting of the chairman of the board, and he thinks this would be an expeditious way of settlement. Heretofore there was no provision to meet a case of the kind; and as the land did not belong to any one, the question of damages was a difficult and litigious one. Damages may accrue. Sometimes a road might run between a man's house and his barn but not on his land, and the chairman thought it would be wise to let the board make the payment of damages a condition. It would be right to empower the board to determine whether a man was entitled to damages or not, but as to the quantum of damages, why should you ask the board to sit as arbitrators?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are going to make this a board of arbitration as well as a board for administering the Railway Act, It will
edition	,

have to take evidence and sit as a court of law to determine the amount of damages and decide on legal points involved in the question of damages.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: This will facilitate the determining of the location. The railway may adopt that location, but only conditional on its paying the compensation fixed by the board. If you adopt this plan you have to pay damages to this individual. They may say: We do not go there. Besides that, in all these cases of expropriation the speediest is the best manner. Why should the party have to go to arbitration? He applies to the commission, they can determine the matter just as well as a board of arbitration. I think it is more to the interest of the party who is affected, and it is an extension of the principle which has not been in the Act at all, because unless a man's property is touched he has no claim for damages. It is an extension of that privilege. I think the plan proposed under the Act is the best.


Mr. LENNOX.: It is an arbitration, whether that arbitration is conducted by a board or by somebody else. There are some cases where it would be advantage-bus to have t!he question determined by the board. Take, for instance, a case where there could be no doulbt as to the damages, where it is an easy question which would not involve the hearing of many witnesses. That would be a case for the board to decide. But these cases are not very numerous. When it comes to indirect damages, where you do not touch a man's property, it is a difficult question to decide, difficult because you have to get a technical class of evidence, and that involves a number of witnesses. It means either that you have to bring a host of witnesses to Ottawa, or it means that the board have to go out, we will say to Calgary, or some other remote place, and that would involve a good deal of trouble. I think, on the whole, it would be wiser to leave the question of the 'amount of damages to be decided in the ordinary way by expropriation. I do not myself see the necessity of the board coming in at all. I think we might adopt an amendment something like this:	' Without prejudice to the right of a party affected to recover such compensation as he is entitled to.' Then the order might be made for them to go on. If the board is to intervene at all then I think it would be well to let the chairman of the board decide whether there should be compensation, and let the amount of compensation be determined in the ordinary way. But it could be done without the board intervening at all, and the order should be made subject to the right of the party to obtain Mr. LANCASTER.
such compensation as would be fair under the circumstances.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: By this Act we are giving them a new right. As _ the law of Canada now stands, it gives him no right of action except where he is injuriously affected.


Haughton Lennox: That is the ease at present, because there is no provision at all for compensation. But here we make a provision, and say that they shall have the * right to go over the highway, but he shall have the right to compensation. All he can get in any case is whatever damages he has sustained. If he does not sustain any damage, he cannot get any, whether we have this provision or not. I am pointing out that we can either leave it for the board to determine whether he shall have compensation or not, or leave it solely to the arbitrators. But if the system pursued here is that the board should intervene, and if they do intervene, the utmost right we should give the board is to say whether he shall have compensation, and leave the amount of compensation to be determined afterwards by arbitration.


William Pugsley: I agree with my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) that it is very much better to allow the board to determine what damages the party who is injured shall have. The board, in the first place, have to determine whether it is desirable to allow the railway to run upon the highway at the particular point asked for. The board would naturally take into consideration whether it is going seriously to injure the land owner or not, or whether it might not be better to compel the company to take some other route. Now, is it not much better for the land owner that the board should settle the damages as a condition of granting the _ privileges? The whole matter is determined then by a tribunal which is as competent as you could possibly have. If the suggestion of my hon. friend is acted upon, the company might be permitted to go on and build its railway on a highway, and the adjoining owner would be obliged to go to court, perhaps, and go from court to court, and obliged to incur great expenses before he could get redress. I think it is infinitely preferable that the matter should be settled by the board, and that the amount of damages which they find is reasonable shall be paid before the company is allowed to build its railway.


William Sora Middlebro: When I drew the attention of the minister last night to the wording of the amendment, I did not express any opinion as to what would be the better course. I simply pointed out that it would give the board not only the right to determine as to whether a man

is entitled to damages, tout also to determine the quantity. I am inclined to think that, as the matter will have to be gone into very thoroughly to determine, first of all, whether a man is entitled to any damages, and as they have to have the evidence before them, it would take but little more time for them to go a little further and determine the quantity of damages. Therefore, under the circumstances, as the board is a perambulating board, and as it is their custom to make a view of the premises, I think they would be able to ascertain in a summary manner, and with 'less expense, not only the right to damage, but the amount thereof.


Mr.   POBTEE@: It occurs to me, with all respect to the opinion of others who have expressed themselves contrary to my view, that in this legislation there ought to be [DOT]uniformity. The Eailway Act has recognized all through it the principle of arbitration in settling compensation for damages caused to an owner by reason of the railway. That seems to be the principle that has been adopted by this parliament, and has been in vogue for a very long time. Now, if this clause, as proposed, goes into effect, there would be a new jurisdiction, a new court appointed having jurisdiction over this particular matter, which is not in uniformity with the other provisions of the Act. A great deal of difficulty has arisen by reason of legislation in that direction and along that line heretofore. *My hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) proposes to offer an amendment to this present Act covering the point I am about to mention in regard to farm crossings, and in regard to fences along farms. A serious question has been before the courts a number of times as to whether they have jurisdiction over this question, or whether it must be settled by an arbitration, or whether the Board of Eailway Commissioners alone have jurisdiction to 'order the construction of a crossing, and the payment of damages in consequence of not having provided a farm crossing, or fences, and that sort of thing.
It has been before the courts a great many times in the province of Quebec, I think I am correct in saying, six or seven judges have decided one way, while five have decided the other way, and the Supreme Court has decided with the five. The conflict of authority arises from the want of clear language expressing the jurisdiction and the want of uniformity in jurisdiction. It seems to me that this parliament, having adopted the principle of arbitration in settling damages or compensation in the majority of such cases, ought to folow it in this case. And there are otheT reasons. It would be a great inconvenience if parliament required persons 296i
claiming compensation under this Act to go before the Board of Eailway Commissioners. I think the Act should .be amended in such a way as was suggested by me yesterday-so that the railway company, or the person claiming damages or compensation should have the right to call in a board of arbitration to settle the amount of damages. That procedure is inexpensive, speedy and convenient. The damages may be very small, and it is not well to	incur the expense of
bringing witnesses to where the board is sitting. It seems most desirable that the jurisdiction should be given to one body to try these questions of damages for compensation, so that there may be no conflict of authority, and no question where the person aggrieved should seek a remedy.


John Graham Haggart: It seems to me absolutely necessary that the commission should decide whether damages have been incurred or not. But if the commission decide that there are damages, I think it is not going much further to give thenj power to decide the amount of the damages. I do not know whether these arbitrations are final


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Under $600 there is no appeal.


John Graham Haggart: But in some cases there is an appeal to a court. That is wrong; the decision should be final. 1 think it would be better to leave the whole thing to the commission, but, in any case, they should have the absolute right to decide whether there is damage or not.


William Sora Middlebro: We all seem to agree that we are going to leave the board to decide whether the owner has right of action or not. That is not determined by the board in ordinary cases. If in this case we are going to allow the board to decide whether there is a right of action, they must necessarily go to a lot of trouble to Teach a reasonable decision. It seems fair that this trouble and expense should be used to ascertain the amount of damages. If the Eailway Commission were a body sitting in Ottawa to which all cases would have to be brought, I would have some hesitation in allowing them authority to assess the damages. But, in deciding whether there is damage or not they would probably view the premises, and at the same time could ascertain the amount of damages.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the suggestion of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlebro) is carried out, the Eailway Board will have to adopt a different procedure from that which they adopt in cases in which they act, but do not settle the amount of damages. The board sends its engineer, and he makes a report. I have

had a good many cases, and I do not recall any case in which the commissioners visited the locality except in the case of one very dangerous crossing at Grimsby which had killed eight or ten people. Moreover, to adopt the proposal made is to throw upon the board an entirely new set of duties-directing them to decide damages without appeal. In cases over $600 at present there is an appeal from the board of arbitrators to the Superior Court of the province. This is because where the damages are relatively large, legal questions are often involved, and it is felt that either party to the case should have the opportunity to go before the courts. But there is no appeal under $600. In the cases covered by this section the damages may be very serious. The whole frontage benefits of a man's property may be destroyed by the railway running along the highway. The commissioners ought to view the locality in order to settle the amount of damages. But, if these new duties were thrown upon them, they might interfere with the performance of duties which are more important, and which are thrown upon them by the present law. The commissioners might say in a certain case-they could do it legally:	We will not take time to look
at this place, but we will give $1,000 damages no matter what the damages may be; we cannot be bothered going into it any further. That is what might take place The board is a busy one. It has more work piled on it than it can do. No one would have suggested to establish a Board of Railway Commissioners for such purpose as assessing these damages. I might favour giving them these duties if they had not enough to do, but they are likely to be busy enough attending to matters that properly come to them in the administration of the General Railway Act. I believe that if we go the length of declaring that the board shall decide whether damages are recoverable or not, that is as far as we should go. The fixing of the damages should be left under the arbitration clauses. I think the bon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) has well explained that the same principle should apply in these cases of damages as in others. The amount of damages should be settled locally, where the evidence is thorough, and the expense of collecting it is small. Otherwise injustice will be done by compelling people to meet the commission in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, or elsewhere where they may'be sitting, which may be at a considerable distance from the locus in quo. The more I think of it the more I think that the damages should be assessed and decided according to arbitration under the Railway Act.


George Perry Graham: There are a great many ordinary arbitration cases with a certain Mr. LANCASTER
method of procedure arising every day with railways. The cases that will arise under this section are very few indeed; in fact, up to date, nobody has any damages that will accrue under this section.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But they would have had if this section had been the law.


George Perry Graham: I think that everybody will agree that the number of cases will be very small in which there will be any damages. Let me read the section of the Act:
The railway may be carried upon, along or across any existing highway upon leave therefor having been first obtained from the board as hereinafter authorized.
They must get leave first to go upon, along, or across the highway.
Provided that the board shall not grant leave to any oounpany to carry any street railway or tramway, or -any railway operated or to be operated .as a street railway or tramway, along any highway which is within the limits of any city or incorporated town, until the company has first obtained consent therefor by a by-law of the municipal authority of such city or incorporated town.
2.	The company shall, before obstructing any such highway by its works, turn the highway so as to leave an open and good passage for carriages, and, on completion of the works, restore the highway to as good a condition as nearly as passible as it originally had.
3.	Nothing in this section shall deprive any such company of rights conferred upon it by any special Act of parliament of Canada, or amendment thereof, passed prior to the 12th day of March, 1903.
These are the conditions under which the board may allow a company to use the streets. But here arises another condition: John Smith has some property. The property over which the railway goes is on the public highway, and it, therefore, does not belong to John Smith, but he says:	It
is going to hurt me if you allow the railway to be placed there. The board will say: We find that is so, and they can say to the company: You may go there provided you compensate John Smith. The damage amounts to so much.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would not an arbitration assess the damage?


George Perry Graham: Yes, but it may be assessed there before it gets into the courts. The railway company, if it has to go into the courts, cannot tell whether they can go along that highway on reasonable terms or not. It is in the interest of everybody that there should be speed in the matter, and the railway companies say:	We cannot
afford to go upon the highway on those terms, and we will take a location in some other place. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it can be settled in twenty-four hours. Looking at it from the practical

standpoint it will tend to keep men out of expensive lawsuits, to secure them fair damages, and enable the railway to be built within a reasonable time.


John Graham Haggart: That is the objection to your Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I agree with what the minister has said, that it will be more speedy, but speediness is not right if the amount is not correct. It is not justice to a man to get a speedy decision, if the decision is not for the right amount.


George Perry Graham: He loses it in costs.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If you want to hurry up the decision you can have it done in a month. The railway company must give ten days' notice, the property owner has either to accept or decline the offer and, if he declines it, they can go before the county judge and get the arbitrators appointed.


George Perry Graham: Then there might be delay.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it can be decided in a month what would that amount to? It is the speediness of the matter that I am afraid of. It might be that the board would say: We must hurry up and make this order, and they would issue an order for $1,000 or $500, which might be too much or might not be enough. They just guess at it. It is done by explosion, they do not understand it, and I think it should be done properly. The land owner, as a rule, is a poor man, and the case should be decided in the interests of both parties in a proper way. There would not be much delay because, if the railway made a fair offer, it would be accepted, and it would be all over in ten days. If it made an unfair offer and it was submitted to arbitration, it would be all over in a month, and justice would be done, instead of the thing being jumped at.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There would be a very great deal of force in the contention that we ought to have uniformity in the tribunal that is to assess damages in all cases of taking property by railways were it not for one thing. That is that we are dealing here essentially with an exceptional case. Where the matter goes to arbitration, and where the law absolutely settles the right to damages, the one question to be submitted is, how much ought to be paid. As the law stands at present the property owner, where the railway runs on the highway, has no rights. It is proposed to give him a right not absolutely established by law, hut a right conditional upon the judgment of the Railway Commission. It would be a very inconvenient system to leave it to the Railway Commission to absolutely determine whether this
man should have any damages or not and then proceed to another tribunal to establish how much they were. You may arrive at this result that the other tribunal may determine that this man is entitled to damages of a class that the Railway Commission never meant he should be entitled to. The Railway Commission have the determination of whether this man should get damages. There must be present to their judgment and mind some idea, not necessarily of the precise amount, but of the nature of the things for which he ought to be compensated. For instance, it might be that his access to the highway is interfered with. That is one ground upon which they might determine that he should get compensation. But if they merely say that he should get compensation, and send it to a board of arbitration, that board might assess the damages on some other basis, for instance, because his house is shaken, or for some other reason, which the Railway Commission never intended should be taken as the basis for assessing damages. And if they had foreseen that that was going to be the result, they might, in their judgment, have thought that giving the land owner damages for all injuries of that kind, would be a greater injustice to the railway than giving them damages generally. As the landowner's right depends on the judgment of the Railway Commission, one of the essential factors which must operate in leading them to a conclusion is what kind of damages he is to get, what the extent of the damages is to be; and to ask them to determine in an abstract way simply that he is entitled to damages of some kind, and then send it off to some one else to determine the amount of damages, is creating a situation where you make it exceedingly difficult for the Railway Commission to come to a conclusion on the question.
In the second place, you run the risk that the Railway Commission may say: You do this subject to compensating so and so, and the Board of Arbitration might think there was no damage at all. Thus you would have two tribunals arriving at contrary conclusions. Of course, that is not likely to occur, as boards of arbitration generally are disposed to grant compensation, and rightly so, perhaps, as the railway is disturbing the property of the man. In view of these considerations, it would be safer to adhere to the Act as proposed. By this Act, we are improving the position of the proprietor of adjacent lands; as it stands to-day he gets nothing. Would it not be wise to pass the Act as it now stands, leaving the whole matter to the determination of the Railway Commissioners? The proprietor advances to the extent that he gets to a state of affairs where he can obtain compensation. If it is found in prac-

tice that this does not work satisfactorily with regard to fixing the quantity of damages, it would be possible to remedy it; and if, on the other hand, it should be found to work out satisfactorily, it would obviate a great deal of complication, and in that case, I think, it would be desirable to adhere to it. On the whole, I think that the wise course would be to leave the Bill as it stands.


Mr. PORTER.: With all respect to the hon. gentleman from Montreal, (Mr. Doherty), it seems to me there is a contradiction in terms when one reads the provisions of this Act. The hon. member seems to think that the board must determine the question first as to whether or not there is any right to compensation, and then that the arbitrators should say what the amount of that compensation is to be. It seems to me that that contradicts the provisions of the clause as here proposed. The clause, according to its fair reading, declares that where a railway crosses a highway there shall be a right to compensation, it is just a question of the amount. This parliament declares that there shall be a right to compensate, that is already decided by statute. The board would have no.right to say: Well, yes, the owner shall have compensation. The statute says that already, so that when the argument is used that the board must determine whether or not there is a right to compensation, it is contradicting the statute. Assuming that the owner is entitled to some compensation, there is no reason why the railway company should not be able to determine that just as speedily as they determine the compensation they shall pay for the lands of an owner taken in any other way. They can serve their notice on him and make their offer, and if it is not accepted they can go to arbitration in the ordinary way. I would suggest that we strike out the words ' as the board may deem proper.' Then you will have the whole thing covered by one court, and the right court.


Haughton Lennox: We cannot very well agree to this provision, as it is suggested, and I would suggest that this section also be allowed to stand over, so that we may consider it further and deal with it with the other amendments which the minister will bring in after we reassemble.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think, too, that section 11, which will be very contentious, should either stand over or be dropped. It is undoing what it took us three strenuous years to accomplish here for the owners of animals in this country. It is absolutely retrograde legislation, it is putting us back where we were in 1900, when I first came here. Many members will remember that a commission was appointed in connection with legislation introduced by myself, and Mr. DOHERTY.
the House finally determined unanimously upon a principle of law which should protect the owners of animals killed by railways. The minister, who was not m the House at the time, perhaps does not realize that the effect of section 11 is to undo that legislation.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order. The hon. gentleman is addressing himself to section 11, while other hon. members desire to speak to section 7.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I wish to show why the committee should rise and report progress.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: There is no motion to that effect. I think the hon. gentleman should wait until section 7 is disposed of.


Mr. COWAN.: I am very much disposed to agree that under the old section 235 the land owner has no right, and that the purport of this section 7 is under certain circumstances to create a right in the owner. The body that creates the right is the Railway Board, and the body that creates the right should determine its value, if the section remains as it is. But it seems to me that it was a great mistake to destroy the common law right of the owner by section 235. The power should never have been given to a railway to pass upon a highway without compensating the adjoining owners for the damage done to their property. That power was given by section 235, and, therefore, the common law right of the owner to compensation was taken away. It seems to me that right should be restored, and the compensation to be allowed to the owner for the invasion of that right should be left to the ordinary tribunal of arbitration. My suggestion would be to amend section 235 so as to preserve the common law right of the adjoining owners when the railway passes along the highway, and then let section 7 specify the tribunal which shall determine the compensation after that is done.


George Perry Graham: This clause seems to me to be so much in the interests of the people that I hesitate to drop it unless some good reason is given. The situation at present is that a man's property may be damaged by a railway running along the highway, and he has no recourse. By this section we propose to give him recourse. The clause appears to me to be so simple that I do not like to take the responsibility of dropping it. I would be perfectly willing to accept the suggestion that its consideration be delayed if the committee so desires.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for West Hastings, and simply declare the railway company liable to pay damages and not

bother the hoard with the matter at all? It is not the function of the Railway Board to determine whether or not there is an evil in the country that requires redress. It is for this parliament to take the responsibility of declaring that if a man's land is damaged in the way the section describes, he should have compensation, and then let the arbitration clause of the Railway Act settle the amount. I do not see why the board should be brought into the matter at all. They are not properly assessors as to land damages, nor law makers to say that the principle of land damages should be applied. This is the function of parliament. With regard to this provision causing litigation, there is just as much evil in litigation before the board as before the courts, and in my opinion litigation in the ordinary way is more expeditious than litigation before the Railway Board.


George Henry Cowan: I want to add another reason why there should be some little modification. As I pointed out a moment ago, this section deprives a land owner of a right which ought to be restored, and it gives the Railway Board the power to create a right. In the first place, the common law right is destroyed, and then a new right is given. The Board of Railway Commissioners are given the absolute right of determining the value which is a big power to put in its hands. I do not want the Bill withdrawn because it is an improvement on the law, but I want the common law aright restored to the land owner, and leave the assessment of damages to the tribunal provided by the Act.


Haughton Lennox: I want to see this section withdrawn, because if we pass it now, we shall never get it into proper shape. The Finance Minister made a very reasonable proposition last night when he suggested that clauses, which involve diversity of opinion, might be left in abeyance until we meet again. I do not want to drop this attempt to remedy the law, but I want the minister to take the same course with regard to this section as he did with regard to section 5, and as we shall have to do with regard to some other sections which we discussed last night.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to be arbitrary, but here is a clause prepared by the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners for the purpose of getting justice for the people, and in a summary way compensating them for the damages they may sustain. Both sides of the House are preponderately in favour of it. In fact I would be willing to abide by the vote on the other side. _ Since there is such a preponderating opinion in favour of the section, I do not see why we should drop it. I am prepared to drop it if the committee so wishes, but as far as I can
judge, the committee wants the clause put through.


Haughton Lennox: No one suggests that the minister is arbitrary


George Perry Graham: Why not leave it for the committee to say whether we should drop it or not?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it were ordered so that the principle we approve be carried out, no one would want to drop it.


George Perry Graham: The majority of the committee are in favour of the section as it is, and I do not think that two or three hon. gentlemen should insist on our dropping it.


John Graham Haggart: Carried.


Mr. LALOR.: As a layman, and consequently not qualified to speak from a legal standpoint, it strikes me that this particular clause is in the interest of the public, and I am in favour of it.


Haughton Lennox: I have great respect for my hon. friend, but I have had better opportunity of forming an opinion as to what is in the interest of the public as regards this class of legislation. I have given a good deal of my time to the study of this class of question, and with the greatest respect for my hon. friend I want to maintain my own position. I want to do the very best I can for the public, and have given this matter such consideration as I could in the short time allowed us. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways is very fair. He says he is willing to leave this over until we meet again in a few weeks.


George Perry Graham: Let the committee decide.


Haughton Lennox: I think we ought to leave it over, because if we crystallize it into legislation now, we know how difficult it will be to have it changed again. If this were the only provision left over, I could understand the objection, but there are other sections left in abeyance, and when we meet again in a few weeks, we shall have more time to consider the matter. I am quite confident that if we had proper time to discuss this matter, I could convince my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor), that what the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), and the hon. member for Lineoln-Niagara (Mr. Lancaster), propose, and I support, is very much more in the interest of the people than the provision we have before us now.


Mr. NESBITT.: Did not the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) favour a clause last night containing practically the same language?


Haughton Lennox: No. My hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) came over here, and I showed him

the form in -which it was suggested the change should be made; 'the company making such compensation to adjacent or abutting landowners.' And it was suggested-I do not know by whom-that this should ibe changed to read, 'The company making compensation to such adjacent or abutting land owners.' But I never became settled in my own mind about it. If I spoke last night, I think I said that I objected to having the Board in it at all. And, having considered it more fully I all the more strongly object to departing from the established principle in these cases.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the general question been discussed of making compensation to persons whose land has not been taken?
' Mr. GRAHAM. That is what it is for.


Robert Laird Borden: I know, this covers it in part, but does not cover the ordinary cases to which I allude. I had a good deal of experience in cases years ago, and, both in Britain and here this principle has been adopted; if a man has a large property, of which, say 50 feet is taken and the rest damnified by the construction and operation of a railway, being rendered thereby unfit for the purposes for which it was intended or for which it is useful, he can recover damages in resoect of that detriment; but if the railway runs close enough to his property to destroy it-even within a foot of it-if it does not take any of his property, he has no remedy for any damages resulting from the operation. That is the law, unless there has been a change by statute.
1 Mr. LANCASTER. That is as the law is now.
1 Mr. CARVELL. If my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) refers to what is called [DOT]the Cotton Mill Case, I cannot recall the exact title at the moment, he will find- Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). If there is legislation which authorizes it, that is different, but under the old English Land Act the law was construed exactly as I have said. If it were not so construed, in this country, this legislation would not be necessary, because, if by running a railway along a highway a man's property were injured, damages would accrue at once. However, I rose not to argue the question, but to inquire whether there lifts been any idea, of covering the general question as this covers part.


George Perry Graham: I think not. In their experience, the commissioners have found cases in which there is a proposition for a railway to run on or a long a highway, and the commissioners have to give the decision whether it shall do so or not. As I understand it no damages can be collected in Mr. LENNOX.
that case and the Board wish to have the power to say to the railway commission: You may go there, but you must pay this iman for damages.


Robert Laird Borden: That covers one class of cases the cases to which I allude.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 8,


George Perry Graham: The discussion about section 8 was with reference to wires for the transmission of electric energy, and we were discussing it last night in the light of an attempt beng made to lay telephone or telegraph wires across. But what the chairman of the board is trying to straighten out is the difficulty when different power lines are crossing each other, or a street railway transmission line is crossing a steam railway. He wants to make standard regulations by which they can cross without making formal application to the Board of Railway Commissioners.
On section 10,


George Perry Graham: This is a section we had a good deal of discussion about. Subsection 5 deals with the case where a railway is being constructed through inclosed land, and animals escape from such inclosed land upon the property of the company. I said last night that this clause had been practically agreed to by consultation with the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the farmers' deputations from the west intimated that it met their views. What was agreed to was the whole 'section, except the words at the end ' upon the property of the company.' Then after that was agreed to, it was suggested by the farmers' organization that there ought to be something put in to make a railway company responsible for the destruction of crops as well. But this did not quite meet with the view of the committee. Last night we were discussing how to reach that point. I had a clause prepared by the legal department which did not quite_ meet the views of the committee last night, and they thought there might be some improvement in it. This was the clause I proposed last night, and hon. gentlemen who know the situation in the west will see what I was trying to get at. This is what I .proposed:
Where a railway is being constructed through inclosed land it shall be the duty of of the company to take effective measures to prevent cattle or other animals escaping from or getting upon such inclosed lands, or upon the property of the company, by reason of any act or thing done or permitted to he done by the company.
It is contended that by making it obligatory upon the company to prevent animals

from getting on land or in getting off land, they would be responsible for damage done to crops on the land as well as responsible for the killing of cattle who got off the land on to the property of the railway company. In discussing it this morning with my legal department again, I pointed out that the question raised in committee last night was that some officer or agent of the company might do something, such as a contractor, that would allow damage to be done, and under the clause as we had it the railway could not be held liable. I think the member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) said he was not clear whether these words would not be open to that construction or not, and it was thought desirable in a case of that kind to make clear just what the liability would be where a contractor or some official was concerned, because, as he pointed out, the railway company might issue instructions to any of its agents that they must keep the fences closed, and if they did not, then it would be open to the construction that the company had done their part and would not be liable.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If contractors are there with their permission they ought to be responsible.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think there would be much difficulty about an agent, but the difficulty is in the case of an independent contractor, with whom the railw'ay company have made a contract to build a certain section of road, and has stipulated with him that he shall attend to the fences and carry out all the obligations. It is in that ease that there might be difficulty about its being held that any acts of his which brought about any violation of his contract, and which brought about damage to outsiders, was an act permitted by the company.


George Perry Graham: That is what I understood. Well, would it be right for us to make the company liable for the action of an independent contractor?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He is there with their permission.


John Graham Haggart: If a contractor performs an act in violation of his contract with the railway company, should the company be liable?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think in that case the railway company ought to be liable, for this reason, that they are given a right to construct that railway, and it is quite proper that we should put upon them the obligation of seeing that the construction of that railway does no damage to an outsider; if we start by doing that, the company have no right to claim that they can throw off that obligation on to the shoulders of a contractor They might come to the contractor
to be indemnified for any damage they may have had to pay. But after all, the source of damage to the individual is the exercise by the railway company of its power of constructing this railway. Whether it does it by itself or by another, it would be just that it should be responsible to the outsider for damage caused by the construction of their road.


John Graham Haggart: The question is not whether they ought or ought not to be liable; it is whether the words of the Act cover the case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They should be liable, but they would have redress against the contractor. Like a corporation which is obliged to keep the sidewalks in repair, when they permit a contractor to tear up the sidewalks the municipality will still remain liable for damage to persons injured. Let the company put in a clause to indemnify the contractor. They should have redress against the contractor, but they should be liable to the injured persons.


George Perry Graham: We all agree that somebody ought to be liable, and it seems to me it ought to be the company. I propose these words to cover the case:
Where a railway is being constructed through inclosed land it shall be the duty of the company to take effective measures to prevent cattle or other animals escaping from or getting upon such inclosed lands, or upon the property of the company, by reason of any act or thing done by the company, its contractors, agents or employees.


William Sora Middlebro: That is still open to the objection of the hon. member for St. Anne (Air. Doherty) that the company might make all sorts of agreements with the contractor to protect themselves from damage. The company should be liable the same as a private individual. If a private individual enters my property through a contractor, he is liable for the action of the contractor.


Air. GRAHAAI.: Let me read what was agreed upon as likely to meet the situation, and then I will read my amendment:
Where	a	railway	is	being	constructed
through inclosed land it shall be the duty of the company to take effective measures to prevent cattle and other animals escaping from such inclosed lands.
Those were the words approved of after a good deal of discussion. Now it is said that that would not protect the crop, and, therefore, I have replied with this section:
Where	a	railway	is	being	constructed
through inclosed lands, it shall be the duty of the company to take effective measures to prevent cattle or other animals escaping from or getting upon such inclosed lands, or upon the property of the company, by reason of any

act or thing done by the company, its contractors, agents or employees.


William Sora Middlebro: Why not make it all damages without enumerating grain, stock, &c.?


George Perry Graham: I want to adhere to what seems to be satisfactory to all the people most intimately interested in it. I am making it, if anything, stronger than they had it, and I do not want to go too far the other way.


William Sora Middlebro: Is it the intention of the minister that the railway company shall be liable for all damages caused by the railway company, passing through inclosed fields, to grain, cattle or any other property?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: Why, say anything about cattle or wheat? Why not say:
Where the railway is being constructed through inclosed fields, the railway company shall be liable for all damage caused to the owner by the company, its contractors, subcontractors, servants or agents.


George Perry Graham: It will be ordinarily subject to all damages it might cause, I imagine. .


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think that is as strong as the minister's proposal.


George Perry Graham: I would propose that the subsection be changed to read as follows:
Where the railway is being constructed through inclosed lands, it shall be the duty of the company to take effective measures to prevent cattle or other animals escaping from or getting upon such inclosed lands or upon the property of the company by reason of any act or thing done by the company, its contractors, agent9 or employees.


George Henry Cowan: Should yon not also say ' or any act omitted to be done '? There are two classes of negligence there are omissions and commissions.


George Perry Graham: I discussed that pretty thoroughly with my legal department today, and they convinced me by legal arguments that everything would be the act of the railway company in producing a condition that did not before exist, and that it would all come under this section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be quite a burden on the railway which would require them to take effective steps, because effective steps must mean steps that Will effectively prevent any damages. I do not see how you could make it any stronger.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The obligation, no doubt, is to take effective measures to prevent any damage resulting from any act done. If the damage results merely from Mr. GRAHAM.
the omission to take effective measures you will not be able to bring suit based on any act that the railway company did to cause that damage. The damage will be caused because they did not do something.


George Perry Graham: Give us a case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Suppose the fences are not up, and they omit to put them up.


George Perry Graham: If the fences are not up it is because the contractors have knocked them down. This applies to inclosed lands.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Suppose they are accidentally knocked down. I cannot at the moment lay my finger upon a particular case of omission in this instance.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Supposing there is a whirlwind?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, supposing these fences are carried off by force majeure, and the contractor omits to reconstruct them. Suppose he comes through a gate and leaves it open, he does not open the gate but he just leaves it open. The damage is caused because he omits to close it. In most legislation that I haye seen of this kind provision is made for acts of omission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Supposing the fence is destroyed by a whirlwind the company would be liable for not taking effective measures to prevent whirlwinds.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not to prevent whirlwinds. Underneath all law there lies the commonsense principle that a man is not responsible for a force majeure; hut if the fence has been destroyed by a whirlwind the company are not responsible for the destruction of the fence, but they become bound to put up a new fence, because that would necessarily be an effective measure, and if you undertake to sue them you will not be able to show that by any act they caused the damage; the act was the act of God, but still they would be responsible for the replacing of the fence.


George Perry Graham: Take the case of a whirlwind which destroys a fence. The section speaks of a property which is inclosed. The railway company has nothing to do with property which is not inclosed. It does not touch it, and it is not responsible in any way.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose the fence is destroyed by fire?


George Perry Graham: If the railway company has not taken the fence down it has nothing to do with it. It has not made any change in the condition.


George Henry Cowan: If it is not put up by them would it not be an act of omission?


Duncan Graham: If it did not come within the purview of where they were operating they would have nothing to do with it. I went through this for an hour with my legal department, and they convinced me that this would meet every condition where a railway could possibly be held to be liable.


George Henry Cowan: What would the minister say of the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), where the gate is left open? Would that be an omission?


Duncan Graham: The next section says that the company shall be liable unless where the gate is left open by some person outside of its employees. The case of a gate being left open is fully covered by another section.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 11, the company liable except under certain conditions.


Duncan Graham: This section was left over largely on account of the words ' any person.' It was argued last night that the railway should not be exempted from liability for damage to such a large extent if ' any person ' left the gate open on either side of the railway. It was contended with some force that there should be some qualification which would say that <f a gate were left open by persons other than the employees of the company liability would result. This is what I suggest as a prefix to subsection (b). I will read the whole section:
The company shall be liable to the owner for the full value of all horses, sheep, swine or other cattle that may be killed or injured upon the company's land through the operation of the railway, save where such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person-
(a) failing to keep the gates at any farm crossing, at each side of the railway closed, when not in use.
I believe that clause is all right, because it presupposes that the duty of the farmer is to keep his gate closed. I had thought of prefixing to subsection (b) the words:
Other than an officer, contractor or employee of the company leaving open any gate.
Making the same prefix to (b) as there is to (c). That, I think, would have the legal effect of saying that if any person in the employ of the company left the gate open the railway would be responsible, but that if any other person left it open the railway would not be responsible.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If we are going to pass this section, I would say that the limitation should be to the owner of the animal or his servant. Why should the owner suffer because some stranger, who is trespassing on his property leaves his gate open? I appeal to the committee not to pass this section. We discussed this matter for three years, beginning with 1901. We had a commission appointed especially to deal with this question. They took evidence all over the country and reported to parliament, and finally the legislation of 1903 was passed by the unanimous consent of this House. In the committee I had many warm supporters on the Liberal side of this legislation, when it was being passed, among them the hon. member for South Wellington, and the former member for Haldimand.
The hon. gentleman yesterday said that he was repealing for the benefit of the farmers the clause which says that they shall not allow their animals to be within half a mile of a railway crossing on the public highway, but he is repealing more, he is repealing the clause which puts the onus on the railway to prove that the owner is negligent. The hon. gentleman said that the farmers' associations were in favour of this legislation. With all due deference to the farmers' associations, as a man having actions against railways in c:iees of this kind, I say that the farmers' associations are bringing on themselves interminable litigation to construe this Act. Apparently they do not understand what their rights have been since 1903, if they approve of this. There has been no litigation, the only question has been the amount of damages where they were recoverable, and where they were not recoverable, no attempt has been made to secure them. Any lawyer could tell from the statement of facts whether the company was liable or not, and the railway company also recognized when they were responsible.
The present law is quite clear that the railway company is liable unless they can prove that it was through the fqult or neglect of the owner of the animal or his servant that the animal got on the track, except in cases where the animal was killed on the highway. Why change all that? This is a most drastic taking away of the rights which we, after full consideration during three sessions, granted to the owners of animals. I would suggest that the minister should repeal subsections (a) and (b) of section 294, but not the whole section, as this Bill proposes. Sections (a) and (b) cover the point which the minister said yesterday he was dealing with, that is the removal from the farmer of the obligation to keep his animals at least half a mile away from a railway crossing; but subsection (c) provides that the farmer shall not recover if the animal is killed at the point of intersection, which I think is good sense, while subsections (d) and (e) provide for the protection of the farmer by enacting that he is not to be held responsible for anything ex-

cept his own negligence, and is entitled to recover if the railway company does not prove such negligence.	.	.
We have the law codified in plain language in subsections 3, 4 and 5 of section 294. Why should we disturb all that and take away the protection it affords? Why should we unsettle the law which was determined on by this parliament after full and careful consideration for three years, and which has been in operation for 8 years, and is now thoroughly understood by everybody? I tell the minister, as a lawyer who has a great deal of experience in these cases, who discovered the outrageous state of the law before he got a seat in this House, and who has realized the beneficial results of the change that was accomplished in 1903, and the great saving of expense in litigation consequent upon that change, that this particular section is under the circumstances very hastily entered upon. The farmers do not know what they are talking about if they think the proposed legislation is going to get them paid for one animal where they were paid for ten before. I am not objecting to the removal of the penalties if an animal happen to get within half a mile of the crossing; but I say, do not go further than that, and remove the protection to the farmer who takes all reasonable care to keep his animal at home, and it escapes because of the act of some stranger or because of a windstorm or a falling tree breaking down the fence, and so letting the animal escape. Most farmers do not want their animals to get within half a mile of a railwawy crossing. I have never known a farmer to get damages equal to what a horse or a cow was worth; they always take a little less; they are not anxious to get their animals killed. They cannot help their animals sometimes escaping, and when they do escape in spite of their reasonable precautions, if this Bill-passes, the legislation which this parliament enacted, after three sessions of thorough discussion, will be gone, and these men will not be able to recover.
There is no real protection to the people in this. People are not going to allow their animals to escape just for the sake of getting paid for them, and if it be found that the owmer of the animal or his employees be at fault, the railway companies do not pay. If, however, the conditions existed which were so carefully laid down by parliament in 1903, which entitled the owner to recover, he would get his money. Under these circumstances, I think that this section ought not to pass in its present shape. The purpose the hon. minister has in view could be very well met by repealing subsections 1 and 2 of section 294 which deal with the question of animals getting on a highway crossing, which he Mr. LANCASTER.
wants to change, but to take away the principles laid down in subsections 3, 4 and 5 will create chaos. Practically all the [DOT]liability is gone because the question resolves itself into whether the animal got 'on the railway through the fault of any 'person other than the railway company. A railway company is not going to open a 'man's gate or smash his fence, and if it was not the agent or servant of the rail-Vay company who caused the trouble, the man cannot recover, even if the company did not keep the animal off its tracks as it should. The minister should not undertake 'to undo all we did in 1903, and change 'entirely the condition of affairs and cause litigation with very little hope for the Owner of the animal to get any substantial justice.


George Perry Graham: The object of this Bill was to cut out anything unnecessary and get in a small compass something that would make a railway company liable for the killing of cattle on its tracks. The conditions in the colder provinces are so different from those in the west that it is difficult to devise a section which may be applied with equity in both sections. In the older sections, farmers, as a rule, do not allow their cattle to run near a railway, but in the newer portions the cattle graze at large, and that is not illegal. We had a provision to the effect that if the cattle were grazing within half a mile of a railway, the owner had no recourse. In the east that would be all right, but not in the west.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Neither would it in the east.


George Perry Graham: It was suggested to make the railway companies liable without reservation for all the cattle killed on their tracks. That was very drastic. I called in the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners to discuss the question with him. He pointed out to me what many farmers in the west did last year, and what does not agree with my hon. friend's experience in the east, namely, that railway companies pay the settler for the animal killed. But hundreds are killed in the west which are not found.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Thousands.


George Perry Graham: It is contended by the Chairman of the Board that this will sweep away a great many of the difficulties, and make the railway companies directly responsible except under definite conditions here outlined. If it does not protect the farmers more than the present law does, the amendment would be futile.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It does not.


George Perry Graham: The Farmers' Association is advised by its solicitor that it does.


Arthur Meighen: On what does the minister base his statement that the Farmers' [DOT]Association in any way has consented to these amendments?


George Perry Graham: I have a copy of a letter here which was addressed to a number of members of parliament by Mr. James Bower, president of the Canadian Council, Manitoba, in which he says that the draft amendment submitted to him, and which is in this Bill, meets their wishes.
Let me read the letter:
Ottawa, March 31, 1911. Dear Sir,-In response to the request of the farmers for amendments to the Railway Act, giving them more protection from loss in having stock killed on railways, the Hon. Mr. Graham, Minister of Railways and Canals, has caused the following draft amendment to be made, to be submitted to parliament.
The clauses as amended in this form meet with out approval and as representing the farmers, I wish respectfully to enlist your support in having them become law.
Yours faithfully,


JAMBS BOWER,
[Stage Direction]
President Canadian Counoil of Agriculture.
i I shall now read the draft clause which Mr. Bower endorses:
iSections 294 and 293 are repealed and the following substituted:	_	'
294. The company shall be liable to pay the full value thereof to the owner of all horses, sheep, swine or other cattle that may be killed or injured upon the company's lands through the operation of the railway, save where such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person-
(a)	failing to keep the gates at any farm crossing, at each side of the railway closed, when not in use; or,
(b)	leaving open any gate on either side of the railway iprovided for the use of any farm crossing without some competent person being at or near such gate to prevent animals passing through such gate on to the railway; or,
(c)	other than an officer, contractor, or employee of the company, taking down any part of the railway fence; or,	_
(d)	turning any animal upon or within the enclosure of any railway company; or,
>(e) except as authorized by this Act, without the consent of the company, riding, leading or driving any animal, or suffering it to enter upon any railway and within the fences and guards thereof; or,
(f) leaving the gates of the company at railway stations open for the convenience of the public.
This being the situation, I thought I had arrived at a solution of the difficulty. I had a clause drafted by the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, who
has given this more attention than any man in this House, and has made greater complaints to me about the loss of stock suffered by farmers in the west than any man in this House, and who has an experience greater than that of any man in this House and ability equal to any.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Without any franchise to make the law.


George Perry Graham: We are making the laws. He has had more experience.


Arthur Meighen: How has he had any experience dealing with cases of damage to cattle?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend makes a little technical objection. The Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners has to deal with the conditions that bring about the loss of animals, and has had more experience than any man in this House in that direction. He deals with the conditions under which animals are kept off or let on to a railway track, and it is to him we look to suggest a remedy. And it is to him we look to suggest a remedy from his experience. He has suggested a remedy. He has drawn a clause which has been submitted, as I pointed out, not first to me but to the chairman of the Board of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada. That gentleman as representing the farmers says this is satisfactory, and will meet the conditions, and asks that the House put it through. Of course, these gentlemen are not infallible, but their opinions are worthy of consideration. I am bound to say, with all deference to gentlemen on the other side of the House, that I have hot yet found the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners erring on the side of any company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He has in this case.


George Perry Graham: If there is any charge made against him it is that he is hard on the companies, and favours the public.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He is sawing off now.


George Perry Graham: I believe this amendment meets the conditions, and ought to pass.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let me appeal to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), as a practical man and a legislator-for I have more respect for him as a legislator than I have for the Chairman -of the Board of Railway Commissioners. That gentleman has no franchise to make laws for this country, and, with all deference, he does not know the people's side of this question. He knows the railway conditions, he knows how the track should be built, and how orders should be made as
940.3

to railway operation; but lie does not know how the farmers live in regard to these railway intersections. He does not know the conditions the farmers are up against. For this gentleman as ail administrator- and I do not wish to be misunderstood nor do I wish to throw bouquets-I have every respect. But I have no respect for the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners saying that he knows what the conditions of our people are in these matters better than the Minister of Railways. The chairman of the board is very busy, and he would do well to stay busy administering the laws we put up to him to administer, and not-to use an ordinary expression-butt in and tell the minister that he knows the conditions better than the representatives of the people who have to live under the conditions, and who with all deference to the chairman of the board, know what are the practical evils to be remedied and the practical common sense way to meet them from both sides. I appeal to the minister; can he say the farmer's association is well advised in asking for the repeal of subsections 4 and 5? They were well satisfied with the way this Act was working except as to the conditions of which my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), is better able to speak than I, though I know something of them from him. The minister is right in repealing the section in regard to animals on the highway within half a mile of the crossing. But, while he gives the farmers five cents worth in this way, he is taking away $5,000 worth by the repeal of subsections 4 and 5. By doing this, as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie shows, he is taking away the chance of the farmer to recover for his animal killed in this way. 'Subsections 4 and 5 fix on the railway company the onus of proving negligence ' on the part of the owner. Cannot the minister see that these men were ill advised when they asked for a repeal of these subsections? They do not understand. They are like a child of eight or ten years who is asked if he would not like a dollar to buy candy and told all he has to do is to get his guardian to sign away tire farm that will come to him when he is 21 years of age.


Mr. CLARKE (Essex).: In what case were they protected before in which they are now not protected?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If subsection 4 is not repealed here is what we have:
When any horse9, sheep, swine or other cattle at large, whether upon the highway or not, get upon the property of the company and are killed or injured by a train, the owner of any such animal so killed or injured shall except in the cases otherwise provided for by the next following section, be entitled to recover the amount of such loss or injury Mr. LANCASTER.
against the company in any action in any court of jurisdiction,-
The cases provided' for in the following sections are practically the same as are provided here.
-unless the company establishes that such animal got at large through the negligence or wilful act or omission of the owner or his agent, or of the custodian of such animal or his agent.
5. The fact that any such animal was not in charge of some competent person or persons shall not, if the animal was killed or injured upon the property of the company and not at the point of intersection with the highway, deprive the owner of his right to recover.
These put the onus of proof of negligence on the company. It was not a matter of guesswork. The farmer goes out in the morning and finds two of his cattle gone. He does not know how they got away any more than the railway company does. But if these animals are killed at the railway and unless the railway company can prove negligence, the owner can recover damages. The fact that the animal was not in charge of a competent person is not to be taken as proof of negligence. That is a necessary part of it.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Which exceptions let the company out of liability in such cases? I cannot understand how th^y would be relieved.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Under the Act as now proposed?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It says:
The company shall be liable to the owner for the full value of all horses, sheep, swine or other cattle that may be injured upon the company's lands through the operations of the railway, save where such killing or injury was caused by reason of any person

Then you enumerate all the cases that will happen, and make each of them an exception. I cannot see how a man can possibly recover on an animal killed on the track unless he can prove that the station master, or somebody else in the employ of the company deliberately admitted the animal to the property of the company.


George Perry Graham: That is on either side of the railway at a farm crossing.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The animal is not killed unless it gets upon the railway, and the party does not recover except in those cases. Now every one of those clauses provided for every possible case where that animal would get killed, unless it could be proved that, an agent of the company deliberately led the horse or cow upon the railway.


George Perry Graham: Supposing his cow was at large and strayed on the crossing?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then he cannot recover simply because he suffered it to go there. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the animal is killed because it goes down the highway to the point of intersection, and gets on the track and is killed on the railway property.
Except as authorized by this Act, -without the consent of the company, riding, leading or driving any animal, or suffering it to enter upon any railway and within the fences and guards thereof.
Except that before, we had this deliberate statement that that alone should not disentitle a man to recover. That before was in the shape of -a liability on the man. No one can doubt what the decision of the courts will be if you repeal subsections 4 and 5, which put the onus upon the company -of proving that the man himself was negligent. Then they don't have to prove anything of the kind. I have no doubt that this Act has been drawn in the interest of the railways, although the minister does not think so.


George Perry Graham: I cannot see any point where it is in their interest.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: None is so blind as those that won't see. I want to point out to him that in the sections that are a protection to the farmer in this regard, the onus is to be on the company to prove him negligent. Surely the minister knows that when these sections are repealed a different construction is to be put upon the sections that remain. I repeat they were adopted by the unanimous consent of this House, and they were sent up to the Senate, who objected to them. We had a conference, and the Senate had to give in. The farmers' associations were thinking of the fact that they were escaping the trouble of having to keep their animals half a mile from the railway crossing, and this section would mislead them into thinking so, because section 294 does s-ay that. I do not -see how this can be construed so that the man can be paid for his animals under ordinary circumstances. But I am certain that it won't apply to nine out of ten cases that it now applies to, because there always will be litigation to ascertain whether he led, or drove the animal, or suffered it to enter upon the railway or within the fences and guards thereof. Now let me suggest to the minister to repeal -subsections 1 and 2 of section 294, and leave subsections 3, 4 and 5. If he does that he will be doing .something for the farmers; if he does not, he will be handing them five cents with one hand and taking away from them five dollars with the other. It is the common law duty of a man to keep his animals at home. Now, unless we declare that the company shall he liable, and if we do not set up against a defence to
such liability what is now being repealed, then -at common law the man would be guilty of negligence for letting his animal get there, although he did not intend it. We are all sincere in desiring to protect the farmers' rights, and the intention of the minister is to increase the protection to the farmers. Therefore, it can be doing n-o harm simply to repeal subsections 1 and 2 of 294, and leave subsections 3, 4 and 5 to stand.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I have been endeavouring to ascertain whether the proposed amendments lessen the liability of the railway company for accidents, and it seems to me that if there is -any difference it increases their liability. I think if we make a comparison of the -law as it was in sections 294 and 295, with the proposed section, which consolidates the two, we will find that in the part which my hon. friend complains of, that is the part where animals are allowed to run at large, the proposed amendment increases: the liability of the company instead of lessening it; in this respect, that under the Act as it exists at present, when animals are running at large and get upon the railway, prima facie the company is responsible. The burden is put upon the railway company to prove that the owner of the animal was guilty either of negligence or of some wilful act with respect to it. The meaning of the present section, I think, is that even if he is guilty of negligence the railway is liable.
' Mr. LANCASTER. No, they are not liable if he suffers it to get there.
i Mr. CLARKE (Essex). Yes. The only way the railway can escape -is by proving that the owner wilfully turned the animal on the railway property. The first two paragraphs of the proposed section II, (a) and (b), are practically the same as they were before. They refer to farm crossings, >and do not refer to animals running at large. Therefore, these are the sections which refer to animals running at large:
The company shall be liable to the owner for the full value of all horses, sheep, swine or other cattle that may be killed or injured upon the company's lands through the operation of the railway.
They state there that they shall be liable .for everything. What is the exception?
Save where such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person-
(d) turning any animal upon or within the enclosure of any railway company.
That is the only exception1 with regard to animals at large. They are liable for all animals save where a person turns an animal upon or within the enclosure of the railway company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You must read (e) with that.


Alfred Henry Clarke: No, (e) does not Tefer to animals running at large.
. Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, because he suffers it to get there.


Alfred Henry Clarke: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think the hon. gentleman quite understands my argument. The old clause was a declaration that a man should not do a certain thing. Section 295 was the clause which declared the company's liability.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Quite so, in the case of animals running at large.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Section 294 was a declaration of liability. Section 295! simply said that a man should not do certain things but that was not a declaration of the liability of the company.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Section 294 is dealing with animals running at large. Section 295 is not dealing with animals running at large,- it is with the question of animals running at large that we are now concerned. Section 294 says that when any animals 'are killed or injured the; owner shall be entitled to recover ' except in the cases otherwise provided.' This section simply says that they shall be liable for all animals unless it be shown that they are deliberately driven upon the railway.


William Sora Middlebro: Is not the chief point of difference between the sections, that in the old Act there is an express provision that the company must establish negligence?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Yes, but here they are removing even negligence on the part of the other party.


William Sora Middlebro: But it does not say that they must establish it.


Alfred Henry Clarke: It makes no difference whether there is negligence or not; the company is liable. It does not make any exception for negligence of the owner; it only specifies wilfully driving the animals on the property of the railway company.	*


Alfred Henry Clarke: 


William Sora Middlebro: Under the old Act, if I find my cattle killed in the enclosure of the r'ailway company, the company will be liable unless they can establish my negligence. Is there anything in this Act which allows me to take a similar position? There is an express stipulation in the old Act which says that the company must establish negligence. True, this Bill says that the company are liable, but it does not say that they must establish negligence. The old Act declared their liability unless they proved that they were negligent. Under the present Bill there is no express stipulation which says that the company must prove negligence. In that respect I think the farmers have been gold-bricked.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Under the present Act the burden of proof is on the railway company to prove facts which disentitle the owner to relief-negligence or some wilful act. The present section does not, in express terms, say that the burden is upon the railway company to prove that the owner of the animal turned the animal upon *the railway.


William Sora Middlebro: Or was guilty of negligence.


Alfred Henry Clarke: There is no question of negligence under the present Bill, because the company is liable whether there is negligence or not.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The question of contributory negligence is always open, and a court would say that ordinary contributory negligence disentitles the claimant to recover.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I do not know about that. Ordinarily, in a case of contributory negligence, you cannot recover, but if the Act says that you shall recover except in a certain instance, you must prove this instance. Whether or not the doctrine of contributory negligence is applicable, that stands upon its own footing, and we are' not concerned with it one way or the other.
I do not know that anybody will say that we ought to put a statute upon the statute-book saying that- contributory negligence or the absence of contributory negligence must be proved by either side.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is what was done in 1903, and that has been the law up to now.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Not contributory negligence. What you are saying is that they are not liable unless the company prove negligence or some other act on the part of the owner.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have said that a certain thing would not disentitle a man to recover which would otherwise be con-

tributory negligence. We have said that allowing any animal to run at large shall not disentitle him to recover. We did not say that that should be contributory negligence which should disentitle him.


William Sora Middlebro: Would the hon. gentleman have any objection to changing the proposed section so as to say that the following only shall be defences to an action under this section? Then we would know if we had our case proved, and it would lie upon the company to make a defence upon the grounds mentioned in the various subsections.


Mr. OLARKE (Essex).: As to turning the animal upon the property of the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suffering it to get there.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I do not know whether or not it should be amended, but I do not see much need of it for this reason. The only escape from liability is in [DOT]case, there is evidence that the owner of the animal turns it upon the railway. I think it is going pretty far to say that the railway company must prove that the owner turned the animal upon the railway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the law today.


Alfred Henry Clarke: It goes further to-day. It is not a question of negligence. There might be negligence in the way you fasten a gate, or in a hundred other things. That ground of defence is taken away absolutely. The only way i.ne railway company can escape under the proposed amendment is by showing that the owner actually turned the animal upon the railway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No; suffered it to get there.


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is a different thing entirely.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It says so in paragraph (e).


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is another clause. Under the present clause there is no burden upon the railway company as to suffering an animal to get upon the railway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes.


Alfred Henry Clarke: No. The present Act, section 294, subsections 4 and 5, only refer to animals running at large. Section 295, subsection (3) says that:
Except as authorized by this Act, without the consent of the company, riding, leading or driving any such horse, cattle, or other animal, or suffering the same to enter upon any railway, and within the fences and guards thereof.
There is no burden of proof upon the railway with respect to that.
Mr. LANCASTER But you must read subsection 5 of section 294 of the Act which you are repealing, and which says that the fact that such animal was not in charge of some competent person shall not, if the animal is killed, deprive the owner of the right of recovery. You are taking that away and you might as well read the two together, that is read the present law with that which you are proposing to-day. It is saying that there shall not be contributory negligence.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I cannot read anything in the present Act which casts any onus on them in respect to anything in section 295.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It distinctly says so.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I do not think it is any great hardship. I think it will be going pretty far as the section is to say that before the railway company can succeed, they must prove that the owner of the animal killed, turned it on the highway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That has been the law since 1903.


Alfred Henry Clarke: In the working out of it any lawyer of experience in these things will say that it amounts to nothing at all. Consider a man going to court


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, they do not go to court.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Whether a man has a genuine claim or not he knows if he turned the animal on the highway. It does not depend on a tramp opening the gate as at present, the only point is that it has to be proved it is there, the company is liable unless somebody shows the man turned it on the highway himself. Then is it any great hardship that a man should have to go there and prove what any honest man should be able to prove without difficulty, that he did not put it on the highway himself?	.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We came to the conclusion that that was not a good argument, the man does not know how the animal got away.


Alfred Henry Clarke: My hon. friend ignores what I said as to the difference between the present Act and the old Act. In the old Act it was not the act of the person himself that was the issue, it might be the act of other people, of any one opening the gate. There you very well said: 'We will not put the onus on the owner to prove that somebody did not open the gate, or did open the gate, we are going to put that onus on the railway, and say



that unless the railway prove there was some negligence or something of that kind, they shall be liable.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why change it now?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Because we are striking out the negligence entirely. There is only one thing that exempts the company, and that is if the owner actually turned the animal on the railway himself.


William Sora Middlebro: Why not strike out the words ' save where,' in the second line of paragraph 11 so that it would read:
Unless the railway company establish that such killing or injury is caused by reason of

So as to put the onus on them of establishing the exception.


Arthur Meighen: I know that opposition or even comment on this Bill is very likely to be interpreted as opposing the farmers' demands, and consequently a very serious step. Much as I respect the opinion of Mr. Bower and those associated with him, I do not see why we should abdicate our functions in their favour, nor yet in favour of the Chairman of the Railway Commission. We had a committee of the House last year dealing with a proposed amendment to the Railway Act, including an amendment to subsection 4 of 254 which is repealed by this Bill. That committee reported favourably on the amendment which was adopted by the Minister of Railways, and embodied in the law only a year ago. By virtue of that a large class of losses for which there had previously been no compensation, were included in the list of those losses for which a railway is liable. That is now all repealed. What is the explanation?


George Perry Graham: I argued in favour of that clause in my discussions with representatives of the farmers of the west. I pointed out that clause as assisting them in their own protection. They were unanimous in telling me it did not meet the object at all. In one or two places I had very warm discussions with representatives of the farmers, and they told me that this did not meet the case.


Arthur Meighen: The explanation is the same as formerly, that Mr. Bower did not want it.


George Perry Graham: It was not Mr. Bower.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody contended that the amendment of last session gave all that was desired. I introduced an amendment this session that went much further, but to say it meant nothing and did not cover cases not previously covered, is to talk nonsense. Under the old law in certain conditions a railway company was Mr. CLARKE (Essex).
liable if it killed or injured horses or cattle. Under the same conditions of negligence it might do other damage besides killing or injuring horses or cattle by trains or engines, but in such cases the railway company was not liable. The courts held, on the theory of the history of the legislation, that the class of damage for which they were liable was confined to the killing of horses or cattle. There is a line of cases leading up to that where serious losses are suffered with no redress. This parliament got to work and remedied that. Now the whole remedy is to be thrown to the winds because a certain gentleman out in Alberta does not understand what it means. This same gentleman had submitted to him the amendment which I introduced this year and he could see nothing in it. I venture to say that any man on this side of the House could submit any amendment in the world to that man and he would see nothing in it. What has been the law in this regard? Up to the present time the law can be stated in very clear and very brief terms. If an animal is killed or injured on the right of way by a train or engine the owner recovers unless the company shows the animal got there by the negligence or wilful act of the owner. It is very true, as the minister says, that conditions are different in the east and in the west, and that the law as it stood remedied conditions in eastern Canada to a much greater extent than in western Canada, because in eastern Canada it would be almost impossible for the company to show that the animal got at large by the negligence or wilful act of the farmer. In western Canada animals run at large almost indiscriminately, in fact a great part of the industry of western Canada would have to collapse unless animals were so allowed to run at large, and as a consequence of their running at large in this way in almost 80 cases out of 100 the railway company were able to show at once that the animal was simply turned out, that it got out of a gate and was running at large on the commons. In four cases out of five the company got an admission from the man himself and they took the precaution generally of getting it by affidavit. When the killing of an animal was reported to them their usual course was to send an affidavit to the poor fellow whose animal was hurt and he filled it out and sent it in and then and there the whole case collapsed, because the animal got out in that way. A gentleman near Portage la Prairie had a band of horses, some one drifted in his gate, got a drink of water, and went away leaving the gate open. The band of horses got out. But it happened that the farmer knew that the gate was open; he was passing

some corner of his farm and saw the gate open. We were compelled to advise that man that he had no case, although his animals were killed by getting on the track through the negligence of the company in not keeping their gates closed. Although the negligence of the company was the clear cause of the loss, the farmer had no case.


George Perry Graham: This is an improvement on that.


Arthur Meighen: This is no improvement. Whereas before it was a matter of some difficulty to advise the farmer whether he had any cause of action or not, under this Bill he who runs may read and may tell him that he had no cause for action. It has been held that unless you expressly put the burden on the company to prove the exceptions, the burden is on the plaintiff, and he has to negative the exceptions. Previously he did not have to negative them. All he had to show was that the animals were not on the right of way, and the burden was on the company to show that he had let them loose. The state of the law before was not satisfactory, at any rate in western Canada, because the company should have been liable unless they could prove that they were not negligent. It is not hard to frame a statute to meet the case if we simply take the common law of the country, and apply it to the Railway Act; but the railway companies have taken good care that the common law is negatived almost throughout the Act, and it was never more clearly negatived than it is by the amendment now submitted. If we apply the principles of the common law, the result will be that the railway company will be liable for loss if the negligence or breach of the law by the company is the immediate cause of the loss, no matter whether there was a remote cause or not. Let the railway company show that there was no negligence on their part, and then they will escape. That is all that has to be done. I submitted to this House a Bill which unfortunately did not meet the approval of Mr. Bower, but which I did hope to submit to the approval of the House of Commons, which to my mind would have brought the railwav law into conformity with common law principles, and make the last party whose immediate negligence was the cause of the loss, the party to pay foir that loss. The exceptional circumstances that attend the operation of railways, and the exceptional advantage a railway company has over private individuals, should make it responsible for disabusing itself of that negligence and should throw upon it the burden of showing that it was not negligent. That would not be hard to do. If the company provided the best possible guard, kept its fences up and its gates 2974
(closed, it) would not be negligent, and should not be held liable. The two principles of law pertaining to railway companies should be these. They should in every case be responsible, where under common law principles an individaul would be responsible; and, by virtue of the great advantage they have over the ordinary individual whose animals are injured, they should shoulder this additional responsibility, and have the burden where in the ordinary case the plaintiff has the burden. If we embody that in the Railway Act we clearly cover the ground. But to alter section 294, which has been the foundation of all the legal decisions which have made the law pretty clear, and substitute five new exceptions, making it not only impossible to recover, but almost impossible for counsel to advise the farmer whether he has a ground for action or not, is only to make it a case of scorpions instead of whips. I submit that these amendments should not pass at the present time. If it can be shown that they in any degree relieve the difficulty under which the farmers of the west suffer to-day, I will vote for them; but I can see no advantage in them except the striking out of clause which I support. From that on they are doomed not only to produce confusion, but to make it more difficult to advise the farmer whether he is shouldering a lawsuit or the hope of success, and at the same time to make it impossible in many cases that now exist to advise him clearly that he has any case at all.


John Graham Haggart: Both sides are evidently agreed as to what the law should be. The difference is only one of interpretation. Surely both parties can get together and draft a clause which will carry out the meaning of what the House wishes.


George Henry Cowan: What change does the minister propose in subsection (b) ?


George Perry Graham: I was going to prefix these words:	' Other than an officer, contractor or employee of the company.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It should be 'other person than the owner.' You are putting the liability on the farmer for the acts of somebody else. Why not say the converse of what you have-unless it is the-owner or an agent of the owner? Why should he take the risk of other people s acts? I think I made it quite distinct what the vice of this proposed legislation is. Under the present law, unless the owner or his agent or custodian is guilty of some negligence, he should not be debarred from the right to recover.


Alfred Henry Clarke: If you look at the old section, you will find it provides: that no person whose animals are killed by

any train shall have a right of action if they were killed by reason of any one, for whose use any farm crossing is furnished, failing to keep the gate on such railway crossing closed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister now suggests that this clause be modified so that the person shall be an officer or agent or the company. But an officer or agent of the company is not at all likely to'let an animal through. The most likely person is the mischievous or careless one who does not own the animal and is not responsible -the tramp or meddler, or trespasser. Surely the owner should have the right to recover unless he himself or some one employed by him is to blame. Subsection 4 of section 294, which we are repealing, has this declaration:
Unless the company establishes that such an animal got out through the negligence or wilful act or omission of the owner of the animal or his agent or custodian.
Why not put in these words? You are taking away the only protection the farmer has.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I notice that in the old Act the clause that corresponds to section (a) has these words:
The person for whose use any farm crossing is furnished failing to keep the gate closed.
The company is liable unless it shows that the accident was due to the person for [DOT]whose use the farm crossing was furnished, failing to keep the gate closed. But under this amendment the company escapes having to prove that. What is the reason for the difference?


George Perry Graham: It is the specific duty of some one to keep the gate closed. That is quite different from opening a gate. To my mind it is the duty of a farmer to see that the gate is closed because the gate is his. It would be very hard to prove who left the gate open, much harder than to prove who opened it. Everybody might leave a gate open who saw it open and did not close it. My own opinion is that the man responsible for keeping the gate shut is the farmer; and if it be left open, he should see that it is *shut. But the next clause imposes a penalty on the company if any of its employees left the gate open. I am strongly of the opinion that this section, as now drafted, is a great improvement on the present statute. rfhe people who have given it the most study and are most interested are of that opinion. I,coking at the thing from a business standpoint the present law contains some paragraphs, to which my hon. friend referred, which are so obscure that they give rise to great difference of opinion as to what they really mean. At any rate the farmers in the west who have lost cattle


Alfred Henry Clarke: have not been able to get paid for them, whatever the reason may be. In discussing this question with men of some legal ability, they take the ground that we ought to wipe out all this excrescence of language and show clearly that, no matter who may be in fault, the railway company shall pay for the cattle except under certain specified exceptions. This Bill is plainer than the present Act and it leaves less room for expensive lawsuits and gives greater facility to the farmers to get paid for their cattle. However, I do not want to detain the House. If my hon. friends opposite insist, we will drop the clause for the present and take it up when we meet again and let the rest of the Bill go through


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have no doubt that if we could have a private conversation- say a committee of three or four of us-I could convince the minister of things he does not yet see. There is the common law principle of contributory negligence which we must not forget. The present law provides that it shall not be contributory negligence if an animal loose on the highway gets on the railway track. But no matter how clear the liability, if you provide that if the person injured knew the danger at the time and could have avoided it, you practically nullify the provision. We have got round that hitherto by the section I have referred to. However, I am glad this is to stand. I presume it will not be proceeded ..with until after the holiday? And it will be struck out in the meantime?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr. HERRON.: I am not a lawyer, and I do not know what would be the effect of the clause proposed, but for my own part, personally, I would be prepared to accept any amendment accepted by this House, knowing that nothing could be worse than the present situation so far as our part of the country is concerned. I would accept this Bill on trial and be glad of it, for it can be no worse than what we now have. I am sorry it is to stand over, because farmers are sustaining losses every day by having their cattle killed or injured on the railways, and in no case have the railways paid damages foT the last three or four years- and they do not make pretense of paying as the law is now; they completely ignore the claim of the farmer for the loss of his cattle.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is good for lawsuits.


John Herron: People will not attempt lawsuits, because they know they cannot win. I am very scrry the House cannot agree on something in regard to this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am free to say that, as I read this proposed section as it stands, it

does seem to me to be a great improvement from the point of view of the farmer whose cattle are killed on the railway. Personally, I think there might be some verbal alteration that would make it clearer; but I would be sorry to be responsible for creating a situation in which the Bill would be passed and this left out, for I think leaving it out would be a distinct loss to the persons who wish to invoke the benefit of the law against the railway company in these matters.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 1 would suggest that the company follow the advice of my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Herron) and let the section pass. This is not as the laws of the Medes and Persians; if it is not satisfactory we can amend it. I am not a lawyer, but I am a farmer; and from a farmer's standpoint I think this is much more satisfactory than the old clause.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not the present law satisfactory in your part of the country?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What are the objections?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would not like to take up the time of the House at this stage explaining to my hon. friend, but if he will take dinner with me I will tell him all about it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, you can't do that with me.


Mr COWAN.: I would suggest alterations that, I think, will bring the opposing views together. In subsection (a) I would insert the words that are in the present subsection (a), 'for whose use any farm crossing is furnished.' That would make it read that the company shall be liable save where killing or injury of cattle is caused bv any person ' for whose use any farm crossing is furnished failing to keep the gates at each side of the railway closed, .when not in use.' In subsection (e) I would insert the word ' wilfully ' before the word ' suffering.' I am inclined to the view expressed by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Clarke) that this amendment limits the defence of the company to the subsections in section 11. Prior to that, the company would have the additional defence of negligence. But these subsections in section 11 are wider than those in the old Act. The words I suggest, if added, confine the failure to keep the gate closed to the man for whose use it is furnished, and under subsection (e) it would confine the suffering of the animals to enter upon the railway to wilfully suffering them so to enter. And if similar change were made in subsection (b) as in subsection (a) would not that meet the case and improve the law? In other words, I would
insert before the word ' leaving ' in subsection (b) the words ' for whose use any farm crossing is furnished,' making the other verbal alterations that this change would necessitate.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) understand that a man can recover damages for cattle killed on the track unless he himself, and not some stranger, left the gate open?
Mr. COWAN In regard to subsection (a), yes.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the law. If any person left the gate open the man could not recover. But the law should be changed in that respect.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Did the hon. gentleman say he could not recover if a tramp left the gate open?
Mr: MEIGHEN. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke, Essex) say that if a tramp left the gate open and cattle got through the farm crossing gate-


George Perry Graham: We are not speaking of the farm crossing gate.


George Henry Cowan: That is under subsection (b). I should think it strange if, with these words inserted in subsection (a) the railway company could succeed without proving that the owner for whose benefit the gate was furnished had failed to keep it closed. I thin'k the extent of subsection (a) should be limited so that that failure should be confined to the owner for whose use the farm crossing was furnished.


George Perry Graham: That was the wording, but it was held that as regards a farm crossing, a layman would not understand it to be the law.


Arthur Meighen: The case that went to appeal held this point, that if that gate was opened by any human agency whatever, the farmer could not recover; but if the gate became opened by any other agency than a human agency, he could .recover. Take subsection (f):
Leaving the gates of the company at railway stations open for the convenience of the public.
Now upon the prairie it is a common thing at country points for the gates to be left open. I have in my mind a case where the gates are left open by careless people-, and animals are permitted to run from the roadway on to the track. The gate is opened in the first place by some person for the convenience of the public. But why should an individual who is no party to that Act, be deprived of his recourse if he is injured, simply because the station agent, for instance, is no longer obliged to see that the gate is kept open?


Frank Oliver: I would like to follow up what my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Herron) has said. Coming from a part of the country that is more interested in cattle raising than possibly any other, I want to say that what the hon. member for Macleod said is said by every person in that part of the country, namely, that they cannot recover under the present law. T do not think that is a creditable condition of affairs to this country. I think if, on the authority of the Chief of the Railway *Commission, a section is drafted which, In his estimation, will cover the point, parliament should accept that drafting and have the law go into operation, so that cattle owners will have some effort at protection which at present, and under existing circumstances, they have not.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The trouble is that most of us on this side of the House are not convinced that this gives the remedy the hon. gentleman wants. I have had a good deal of experience in connection with this question for twenty-five years, I have had a lot to do in making this law before the hon. gentleman from Oxford ever entered this House, and this House was unanimous in putting on the statute the clause we have now.


Frank Oliver: It does not matter what legislation we pass here, it must run the gauntlet of the courts, and even neither my hon. friend or any one else can say what interpretation will be placed upon any legislation by the courts.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does not the minister think that we should pass legislation here so clear and distinct that it will not have to go to the courts to be fought over? Then why leave it in this chaotic state that is now proposed?


George Perry Graham: We will never get legislation that lawyers will not differ about, that would be ruinous to the profession. But I think we have discussed it pretty well. I do not want to force my views on the committee, and if the committee wish to drop this I will do it if the committee want to vote on it, let us vote on it and get on.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The minister proposed an amendment to subsection (b) which has not yet been put, namely, that before the first word, ' leaving/ the following words be placed, * other than an officer, contractor or employee of the company/


George Henry Cowan: Instead of the words the chairman has read I would suggest ' for whose use any farm crossing is furnished.' It was because of the emission of those Mr. MEIGHEN.
words in the old Act that the liability my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie mentions, arose. If these words were inserted the chief of our difficulties would disappear.


Edward Guss Porter: Does the minister intend to alter the last word in the section as it is framed here? It reads now ' or injury is caused by reason of any person.' Is it intended to change those words ' any person,' or leave it in that way?


George Perry Graham: In the reprinted amendment placed in my hands, the only change I was suggesting was the one read a moment ago by the chairman, prefixing certain words to subsection (b).


Edward Guss Porter: When these words are left there it seems to reverse the whole state of affairs that has existed up to the present time. It not only repeals the clauses of the old Act which fixed the onus upon the railway company, but it declares that the onus shall _be upon the other party. Let us take an illustration. Suppose a farmer finds his horse lying upon the railway track killed. He goes into the court to recover the loss sustained by him. He knows that he did not leave his gate open, and he knows that the horse has. escaped by reason of the gate being opened. He has been guilty of no wrong and his servant or workman has not been guilty of any wrong. In connection with that one must recollect that this railway has been put upon his farm against his wish or will, and that it is something he could not possibly prevent. This dangerous thing which has killed his horse has been forced upon him. He should be surrounded by every possible protection, but if this section passes, what is the result? He finds his horse dead, and he sues the railway company to recover the damages which he has sustained. When he goes into court he is met by this section, and he must prove, first, that his horse was killed by the railway. He proves the value of his horse. He has to prove that his horse was not killed by reason of any person failing to keep the gate at his farm crossing closed. He has to prove that no' person left the gate on either side of the railway open. He has to prove that no other person, other than an officer, contractor, or employee of the company took down any part of the fence. Then, he has to prove that nobody led, drove, or suffered the animal to be put upon the railway. He has to prove every one of these negative propositions, and it is utterly Amjpossible for him to prove them. He can go into court, and put his agent, his boys, and his girls, into the witness box and prove that no one of them did any of these acts, but for him to prove that no other person did them is utterly impossible, and the result will be that

unless he does prove any of these things he will be non-suited by the court. Under the old law that condition of affairs is reversed. If he finds his horse killed upon the railway track the onus is upon the railway company to prove that it got there *through his negligence or through his wilful act. This entirely reverses the whole situation. This is most dangerous legislation. It is most unfair because this dangerous thing has been placed there against the man's wish, he had no way of preventing it, and yet you make him responsible for everything that happens. It would make it reasonably fair if the onus of proof were confined to the acts of the owner, and if, instead of the words, ' any person ' it read ' or injury is caused by Teason of the act of the owner, his agent, servant, or workman.' He could prove that, but when it is left open by the use of the words ' any person,' he cannot recover at all.
Mr. M1DDLEBRO. Would the amendment that I proposed about an hour ago meet the point raised by my hon. friend? I suggested that we strike out the words, ' save where/ and put in the words, 1 unless the railway company establish that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question, question.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I am speaking of the old law. You say we are going back.


Arthur Meighen: It has been held that ' any person * does not include any officer or person connected with the railway corporation.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I would think so. So, by putting these words in you are only making the statute read in the way in which it has been accepted by the courts.
Mr. MEIGHEN". (The ^minister stated that his advice was that it was not shifting the onus by this legislation. I can give him my own experience on that. I have argued as strenuously as I was able that under the present law we should not have to negative the exceptions, but I did not succeed in convincing the judge, and the judge held that we had to negative every exception that is in the Act, We will certainly have to under this law. The minister's advice, of 'course, may come from the distinguished authority in Alberta who told him that there was nothing in last year's amendment.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has no right to make that insinuation. I got my advice from as eminent a lawyer as is m the House.


Edward Guss Porter: I would like if the minister would do me the favour of answering the question I put to him. Does he think it is fair to reverse the whole system of proof, and the right of recovery in the way I have pointed out, or does he say that it is not the case?


George Perry Graham: My answer is that my advice is that it is not the case.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I understand the hon. gentleman (Mir. Porter), is referring to the clause of crossings and gates. Hon. members will probably remember that under the present law the railway company is not liable for the acts of third persons.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is in regard to gates and farm crossings.


Edward Guss Porter: We are making that still stronger by legislating that it is a fact.


Alfred Henry Clarke: No, I think we ure making it the other way. I do not *think my hon. friend has read section [DOT]295 which says that no person shall have [DOT]any right to recover if his animals are killed by reason of any person, without any qualification, leaving open any gate. If any person at all wilfully leaves it open there is no relief.


Edward Guss Porter: Is that fair?


Arthur Meighen: I was not making any insinuation.


George Perry Graham: I am not quite sure that the gentleman from Alberta is not an eminently respectable man, but I did not get my advice from him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let us get to the actual law we are making.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question, ques-,ion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You will not get it hrough in that way. I did not labour or three or four years to get a law in the nterest of the people to have it wantonly dcked out on the eve of adjournment, and n the dying days of the session. That sort of spirit will stop this Bill altogether


George Perry Graham: That is not the spirit that was shown last night in withholding this Bill for the convenience of the hon. gentleman.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: better than I did. He has put it more concisely, and the Minister of Railways ought to be able to answer it. Why does he want to enact that because any person leaves a gate open by which an animal escapes, therefore, the man who loses the animal has no right to recover The minister says he is advised that he is not changing the present law.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He says he is not changing it to the injury of the owner of the animal.


George Perry Graham: I did not say so.


William Pugsley: I was once a lawyer myself. Would my hon. friend look at the old section 295 and compare it with the language of the new section, and tell me whether it does not change the onus of proof and place it on the company? Under the present law the wording is entirely different, and the onus is on the individual claiming damages.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No.


William Pugsley: Yes, because it says ' no person whose horse, &c., shall have any right of action if the animal was killed or injured by reason of any person for whose use, &c.' The present section has been framed to throw the onus entirely on the company and it says the company shall be liable to the owner for the full value of the animal that may be killed or injured on the company's lines, except where such killing, &c. You have there a positive provision for the company being liable, and in order to bring the company within the exception, the company is obliged to prove that those exceptions exist. I think it is clear that the language shifts the onus of proof from the individual to the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman says he was a lawyer. When he was, did he read the whole contract and not a part of it only before giving an opinion.


William Pugsley: I got tired of being a lawyer.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman takes good care to ignore what was so insisted on here and what cannot be answered, that sections 4 and 5 of the Act which is now being repealed did put the onus on the railway company, and that the section which he says formed a liability does nothing of the kind. Section 295 as it reads to-day is that no person shall do certain things. It is not a declaration of liability on the company, and the hon. gentleman should have taken care to read the section before undertaking to make the House think it was a declaration of liability. If the minister does not do what I have suggested he should at least accept the suggestion of


Edward Arthur Lancaster: the hon. member for West Hastings, and strike out the word ' person,' so that it would be unless such killing or injury is caused by reason of such owner or his agent or servant, &c. That would be reasonable.


George Henry Cowan: I understood the Minister of Public Works to deny that a person going into court to a statutory right has to prove the statutory exceptions to that right. I understood him to say he does not have to prove those statutory exceptions.


William Pugsley: What I said was that the section makes the company expressly liable save in certain excepted cases. I said that my view of the law was that the company would have to prove the exceptions, and I think that is manifest from this: suppose a plaintiff went into court and proved that his animal was killed on a railway track and there was no further evidence, the judge would in that case direct the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and if the company wished to prove there were exceptions, which took his right to recover out of that express provision of the statute, the onus would be on the company to prove that.


George Henry Cowan: The minister then recognizes that the right of the owner of the animal killed is a statutory right. If that be the case I say with all deference to the minister, who in times gone by was a lawyer, that it is elementary law that that man cannot come into court and assert a statutory right without proving and without having upon him the burden of proving that he comes within none of the statutory exceptions to that right. I cannot understand from what source the Minister of Public Works gathers his knowledge. I am not professing to have the most profound knowledge of all the principles of law. but I think I know whereof I speak when I say that no farmer who had a horse destroyed by a railway and who went into court under that provision would have a ghost of a chance of succeeding unless he alleged that he did not come within any of the exceptions and proved that he did not. It is an elementary principle of law that where a man has a common law right, he has to prove the facts that give him a right to recover; but in a case of a statutory "right, he has to prove that he is within the four corners of the Act; and you will find it in all the reports in every case dealing with statutory right, that he must prove that he does not come vrithin the statutory exceptions to that right. So that I can see no possible objection to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for North Grey. If it is really intended to put the burden of proof upon the company, that is the only way in which it can be done. You must expressly say in your statute that the burden of proof is upon the company and

942&
not upon the man who claims a statutory right under the Act.


William Sora Middlebro: I think we are all desirous of having the Bill go through. If we are all agreed that the onus should be on the company, there can be no harm in inserting the words which I suggest. I would, therefore, move that the words ' save where ' in the 44th line be struck out, and there be inserted in lieu thereof the words ' unless the company establish that.' The section would then read:
The company shall be liable to the owner for the full value of all horses, sheep, swine or other cattle that may be killed or injured upon the company's lands through the operation of the railway unless the company establish that such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person

Then follow the exceptions.


George Perry Graham: This is an amendment that may mean a good deal more than I can see at the present time. As far as I am concerned, I would rather let the clause stand for consideration, because this may have a far-reaching effect.


William Sora Middlebro: I am proposing the insertion of these words because they are in the old Act.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has argued for two or three hours that the changes we have made in this Bill do not make the clauses applicable to the old Act-that what was a good clause in the old Act would not be a good clause now. The proposed amendment may be all right, but I would like some time to consider it and advise as to just what the effect of it is.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister might submit the Bill to the Minister of Justice, and some one from that department should be here to explain its legal bearing. It is lamentable that no member of the government who is responsible for its legal .construction is here. The Bill before being approved of by counsel should have been submitted to the Minister of Justice and have received his imprimatur.


George Perry Graham: That was done, and the Department of Justice approved of the section as it is now before the House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment of the hon. member for Norh Grey cannot be now entertained, as there are two amendments already before the committee- that of the Minister of Railways and that of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan).


George Henry Cowan: 1 think the principle involved in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for North Grey is of more importance, perhaps, than the principle
involved in the amendment proposed by myself. For that reason I would withdraw my amendment so as to get an opportunity of voting for the other.
Amendment (Mr. Cowan) withdrawn.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) urges his amendment strongly, I would prefer to let the clause stand. I was in hopes the committee would accept the Bill as it is.


John Graham Haggart: Surely the amendment of the hon. member for North Grey simply carries out what the minister says is the intent of the Bill.


George Perry Graham: It may,' but my hon. friend urges that I should get the advice of the Minister of Justice. I have got as good advice as I could get in the country. The Bill has been approved by the Justice Department and the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and i do not want to accept something that may alter the whole situation.


William Sora Middlebro: There is every disposition on this side to have the Bill go-through with reasonable amendments. We are losing one of the large benefits under the old Act. I would move to strike out the words * save where ' in the forty-fourth line, and substitute the words ' unless the company establish that.'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The question is now on the amendment of the hon. the Minister of Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Sora Middlebro: I beg to move in amendment that the words ' save where ' in the 44th line be struck out and the following inserted in their stead: ' Unless the company establish that.' This means that the company must establish the defences set out in these five subsections.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is a step in the right direction, but I am not prepared to say that it meets the whole difficulty. The minister made the suggestion a few minutes ago that this clause be dropped and we should pass the rest of the Bill. I think it would be well to carry out that suggestion.


George Perry Graham: Rather than accept the amendment proposed, I will post pone the clause. If the hon. gentleman presses his amendment I shall have to vote against it.


William Sora Middlebro: If the hon. minister says he will drop the clause and let u& amend it when we meet again, I am willing to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


George Perry Graham: I shall probably introduce again this section the first opportunity. If we had a week more to discuss this measure, I would feel like pressing it. as I fully believ-e it is a great improvement over the old Act on behalf of the farmers.


Mr. NANTEL.: I beg leave to propose another amendment. Section 252 in the present Act provides as follows:
Every company .shall make crossings for persons across whose lands the railway is carried, convenient and proper for the crossing of the railway for farm purposes.
Section 253 provides:
The board may, upon the application of any landowner, order the company to provide and construct a suitable farm crossing across the railway, wherever in any case the board deems it necessary for the proper enjoyment of his land on either side of the railway, and safe in the public interest.
Section 254 says;
The company shall erect and maintain upon the railway, fences, &c.
The amendment I propose is as follows:
In the exercise of his rights, as set forth in sections 252, 253 and 254, the claimant may apply concurrently either to the provincial *courts having jurisdiction in the matter of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and sections 252, 253 and 254 are amended accordingly.
. My reason for proposing this amendment us that the courts have construed section 253 as taking aw'ay the jurisdiction from ^he provincial courts in this matter. I rthink it is important to restore this jurisdiction. This section of the law, though It seems very clear and inoffensive, has [DOT]given rise to a great deal of contention and controversy. Twelve judges, seven in the province of Quebec and five in the Supreme Court here, have given judgment *on this question. Seven have decided on one side and five on the other side. And the result has been that the five were right against the seven. I consider that it is in the interest of the farmer not to be obliged, when he needsl a farm crossing or when he needs a fence repaired, to be obliged to come to Ottawa and make his application to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not believe that, at the beginning, it was the intent of parliament to create in that board a tribunal to decide points in litigation. For these reasons, I move the amendment which I have read.


George Perry Graham: The Board of Railway Commissioners was established to deal with these very matters. It is not stationary in the city of Ottawa, but traverses the entire country where business arises which de-Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
mands its attention. It gives a quick and ready adjustment of these differences. Only to-day I read in the paper of a widow woman writing a letter to the board about a railway crossing. The railway was asked if the letter were true, and when it (the railway) said, ' yes,' judgment was given, and the question settled. It would disarrange the whole machinery for the control or management of these things if we were to refer1 them to every court in every province. I think it would be reactionary legislation and not in the public interest. I would certainly ask the committee not to accept it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there is something to be said

S >me hon. MEMBERS. Six o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If hon. members think lit is not right of an hon. member to put forward his views on these matters, I am prepared to how to the will of a brute majority. At the same time, I do not think it proper that endeavour shoud be made to prevent a member speaking in this House. I do not propose to deal with the subject at any length, and I think I can say that I usually express myself in a manner not to give offence. This involves the rights of the people, and I think hon. members should be willing to listen to a discussion-[DOT]


Mr. TALBOT.: I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that it is six o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I take it that hon. gentlemen prefer to hear me after dinner when, I think, I may assume, they will be in better humour.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At six o'clock I was saying, in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), that his proposition does not involve withdrawing jurisdiction from the Railway Commission. In all cases such as referred to by the minister, where the matter is very simple and can be disposed of by an application, which might be made by letter, the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners would remain perfectly untouched. In cases of that kind the parties would take their cases to the commission. But there is another class of cases, cases in which the right m*y be subject to serious dispute, and where it may be necessary for one side or the other to examine a number

of witnesses. Now, I fail to see that any injury could be done if, in cases of that kind, it were made possible for the person seeking to enforce his rights, to address himself to the ordinary tribunal. It is true that the Railway Commission moves around from place to place, but I hardly think it would be desirable that the Railway Commission should transport itself to the remotest limits of the county of Terrebonne, or the county of Gaspe or any back county, for the purpose of hearing a contested claim for a railway crossing. Yet if that were not done, you would put perhaps a large number of people, and in many cases poor people, to heavy expense as well as trouble and inconvenience, by having to go into some large centre where the commission is sitting, to be heard up^on the matter. After all, the right involved is a purely civil right, given, if you will, by a statute of this Dominion; and it is a reasonable proposition that the right should be allowed to stand, as it was certainly understood to be up to the time of the judgment of the Supreme Court, to which my hon. friend from Terrebonne referred; that is to say, in a condition where, though the Railway Commission would continue to have jurisdiction, a jurisdiction which might be very advantageously exercised in certain cases, there would still remain a jurisdiction in the ordinary tribunal of the province to deal with the matter. It is doubtful whether the statute meant to take away that jurisdiction from the ordinary civil tribunals, because the courts themselves were, as my hon. friend pointed out, divided upon the question. I can see no injury that would result, either to the railway companies or to the parties interested, from leaving it open to the complainant to address himself to the Superior Court. There are cases where justice is more satisfactorily obtained before an ordinary tribunal than before the Railway Commission. The amendment would leave the very beneficent jurisdiction of the Railway Commission still in existence, and liable to be exercised in oases to which it is appropriate.


George Perry Graham: The decisions of the Railway Board in regard to these crossings have been eminently satisfactory. The commission has all the machinery for hearing evidence, and further, they have a full engineering staff at their disposal. In a dispute as to the practicability of a crossing they despatch an engineer, no matter where it is, to make an examination on the ground and report. It seems to me the proposition before the committee is rather calculated to favour litigation. It looks to me as if it would be a breeding ground for litigation rather than >a quick and speedy way of settling disputes. '
Amendment (Mr. Nantel) negatived.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterick.)
['1.\tThe officers in charge of the census for the electoral district of Hochelaga are Raoul Tourangeau and John Taylor.\n2.\tNo.\n3.\tSuch recommendations were obtained as satisfied the minister.']
George Perry Graham: With the consent of the House, I will answer two or three questions which I was not able to do this afternoon.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK;
1.	At the time of the lease granted by the government to the National Hydro-Electric Company, Limited, of the water-power on the Ottawa river at Carillon, were tenders called for publicly announcing said alienation and calling for bids?
2.	On the 1st January, 1911, was the said
power under lease to any party? If so, to whom?	.
3.	For how many years was the lease existing in January last of said water-power to run ?	,
4.	When was the National Hydro-Electno Company, Limited, incorporated?
5.	Who are thei president, vice-president and directors of this company?
6.	Will the government lay on the table of the House a copy of the order in council of the 14th March, 1911, authorizing the lease of the Carillon water-power to the National Hydro-Electric Company, Limited?
7.	Who signed the lease on behalf of the lessee company?
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	Legally speaking, no, but the former lessee having assured the department that he was in a position to have a strong company organized to develop the poweT, was given time to complete these plans.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	9th of December, 1910.
5.	Henry Miles, president, Louis Gosse-lin, secretary.
6.	No objection if moved for in the
usual way.	.
7.	Henry Miles, president, Louis Gosse-lin, secretary.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-EASTERN DIVISION.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	What is the total expenditure made and incurred for the construction, whether included in the original contracts or otherwise, of that part of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway extending from Quebec to Winnipeg, and what is the estimated amount required to complete?
2.	The same inquiry is made as regards the part of the line from Quebec to Moncton, the Quebec bridge not being included in either question ?


George Perry Graham: The following is given by the Transcontinental Commissioners:
1. Total expenditure to February 28, 1911, $69,983,500; estimated^ amount to complete, $43,052,850.
2. Total expenditure to February 28, 1911, $26,634,800; estimated amount to complete., $5,668,550.
Note-The right-of-way for terminals at Quebec city is not included.


CENSUS OF NORTH AND SOUTH RIDINGS OF ONTARIO.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	What was the population of the North and South Ridings of Ontario, respectively, as found by the census of 1891 and 1901?
2.	What was the cost of the census for each of these two Ridings in the years 1891 and 1901?


AMOUNTS SPENT BY
Mr. FISHER:: 1.	1891.	1901.
Population of North Ontario .. 21,385 20,689 Population of South Ontario .. 18,371 16,793
2.	1891.	1901.
Cost of census, North Ontario	 $1,613.97 $3,463.82
Cost of census, South Ontario	 1,249.78 2,184.32


AMOUNT SPENT ON AGRICULTURE AND MILITIA.
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What were the amounts spent respectively, on Agriculture and Militia in the following years, viz.: 1867, 1874, 1878, 1888, 1896, 1900, 1905, 1910?


Mr. FISHER:: 


fONT OF AGRICULTURE.
[Stage Direction]
Year.	Civil Government.	Arts, Agriculture and Statistics.	Immigration.	Quarantine.	Total.1867	$ cts. 32,036 77 46,208 59 49,395 75 75,233 13 76,151 05 74,835 65 99,811 96 351,953 28	$ cts. 108,078 25 58,562 31 93,419 28 311,159 17 210,877 61 461,560 76 698,210 65 997,054 39	$ cts. 50,137 91 275,102 37 154,351 42 244,789 09	$ cts. 2,660 83 43,470 50 26,310 02 67,701 47 96,404 19 136,134 18 304,758 28 143,512 67	$ cts. 193,513 76 423,343 77 313,506 47 698,882 86 383,431 85 672,530 59 1,102,780 89 1,492,520 341874	1878	1888	1896	1900	1905	1910

[Stage Direction]
5. The minister obtained such information as decided the recommenration.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	What are the names and occupations of the officers in charge of the census for the electoral district of Jacques Cartier?
2.	Where are the said officers domiciled?
3.	On what date were said officers appointed?
4.	By whom were said officers recommended for appointment?
5.	Did the government consult any one from Ithe (said district before making the said appointments ?
6.	From what person or persons did the government seek advice regarding said appointments ?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	W. F. Gingras, 48 St. James St., Montreal, and H. L. Peiler, 52 St. James St., Montreal, and the officers in charge of the electoral district of Jacques Cartier.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	By order in council of date 31st March, 1911.
4.	The Minister of Agriculture.


Mr LENNOX.: 


CENSUS ENUMERATORS, DIVISION OF HOCHELAGA.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Who are the officers in charge of the coming census in the electoral division of Hochelaga ?
2.	Are they personally known to the Minister of Agriculture?
3.	By whom were these officers recommended ?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	The officers in charge of the census for the electoral district of Hochelaga are Raoul Tourangeau and John Taylor.
2.	No.
3.	Such recommendations were obtained as satisfied the minister.



WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH JAPAN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into committee of Ways and Means to consider the following proposed resolution:

(Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Customs Tariff, 1007, and to provide as follows:
1. The Governor in Council may, by order in council, extend to Japan for a period not exceeding two years f rom the 17'fch day of J uly, 1911, the benefit of the tariff advantages at present enjoyed by that country on its exports to Canada, as expressed by and contained in article 5 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Japan, signed at London, July 16, 1894, which treaty was made applicable to Canada by the Convention between the United Kingdom and Japan respecting commercial relations between Canada and Japan, signed at Tokio on January 31, 1906; Provided, however, that f uch advantages shall only be extended to Jap in when and so long as the Governor in Council is satisfied that Canada will receive and is receiving during such period the reciprocal tariff advantages at present enjoyed by Canada on its exports to Japan nnder the provisions of the said article 5 and the said Convention.
['It will cost $4,000 less this way than the other project of passing through Belvidere road but Anally it will cost nothing to the commission. It is a loan which the commission makes to the municipality of Montcalm, in order that the municipality may be in a position to purchase the strip of land necessary to have the avenue. Then the municipality undertakes to cede that strip to the commission and within thirty years to pay that $50,000 loan with interest of 3 per cept.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: Mr. Speaker, before going into committee on this resolution, as there has been a good deal of discussion on the general trade question, I would like to deal somewhat fully, yet as hurriedly as I can, on some aspects of our trade with Japan. As the House knows there have been a great many expectations raised in the past as to the great value of oriental trade. I do not want to give too many quotations, but I want tb remind the House of one or two statements which have been made by public men upon this question. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in 1907, speaking in the House of Commons made this statement:
We have a growing trade with Japan, _ a trade which must be improved; and which will assume in years to come, and in the very near future, very large proportions.
On December 16, 1907, the Prime Minister, speaking to a delegation from the T.rades and Labour Council, said:
The treaty has proved of great advantage, and our trade with Japan under it has considerably increased.
There have been many other statements made by supporters of the present government along similar lines. I find that the Prime Minister, speaking before the Manufacturers' Association in 1907 spoke in a similar strain upon this subject. Amongst others I have an extract here from a speech by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) delivered in this House, on December 6, 1907. That hon. gentleman said:
1 say that if the full development of British Columbia is to take place, we must have a share of oriental trade. The prosperity of that country, the development of its brade, require a market in the orient ***.*. Now, Sir, the trade with Japan, in my opinion, is tremendously important.
Then, again on January 28, 1908, the same hon. gentleman said:
The commercial * future of the Pacific coast depends very largely upon the extension of Canadian commercial markets in the Orient.
And he added:
We want the chief productions of Japan, articles that are desirable for our consumption, when those productions do not come into competition with our own productions.
A sentiment which I wish he had given utterance to in connection with the recent reciprocity negotiations. Then, we have the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) making a speech upon this subject In which he dealt with the hopeful outl.ook from his point of view with regard to certain classes of manufactured goods. In Hansard of 1905, page 7192, he is reported to have said:
There are the following manufactured goods in which Canada might reasonably expect to enter into trade with Japan: cotton goods, woollen goods, paper, enamelled kitchen goods, rubber good6, wire of all kinds, hats and cops.
I think it might be of interest to the House to have on record exactly what the state of Japanese trade with Canada has been during the past few years. I propose dealing, not with the year 1907, because that was a nine months' period and that was the first year in which the treaty was in effect. But, for purposes of comparison I propose to take three years prior to that beginning with 1904 and coming down to 1910. If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will permit me, I would very much like not to weary the House with all these figures, but to put them on ' Hansard ' assuring him they have been compiled by the statistician of the Customs Department at the commissioner's request.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection.


Martin Burrell: I will deal first with imports and the statement is as follows:

Statement showing the Value of the Principal Articles Imported from and Exported to Japan during the Fiscal Years 1904, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1909 and 1910.
Articles.
Imports.
Rice	
Brushes of all kinds	
Earthenware and china ....
Linen damask	
Nuts	
Silk fabrics	
it handkerchiefs	
ii clothing	
ii manufactures of, n.o.p Straw carpeting, rugs, Ac ..
Vegetables, n.o.p	
Oranges, &c	
Brimstone	
Fish lines, &c	
Tea	
Total	
Total, other articles.
Grand total, imports
Exports.
Wheat	
Salmon, canned	
ii pickled	
Planks and boards	
Flour	
Cotton	
Pig lead	
Herrings, pickled	
Total	
Total, other articles..
Grand total, exports.
1904.	1905.	1906.	1908.	1909.	1910.Value.	Value.	Value.	Value.	Value.	Value.$	$	$	$	$	$157,820 24,686 45,420 15,148 6,938 366,259 74,384 15,467 26,217 25,761 4,312 15,620 35,750 22,143 976,199	116,980 23,211 73,636 17,586 18,775 356,512 88,131 22,668 18,298 34,726 8,578 9,991 14,654 21,225 869,495	139,952 24,238 94,229 34,025 10,530 350,378 67,164 23,513 28,101 35,133 6,933 10,980 18,703 6,527 562,317	350,112 32,231 103,798 72,635 24,773 276,982 114,771 45,545 20,072 61,040 20,788 26,656 37,744 12,233 657,450	392,373 27,964 62,188 35,722 22,129 249,054 28,092 27,230 11,863 38,013 21,561 15,284 46,941 18,787 708,026	268,587 39,575 76,020 70,383 39,778 275.803 50,544 46,397 18,061 49,449 25,500 20,908 60,728 46,231 743.8031,812,124 185,887	1,694,466 220,321	1,412,723 250,206	1,856,830 340,329	1,705,227 284,690	1,831,767 370,8421,998,011	1,914,787	1,662,929	2,197,159	1,989,917	2,202,609602	44,956 40,337 41,688 140,815 14,172	18,953 209,320 52,187 62,007 67,613 17,684 7,227	8,148 115,505 61,771 64,131 26,889 81,185 21,128	341 119,241 69,858 129,526 13,910 181,420 90,279	1,505 99,781 37,178 49,347 8,318 163,262 251,052	3,816 101,164 23,000 58,136 9,804 182,836 107,7313,364	285,332 56,471	434,991 73,618	378,757 113,518	604,575 130,293	610.443 145,590	486,487 174,035341,803	508,609	492,275	734,868	756,033	660,522



[Stage Direction]
Australia	
New Zealand. South Africa.
1904.	1905.	1906.	1908.	1909.	1910.102,169 19,254 69,141	161,470 51,276 21,372	226,197 302,075 297,659	536,935 257,044 32,193	405,210 205,131 901,190	403,484 774,166 926,980
It will be noticed that our imports from Japan have steadily kept at about the rate of three to one, that being the balance against us in our trade with that country. While I am quoting these figures, if the minister has no objection, I would like to give very briefly the figures of our trade for the corresponding years with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa which Mr. BURRELL
should be an interesting record, this statement having also been prepared by the statistician of the Customs Department. This statement is as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Australia-
1904		$2,622,756
1905		  2,194,223
1906		 2,082,219

New Zealand-
19M	
1905		
1906		
1908		
1909		
1910		
South Africa-
1904		
1905		
1906		
1908		
1909		
1910		
2,873,461
2,769,049
3,583,447
5,592,827 . 540,633 . 734,054 . 993,442 . 996,901 . 890,549
[Stage Direction]
I would like to give just a brief analysis of these figures as bearing on the general theory of the trade question with the Orient and especially with Japan. I may say frankly that possibly the greatest benefit we have derived in Canada in so far as any preferential treatment or any benefit which we have enjoyed under our trade arrangement with the Orient has been with regard to the article of lead. We have preferential treatment on lead which amounts practically to 79 cents a ton. That is one of the larger items, the export of which amounted last year to $182,836. With the exception of lead, however, we practically find no encouragement at all.	We can point to two items,
pickled salmon and pickled herrings, which are the only items totalling over $100,000 and we do not enjoy the benefits of the conventional tariff with Japan on these items. Japan's tariff, as the House probably knows, while not very protective as it exists at present, is now being placed upon a more protective basis by the new arrangement which will become operative on July 17. With regard to these two special items affecting the trade of British Columbia, there is no material advantage as far as Canada is concerned for the simple reason that practically all of that particular industry is in the hands of the Japanese who are resident in British Columbia. They practically carry on the whole of that business, it enures only to their advantage, and they ship these goods to their own people.
Then, I take up the next item with regard to which a great many hopes were raised in the minds of people, not only in the east, but especially in the west. I refer to the question of lumber. We find that in the three years subsequent to the treaty we have actually exported less lumber than we exported in the three years prior to the treaty, showing that, in so far as the benefits that are derived from the treaty go, we have not received any great amount of advantage. The encouragement of trade with Australia and Bouth Africa would be far more valuable in the development of our western lumber trade. There
are a good many reasons which we never expect any very great advances in the development of our timber trade with Japan. There is the protective tariff that exists in some lines by reason of which we cannot hope to derive much advantage, and there is also, what the House may not know, that sixty per cent of the total area of Japan is covered with a carefully preserved forest. All of these 58,000,000 acres are directly under government supervision. So large is this industry in Japan itself that the dues to the government for cutting timber amounted in 1907 to no less than 12,000,000 yen, that is $6,000,000. In 1908, Japan exported $4,500,000 worth of various timber products and imported only $700,000 worth, so that, on the whole, I do not think there is any very great expectation of a big trade being built up along those lines.
I might deal somewhat hurriedly with other productions on which large hopes of Oriental trade were based in this country. One has first to observe that nearly all the agricultural products of Canada are protected in Japan, and in the new Japanese tariff there is a tendency to a higher rate of protection on practically all the various agricultural lines; in very few of them, with the exception of condensed milk which has a conventional tariff that gives us a slight advantage, have we any preference in the markets of Japan; she does not place any of these things on the *conventional tariff. Take cheese and butter, hams and bacon, vegetables and fruits, not only do we get no preference in the markets of Japan, but in every one of these articles the tariff which goes into operation on July 17 is actually higher than the tariff that has been in existence in the last few years.
I come now more particularly to the wheat question, because great expectations were based on the development of the trade in wheat, and flour from Canada to the Orient. We have heard a great many extravagant statements from all sources as to the enormous trade and the enormous advantage to Canada to be reaped from the development of our wheat and flour trade with Japan. I need only say that our expectations have not been realized. Our actual exports have been insignificant. In 1904, we shipped $602 worth of wheat to Japan, and we have not shipped any in any other year except 1907 when we shipped $1,525 worth. We are told that Japan is a very large consuming country with a population of 52,000,000 _ in an area not much greater than the riding I have the honour to represent. Being such a congested population we have been led to suppose by some of our free trade friends that naturally they would welcome free all the products that went to supply food to their people. Curiously enough.
[Stage Direction]
under the present tariff we have to pay a duty of 57 sen a hundred kin. A sen is half a cent, which makes 28i cents on 132 pounds or 12i cents a bushel. I am advised that under their new tariff they have actually raised that tariff, not very much, but from 5 sen to 60 sen per 132 pounds, nor do we get the preference. The average production of wheat in Japan, for Japan is a wheat growing country, to some extent, as reckoned by Mr. Crowe, the Commercial Attache of Great Britain in Japan, for the seven years ending in 1908, is placed at 19,500,000 bushels and as Japan is very largely a rice eating population it is not at all likely that over and above their own supply they will ever very largely increase their imports. Another element is that they are developing their wheat raising areas in their northern country, in the Hokkaido district and in the future there will be a tremendous development of one of the biggest wheat growing areas in the world, in Manchuria.
The greatest hopes of trade were built on flour. In the three years subsequent to the passage of the treaty ratified by this parliament in 1907, we actually exported less flour to Japan than we did in the three years before the ratification of that treaty. Flour is again a protected item in Japan. Under the present tariff there is a considerable duty, and we get no preference under the conventional tariff now or under the new arrangement. The present tariff on flour is 1 yen, 45 sen per 100 kin, or 72i cents per 132 pounds. In the new tariff they propose to raise that to 1 yen, 65 sen per 100 kin or 82J cents per 132 pounds, which is rather a heavy protection on flour. As a matter of fact, from 1898 to 1908 the figures as they apply to the importation of flour into Japan are the reverse of encouraging. The imports rose to the very highest point in 1903 when there was an importation into Japan of 5,162,000 worth of flour. Since that, it has steadily sunk, and in 1908, the last year of which I have the record, it had sunk to $1,414,000. In reference to this special question of flour I would like to refer you to the experience, and to the very emphatic declarations of a man who, perhaps, has more authority to speak on this subject than any other man in America, Mr. J. J. Hill. Mr. Hill, who is a man of very large vision, a man who is reaching out to develop not only the trade of his railways, but in a large way to develop the trade of the whole country, some years ago conceived the idea that the Asiatic trade in general would be of immensely greater value to the United States^ if it was properly looked after, and for this purpose he built two of the largest shins ever put on the Pacific, the ' Minnesota ' and the ' Dakota,' of 28,000 tons each, Mr. BURRELL
to handle the traffic which he confidently expected to develop from the great central and western states when he had assisted in building up the trade with Japan. The whole story of that development is almost a romance, a romance that had rather an unfortunate ending in some ways. Mr. Hill, when he first started on the development of this trade, especially of the flour trade, made this remark. He realized that:
The country had to give to the Japanese and Chinese, wheat flour so cheap that they would use it instead of rice. Profits would have to be cut to the bone.
I do not want to go into the story of Mr. Hill's failure; it was partly owing, as a good many of us know, to the interference of the Interstate Commerce Board on the long haul rate which made it impossible for him to lay the goods down in Japan where he would meet the world's competition at a price which would meet the prices of countries producing even more cheaply than the United States. Mr. Hill remarked that whereas by 1904 the export of flour from the United Stales to Asia had increased very much, yet in 1908 it had sunk down to very much smaller figures. Another vital factor which Mr. Hill pointed out, which has to be borne carefully in mind, and which is no doubt appreciated by the government in regard to this Oriental trade, is the extraordinary difficulties and differences in the money exchanges of the two countries. Writing in 1910 Mr. Hill said this:
For the present we can sell some flour in China and Japan, until the Manchuria uplands shall be turned into wheat fileds. Then China can grow wheat at a cost of seventy cents a bushel in silver, which is about equal to thirty cents in gold in this country.
I do not know that I need say any more about the flour and wheat question. I would like now to refer briefly to a larger phase of trade namely, that relating to manufacturing industries. I have already referred to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture about the hope he had of our building up a trade in manufactured cotton goods, hats, caps, and articles of that kind. I mi.ght point out that even with the British preference lowering the general rate of our duties on these things, we still have on these articles for the benefit of the Canadian manufacturer, a duty of from 221 to 25 per cent against the British manufacturer. How we can expect to compete in these articles with the British manufacturer in the open markets of Japan on an even footing is a conundrum which I leave the Minister of Agriculture to answer; I confess I am not able to answer it. As a matter of fact, our trade with Japan in these lines, especially in cotton manufactures, is

practically a nagligiable quantity. Our exports of cotton fabrics to Japan were never heavy; they are diminishing, and last year they reached a figure of only $9,804; and I think we may fairly expect that they will go to the vanishing point in the near future. I may add that in 1908 Japan exported in cotton yarn? and cotton fabrics over $21,000,000 worth. She has steadily increased her importations of raw cotton, and has developed _her factory system in a marvellous way. The Japanese Year Book of 1910, in which hon. members will find a lot of valuable information in 'regard to Japanese development along industrial lines, states that the textile industry alone employs 354,000 employees, and that a few years ago the wages of these employees averaged 16 cents for men, Hi cents for women, and 6 cents for children, large numbers of women and children being employed. It is quite true, there has been a rise of wages in recent years, but not after all a very heavy one. In the report, Mr. Crowe, from which I have already quoted, showing the rise of wages between 1902 and 1908, placing the wages of 1902 at 100, and by 1908 they had 'risen to only 134-76, which is not a very heavy increase; nor, with Japan's conditions of population, is there likely to be a very rapid advance, at any rate such an advance, as will bring them within measure-able distance of what we have to pay on this continent. An analysis of present industrial conditions, especially in regard to manufactures, is not only discouraging, but absolutely alarming to the future trade of this country, for two reasons; and here again I will refer to a remark of the Minister of Agriculture, which will be found at page 888 of ' Hansard,' December 18, 1907:
The advantages secured in regard to Japan are of the utmost importance to our manufacturing industries.
I -must cpnfess that I cannot agree with that, and anybody who has given any close study to this subject will hardly agree with this opinion of the Minister of Agriculture. It is a subject profoundly interesting, but a detailed examination of the matter at this time would only weary the House. I will, however, quote again Mr. J. J. Hill, who has given a more comprehensive, and close study of commercial conditions in the far east than any other living man. He says:
Japan has organized her industry with the same scientific attention to details that she gave to her military operations. She has her own shipyards in which her ocean carriers are huilt. She has her own factories, in which almost every manufactured commodity obtained heretofore from Europe or the United States is made by her own artisans, working for wages that would not be accepted here. She is preparing and hoping to dominate the 298
Oriental markets, and to invade those of the rest of the world. . . The markets of Europe, our own markets, may, not long hence, be full of goods made in the Orient, for sale at prices so low that no tariff endurable by our own people would keep them out. . . The country needs to rid itself of the illusion that its Oriental trade is to be one of the big elements of its future prosperity.
To show the actual results of the industrial development of Japan, I might quote from a report prepared by the Foreign Trade Association of Japan, which says that the total volume of exports during the ten months ending last October amounted to 373,452,000 yen, the value of the yen being equal to 50 cents, the figures being an increase of 43,999,000 yen over the figures for the corresponding period of last year. The most conspicuous items of the increase were manufactured articles and manufactured raw materials, which showed a conspicuous increase of 15,429,000, and 22,595,000 yen respectively. That is enough to .show, without going more fully into the subject, that any hope that we have built on a market in Japan for our manufactures along almost any line, is entirely illusory. It has been a favourite theory of some people that not only will this trade be valuable to our manufacturers and our producers generally, but that it will cause an immense development of the Canadian merchant marine on the Pacific. My own opinion, based on the researches of a great many people who have given this matter a lot of study, is that the markets of both the United States and Canada will in the future be far more valuable to Japan than Japan's market will be to us. But with regard to shipping, the Prime Minister especially has been seized with the idea that it is going to be a great thing for^ Canada, and in Vancouver last fall, on "his western trip, he made these remarks :

[Stage Direction]
Now with these Japanese and Chinese we can only trade in what we produce. We can do there what has been done in our own country. We can exchange our flour for their tea; and, therefore, my fellow-citizens of Vancouver, there is a future in this Oriental trade. This city must trade with the Orient as well as with the Occident. And if I have the happiness again-as I know I have the certainty in my purpose-when I come again to Vancouver-as I hope to come again soon-because if I don't come soon I will not come at all- and, therefore, when I come soon, I hope now, and feel sure that I will see this noble harbour, second to none in the world, full of steamers plying between China, Japan, India and Canada. This is the hope that I have cherished, and I believe it is a hope that will be realized.
The Prime Minister has referred on other occasions to this Pacific Ocean trade, and has expressed extremely rosy, optimistic, and I think wholly illusory sentiments in
[Stage Direction]


regard to our share of that sea-borne traffic. To those who have noted the various phases of Japan's commercial development in the last twenty years, nothing is so significant, I might almost say portentous, as the extraordinary expansion of her merchant marine. In 1884 there was not a single Japanese vessel navigating any but Japanese waters. In 1890 Japan had 1,450 seagoing vessels with a tonnage of 145,000. In 1900 she had 4,500 vessels with a tonnage of 600,000; and in 1908, 5,654 vessels with 1,543,000 tons. One noticeable feature of this growth is the conversion of sailing vessels to steamers, and while it was thought at one time by many of our shipping people that the Japanese would never make expert sailors, so far as their officers are concerned, the facts show the contrary, because Japanese officers are practically handling the whole of this fleet. The Japanese marine will always be more cheaply paid than can possibly be the case in the United States or Canada, for the reason that Japan has a larger population to draw on, three millions of her people being engaged in the fishing industry at of course much smaller wages than we pay our fishermen. This Japanese marine has been developed for national purposes, along scientific lines, with systematic organization and precision, and has also been aided by very considerable bounties. Under her navigation and ship building encouragement laws, Japan has spent enormous sums of money. As far as I can figure it out, this year she is paying something like $4,000,000 on subsidies for ship construction and to various shipping companies.
I might give one more reference to show the ship development there has been quite recently in that country. Another very large steamship company has been organized in Japan under the name of the Nippon Yusen Kaisha Company. That company has been organized in order to be ready for the opening of the Panama canal which, it is expected, will be finished in 1915, and thus be in a position to capture a large share of the trade through that canal. A gentleman, who is largely responsible for the organization of that company, made these remarks concerning its plans:
An idea of the extent to which the trade of Japanese shipping companies has grown is given in the address made by R. Kondo, president of the Nippon Yusen Kaisha, at the banquet held on December 15 at Tokio to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the company. He said that the N. Y. K. which started this trans-Pacific line in 1900 has reached the sixth place in order of the world's shipping companies. It has now a fleet which aggregates 280,000 tons and includes six vessels of 8,600 tons each. Prom the point of view of a commercial carrying agent it is noteworthy that whereas the foreign trade of Japan in 1805, the year before the company open-Mr. BURRELL
ed it s first regular ocean-going lines, aggregated $129,000,000, and the share carried by Japanese steamers amounted to only 3 per cent -the foreign trade in 1009 totalled some $403,000,000, no less than 45 per cent of which was carried by Japanese steamers.
These figures indicate fairly the general trade situation, as it exists between us and Japan and is likely to exist in the future. In apologizing to the House for dealing with this trade question at such length, I venture to think there is some justification for my doing so because in the earlier days I find, throughout the various negotiations such as these which the minister proposes to bring down, it was generally assumed that the commercial advantages would be so great as to justify concessions in more important directions. But the fundamental fact, the vital feature of the whole oriental question, from the point of view of any man who has made a study of it, especially from the western point of view, is the oriental immigration and the danger of such an immigration in large quantities to the vast unfilled spaces of our great west, notably British Columbia.
With regard to the resolution before the House, with regard to the arrangement to give us favoured-nation treatment in the markets of Japan, I do not want to be understood as opposing any arrangement that will put us on an equally favourable footing in the Japanese market as the United States; but I think I have shown that the conditions are such that the hopes of any great commercial prosperity arising from * treaty with Japan, are wholly illusory. Therefore, the paramount, almost the sole reasons, which should guide us in any trade arrangement with Japan are those which concern the question of immigration, which is really the strictly national and vital feature of the whole thing. I understand from the return that the government proposes to enter into direct treaty arrangement with Japan. While it is true that the British treaty, as is stated in the correspondence brought down, may not be altogether adapted to the commercial situation in Canada, it might be well to point out that in adhering to any treaty with Great Britain, we would have all the weight and authority of the empire at our back. Whereas in making a treaty direct we would be without that tremendous prestige, that great reserve power which is expressed in that simple phrase ' British power.'
The United States treaty with Japan, which has recently been ratified, has two very important safeguards, certainly more real and essential than the shadowy one we have had in past treaties. Our treaty, I understand, will expire on July 17, next, and we then resume that control which is the inalienable right of every nation-the control over immigration. I do not know

that I can do better than quote in justification of that absolute control, the citation read by the Minister of Public Works, publicly the other night from Chief Justice Marshall. Speaking of the principles of international law underlying all these questions, he said:
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. lit is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose suoh restrictions. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no Other legitimate source.
I can only say in closing that if this arrangement were to diminish at all that control which we should have at the expiration of the treaty, it will be the right time for us to again reassert the supreme necessity of our having that control within our own territory. And if that question does develop in the course of the discussion in committee, I shall hope to have an opportunity of touching upon it as well.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
William Stevens Fielding: The relations between Japan and Canada have been governed for some years by a treaty which will expire on the 17th of July next. The foundation of that arrangement is to be seen in a treaty made between Great Britain and Japan on the 16th of July, 1894. The treaty did not immediately apply to Canada. It contained a proviso that the self-governing Dominions, as we usually described the larger colonies, should be excepted from the operation of the treaty, but that they might be brought within its operation by special arrangement. Canada, therefore, had the opportunity to adhere to that treaty but did not at the time, or for some years, avail herself of that opportunity. I do not think we suffered any serious disadvantage from non-adherence to the treaty in any respect save one. We did find some embarrassment as affects customs tariffs. We found that other countries were having advantages in Japan which Canada did not enjoy, and naturally that was regarded with anxiety by parties in lines of trade in which it was hoped for an extension of business with Japan. For that reason largely, I think, it was determined to open negotiations, and, in 1906, a supplementary treaty was made under which the British treaty (to which I have already referred was applied to Canada. From, that day until the pre-298i
sent time we have been under the operation of that treaty.
Treaties of that character are very .broad and comprehensive and elaborate in their terms. To the ordinary layman who reads them it would probably seem that there is much repetition in them. But there is no dou'bt that all that is in them is put there for a good purpose. As we read the treaty it deals with travel and residence; protection of person and property; free and easy access to the courts; right to employ counsel; conditions with regard to freedom of worship; exemption from compulsory military or naval service; reciprocal freedom of navigation in a general way; protection of dwellings, factories, &c. Article 5, of which I make special mention because it is the subject of our present measure, provided that no higher or other duties could be imposed on the products of Japan on the one side or of Canada on the other, than are imposed upon like products of most favoured nations. Article 6 deals with equality of duties as to exports. Proceeding with the various articles we find in various matters of trade and commerce equality of treatment is stipulated. British vessels and Japanese vessels were to have equal treatment in various shipping matters; equal privileges in unloading; coasting trade excepted; equal privileges of vessels in distress; privileges of consuls to the respective countries; equality in all matters of commerce and navigation; protection of trade marks or patents; conditions with respect to foreign settlement in Japan; and certain Qther things, all no doubt necessary in a treaty of this character, but most of them things which a country like Canada would grant to any other country without any treaty stipulations. While it might be well that we should have undoubtedly the right to protect ourselves in all these things, yet, as a matter of fact, in all these things Canada would be disposed to .grant to any country equality of treatment. But we found, as I have stated, that in the absence of any commercial arrangement we were at a disadvantage owing to the lack of a treaty, and for that reason largely steps were taken in 1906 to bring Canada within the operation of the British treaty of 1894. That treaty has been in operation, as I have said, until this time. Japan, not long ago, determined to put an end to her commercial treaties and leave herself free to make a fresh start. In consequence of this general policy, notice was given to the British government that the British treaty would fall on the 17th of July next, and with it would also fall the special treaty relating to Canada. So, on that date, as matters stand, we shall cease to have any treaty obligation with Japan. The British government have

recently made a new treaty with Japan, not very materially differing from the old treaty. As usual, we have the opportunity to adhere to that treaty. But we thought it best that we should not do so. Recently, the Japanese authorities, through their Consul General at Ottawa, approached us, and rather urged that we should adhere to the British treaty as the best way of continuing friendly relations with Japan. But, upon close examination of the British treaty we thought it not particularly adapted to Canada, and, on the whole, prefer to have further time for consideration. And so it has been suggested that we should make a temporary arrangement on the only point which seems of immediate importance, and that is in relation to the customs tariffs of the two countries. It is true, as the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) has pointed out, the trade with Japan is not so extensive as we could desire. Our exports have not been increasing in the way we at one time hbped. But we all agree that, though the trade is not all that we could desire we do not want to diminish it or to find ourselves at a commercial disadvantage in Japan, compared .with other countries. We have suggested to the Japanese authorities, leaving all the other matters in the old treaty 'to be dealt with by the mutual goodwill of the two countries, that we should make a temporary arrangement with them confined entirely to the various matters in article 5 of the old treaty. Let me .read article 5 to show exactly what we are now proposing to do:
No other or higher duties shall be imposed on the importation into the dominions and possessions of Her Britannic Majesty of any articles, the produce or manufacture of the dominions and possessions of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, from whatever place arriving; and no other or higher duties shall be imposed on the importation into the dominions and possessions of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan of any article, the produce or manufacture of the dominions and possessions of Her Britannic Majesty, from whatever place arriving, than on the like article produced or manufactured in any other foreign country; nor shall any prohibition be maintained or imposed on the importation of any article, the produce or manufacture of the dominions and possessions of either of the high contracting parties, into the dominions and possessions of the other, from whatever place arriving, which shall not equally extend to the importation of the like article being the produce or manufacture of any other country. The last provision is not applicable to the sanitary and other prohibitions occasioned by the necessity of protecting the safety of persons, or of cattle, or of plants useful to agriculture.
We have proposed, therefore, that we shall extend to Japan for- a period not greater than two years the provisions in Mr. FIELDING
effect of that article; that is to say, while we should have no special rates of customs duties between the two countries, each guarantees to the other that it will grant what is called ' most favoured nation treatment/ that is: We shall grant to Japan no less favourable treatment than we grant to any other foreign country. Of course, the term ' foreign country ' is used for a purpose, because it does not interfere with our liberty to make any arrangement that we deem proper within the British Empire. But if we adopt this arrangement, for a period not exceeding two years, practically the same conditions we now grant to other foreign countries we will grant to Japan. We have received information from the Japanese authorities that regarding this as a temporary arrangement, they will be content to meet the suggestions we have offered. Some correspondence has been brought down, only one or two letters of which I think have any immediate bearing on the proposed arrangement; and with your permission I will read these, because they will give in brief space the nature of the arrangement we propose to make. This letter is dated the 10th of May, and is addressed by myself to the Consul General for Japan residing in Ottawa:
Ottawa, May 10, 1911.
Sir,-Referring to our several interview!] and to the note veribale of the 24th April last, communicated to me by you this day in an amended form, I have to obsetrve that the terms and conditions of the treaty of the 3rd April, 1911, between Great Britain and Japan do not seem to be in tbeir entirety adapted to the circumstances of Canada, and, therefore, we have some hesitation in advising that immediate adherence to it on the part of Canada which your government desires.
Article 8 of the treaty of the 3rd April provides that:
'The articles, the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom, enumerated in Part I of the Schedule annexed to this treaty, shall not, on importation into Japan, be subjected to higher customs duties than those specified in the Schedule.
'The articles, the produce or manufacture of Japan, enumerated in Part II of the Schedule annexed to this treaty, shall he free of duty on hnportation into the United Kingdom.'
There might be a question whether in the event o f Canada giving adherence to the treaty, the schedule referred to in article 8 would thereupon become applicable to Canada. Granting, however, that it would so apply, an examination of its details shows that while no doubt well adapted to the conditions of the trade between Great Britain and Japan, the schedule is not wholly suitable to the commercial interchanges between Japan and Canada. Paid I of the Sohedule, for example, which contains a list of British products upon which maximum duties are fixed does not include many products in the export of which Canada is largely interested; and od the other

945CF>
hand, Part II of the Schedule, containing a list of Japanese products to which Great Britain agrees to give admission free of duty, includes silks and other articles wibich are dutiable on importation into Canada although free of customs duty in Great Britain.
It would, therefore, appear that the schedule to the treaty of the 3rd April is not wholly applicable to the conditions of trade between Japan and Canada, and that if a commercial arrangement is to be made to suit these conditions it will probably have to be accomplished by means of a separate treaty. It would be reasonable to expect that the negotiations and formal steps necessary bo the making of such a treaty could not be completed before the 17th July next, when the present treaty will expire.
The Canadian government, therefore, propose to avail themselves of the suggestion contained in the 3rd paragraph of the note ver-bale of the 24ith April communicated to me this day:
' The Imperial Japanese government have no hesitation in expressly declaring that it is their policy not to extend the term of their present treaty with any country, even though the new treaty could not he concluded before the expiration of the existing one. However, in case unavoidable circumstances prevent the conclusion of the new treaty in due time, the Imperial Government may, as a matter of convenience, enter, with the parties concerned, into a temporary agreement engaging the reciprocal grant of the most favoured nation treatment, for the purpose of regulating their commercial and tariff relations pending the conclusion of a new treaty. But they are firmly determined not to extend the term of their existing treaty with any country/
In pursuance of w-hat I understand to be the policy of your government as thus set forth, I would suggest that, leaving all other matters affecting the intercourse between Japan and Canada to the mutual good will of the two countries and the comity of nations, a temporary arrangement be made providing that from and after the 17th day of July, 1911, Canada shall receive in Japan the tariff treatment as expressed in Article 5 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Japan, signed at London on the lGth July, 1891, which was made applicable to Canada by the Convention between the United Kingdom and Japan respecting commercial relations between Canada and Japan, signed at Tokio on the 31st January, 1906, ana that reciprocally Japan shall receive in Canada the tariff treatment as expressed in the said article 5.
The question of the form in which such an agreement may most conveniently be made is a matter which can receive further consideration upon our receiving an intimation that the Japanese government are willing to agr,e to the proposal herein made.
Th-e question of immigration has been discussed between us on several occasions. I do not deem it necessary that this should be more than mentioned here, inasmuch as the assurance received from you of the willingness of your government to continue the friendly understanding on that matter at present existing is entirely * satisfactory to us.
I have the honour to be. Sir, your obedient* servant.
(Sgd.) W. S. FIELDING,
Minister of Finance: The Hon. T. Nakamura,
Imperial Japanese Consul General, Ottawa.
The reply of the Consul General for Japan, on behalf of the Japanese Imperial government, is as follows:


IMPERIAL CONSULATE GENERAL OF JAPAN FOR THE DOMINION OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 15, 1911.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, setting forth the views of your government in regard to some hesitation which they have in advising immediate adherence on the part of Canada to the treaty of the 3rd April, 1911, between Great Britain and Japan, and suggesting that, leaving all other matters affecting the intercourse between Canada and Japan to the mutual good will of the two countries and the comity of nations, a temporary arrangement be made providing that from and after the 17th day of July, 1911, Canada shall receive in Japan the tariff treatment as expressed in article V of the treaty of commerce and navigation between Great Britain and Japan signed at London on the 16th July, 1894, which was made applicable to Canada by the convention between the United Kingdom and Japan respecting commercial relations between Canada and Japan signed at Tokio on the 31st January, 1906, and that reciprocally Japan shall receive in Canada the tariff treatment as expressed in the said article V.
In reply, I have the honour, duly authorized by my government, to state that the Imperial Japanese government fully concurs in the proposal therein made by you in regard to a temporary tariff arrangement engaging the reciprocal grant of the most favoured nation treatment.
I have honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) T. NAKAMURA. Consul General of Japan. The Honourable W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
It will be observed that in the communication which I sent to the consul general I confined myself to two points: First, entirely to the question of the customs tariff, all other things are allowed to stand aside, and the treaty as respects these other things will lapse. My proposal was that we Siould reciprocally have what is called the most favoured nation treatment, so-that we might guard against any other country getting terms with Japan which would place us at a disadvantage. That they have agreed to give us. Then I went on to speak of the question on which my hon. friend from Yale-Oariboo (Mr. Burrell) addressed the House, and which is one of great importance. Let me again read the paragraph on the question of immigration:
[Stage Direction]
The question of immigration has been discussed between us on several occasions. I do not deem it necessary that this should be more than mentioned here, inasmuch as the assurance received from you of the willingness of your government to continue the friendly understanding on that matter at present existing, is entirely satisfactory to us.	i
Now it is necessary to observe that whatever has been done in the matter of immigration has not been done by treaty at all. Under the terms of the treaty which is soon to expire, Japanese subjects had the right to enter, to reside, to travel, and to have all the rights of British subjects in Canada. But we know that embarrassments arose from the free exercise of the rights so granted, and a friendly arrangement was made several years ago by which the Japanese government, though not going into details, not being content that the matter should be discussed very much in detail, gave this government an assurance, through the proper official of the Japanese government, to my hon. colleague the Postmaster General who was at the time in Japan, that the Japanese government would itself place certain limitations and restrictions upon immigration from Japan; and we had every reason to believe that, with the arrangement which the Japanese government, for its own purposes, was ready to make, there would be an absence of the difficulties which had unhappily arisen on our Pacific coast. That assurance so given has been fully lived up to. It is fair to the Japanese government to say that though it was never a matter of treaty, but a somewhat loose understanding, it has been acted up to in all good faith, and the number of Japanese who have desired to come into Canada has not been large. The number has been in the last year some 400, while in the last three years some 1,200 have come in. So, having received the assurance at that time that the Japanese government were prepared to deal with the problem in that way, and having received the assurance that they would continue that friendly arrangement, we have accepted that assurance and we feel that all will 'he well.
„We do not, in the resolution before the House, touch the question of immigration *at all. The old treaty undoubtedly did 'touch the question of immigration, because *if its terms had been enforced by the Japanese, it would have given them all the rights and privileges of British subjects in the Dominion; but, as I pointed out, they did not insist upon the 'exercise of the rights that came to them under the treaty. But when, on the 17th July, that treaty expires, there will be no arrangement of any kind, by law, or statute, or treaty, of a legal and
Mr. FIELDING
binding character with respect to immigration from Japan. While we would be free as a matter of law to make our arrangements with Japan in the same manner as we would be with any other country having no treaty obligations, and while we would be, under the terms, absolutely free to apply all our immigration laws and every other law to our relations with Japan, we do not hesitate to say that it is our desire and inclination to maintain that friendly understanding that already exists. We are happy to acknowledge the fact that the Japanese government have dealt with the matter in a good spirit, and we have every assurance that they mean to continue to deal with it in the same	spirit; so
that we feel that there is no probability	of	a revival	of those
unpleasant incidents that occurred on the Pacific coast several years ago. With these few explanations, I beg to ask the committee to adopt this resolution and, upon its adoption, I will have the honour to present a Bill to carry it into effect.	.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the resolution is adopted, I would like to have a little clearer understanding with respect to the matter which has been alluded to by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his concluding remarks. I must confess that the situation does not seem to me quite so clear as it seems to him. In article 1 of the treaty of commerce, by which Canada became bound by the convention of the 31st January, 1906, it was provided as follows:
The subjects of each of the two high contracting parties shall have full liberty to enter, travel or reside in any part of the dominions and possessions of the other contracting party, and shall enjoy full and perfect protection for their persons and property.
That gave to the citizens of Japan the absolute right to enter and reside in any part of Canada. It is unnecessary to recite the troubles that arose afterwards in British Columbia in consequence of which my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) made a visit to J apan and entered upon some negotiations with the government of that country, through the intervention of the British ambassador. The result of those negotiations was embodied in a letter bearing date Tokio, December 23, 1907, addressed to the Postmaster General. That letter is in the following terms:
Monsieur le Ministre,-
In reply to your note of even date, I have the honour to state that although the existing treaty between Japan and Canada absolutely guarantees to Japanese subjects full liberty to enter, travel and reside in any part of the Dominion of Canada, yet it is not the invention of the imperial government to insist icon the complete enjoyment of the rights and privileges guaranteed by . those stipulations

when that would involve disregard of special conditions which may prevail in Canada from time to time.
Acting in this spirit and having particular regard to circumstances of recent occurrenec in British Columbia, the imperial government have decided to take efficient means to restrict emigration to Canada. In carrying out this purpose, the imperial government, in pursuance of the policy above stated, will give careful consideration to local conditions prevailing in Canada, with a view to meeting the desires of the government of the Dominion as far as compatible with the spirit of the treaty and the dignity of the state.
Although, as stated in the note under reply, it was not possible for me to acquiesce in all of the proposals made by you on behalf of the Canadian government, I trust that you will find in the statement herein made proof of the earnest desire of the imperial government to promote by every means within their power, the growth and stability of the cordial and mutually beneficial relations which exist between our countries. I venture to believe, also that this desirable result will be found to have been materially advanced by the full exchange of views which lias taken place between us, and it gives me special pleasure to acknowledge the obligation under, which I have been placed by your frank and considerate explanations regarding the attitude and wishes of your government.
I avail myself, &c., &c.,
(Sgd.) TADASTJ HAYASHI. The Honourable Bodolphe Lemieux,
Postmaster General and Minister of Labour for Canada, Tokio.
The arrangement between Canada and Japan, when that letter was written, was to be found, in the first place, in the article of the treaty which I have quoted, and, in the second place, in this letter I have just read.	The	treaty was	Ithus supplemented by an informal engagement on the part of the Japanese government that it would restrict emigration from Japan to Canada, and in doing so that it would have regard from time to time to any special conditions in Canada that made such restriction desirable in the interest of goodwill between the two countries. I am unable to divorce the letter from the article of the treaty to which that letter continually alludes. If there is no treaty there is no need of any understanding. If the continuation of the understanding means anything, it seems to me to mean the continuation of the article of the treaty to which I have just now alluded and which is almost in terms embodied in it. If you continue the understanding embodied in this letter then it seems to me you continue the article of the treaty which is not only referred to but embodied in the very letter itself.
That is one view of it. The only other view is that the treaty is absolutely gone, that the understanding is gone also, that because the treaty is gone, therefore, there is no need of any understanding and that
matters will subsist between the two countries as far as immigration is concerned, exactly as if there were no treaty. It is not the latter position which the Minister of Finance seems to take. In his letter he has, in the first place, said:
I would suggest that leaving all other matters affecting intercourse between Japan and Canada to the mutual good will of the two countries the comity of nations, a temporary arrangement be made with regard to commercial affairs.
That would be entirely consistent with the view, that, in so far as immigration is concerned, we are absolutely unhampered by any treaty or understanding, but the latter part of the letter, where special reference is made to immigration, is not consistent with that view. These are the words which have already been quoted by the Minister of Finance:
The question of immigration has been discussed between us on several occasions. I do not deem it necessary that this should be more than mentioned here, inasmuch as the assurance received from you of the willingness of your government to continue the friendly understanding bn that matter at present existing is entirely satisfactory to us.
I am unable to understand how you can continue, how it is possible to continue, that friendly understanding unless you continue as a part of that friendly understanding, because it was a part thereof, the article of the treaty of 1894 which I have quoted just now and which gives to the citizens of Japan the absolute and full right to enter and reside in Canada, subject always, of course, to the modification which is embodied in the letter written by the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, to. my hon. friend the Postmaster General.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the error in my hon. friend's argument is in assuming that article 1 of the treaty and the arrangement respecting immigration hang together. That is the foundation of his contention. I do not think that is correct. The Japanese have always claimed that this arrangement is independent of the treaty, and I think we ought to go upon the .assumption that .that is correct. The treaty, with article 1, ceases to exist because the Japanese authorities, of their own motion, have determined that it shall cease to exist; they cannot claim that in any way that article is in operation. However, while that is_ the legal position, the technical position, I do not think it practically makes much difference, because the arrangement after all is this: We have assurances that they will themselves restrict the number of Japanese citizens coming to Canada. That is the essence of the whole. thing, they gave us that assurance several years ago,

they have lived up to it. We have the assurance. We cannot always bring down papers in relation to matters of this kind, but we have the assurance, in terms admitting of no doubt, that the Japanese authorities are willing to continue that arrangement which has worked so satisfactorily in the last three or four years. It is a point upon which the Japanese government have been rather unwilling to go into details. They have asked us to accept their assurance in good faith. We did so at the time and we have every reason to feel satisfied with the manner in which they have acted and feel that they would do the same thing in the future. We will be free, as a matter of law on July 17, from any obligation under that treaty except whatever obligation we shall assume if we adopt this resolution respecting customs tariffs; but while we will be absolutely free, as a matter of treaty and of law, to put these matters aside, we desire to give to the Japanese government the assurance that we wish to continue our friendly relations with them, and we feel that we should not take advantage of the absence of that treaty to engage, by legislation or administration, in any course of treatment different to what we apply to them to-day. If they continue, as I believe they will, in good faith to act up to that arrangement, we should be willing even without any treaty, to deal with them in a friendly spirit. That is a correct statement of the situation.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish to suggest that any harsh action should be taken by this government at this moment in consequence of the denunciation of this treaty and while negotiations are pending; nor do I desire to cast any aspersions on the good intentions of the government of Japan. They have carried out the arrangement made some years ago, and embodied in the letter which has been read, in a very fair spirit, so far as I am aware. But I do not see how it is possible to divorce that understanding from the previous treaty, because ithe letter makes the article of that treaty which I have quoted part of the understanding. I think it exceedingly desirable in all negotiations of this kind that we should have a perfectly clear understanding in this parliament and more especially as between the two governments as to just what the situation is. That is conducive to good relations between the two countries. I shall not go over the argument again as I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver is going to deal with the same subject, but I am bound to say that while I appreciate the force of the observations of the Minister of Finance, they are not_ absolutely Mr. FIELDING.	~
convincing to me that the view which he takes of the situation is the correct one, nor am I convinced that the situation is such that future misunderstanding may not occur.


George Henry Cowan: I would ask the Minister of Finance at the outset whether the friendly understanding to which he refers in his letter of the 20th of May, 1911, is embodied in the letter of December 23, 1907, from Count Hayashi to the Postmaster General?


William Stevens Fielding: That expresses it in part, but, as has been more than once stated, there were communications between the Canadian government and the British Ambassador and the Japanese government which, if read in association with this, would perhaps help to make it clear. I can only state the general fact that there is no misunderstanding. Article 1 which is alluded to in that letter cannot be an essential part of any understanding now when that article has been terminated by the action of the Japanese authorities themselves.


George Henry Cowan: Then am I to understand . that there are other documents setting forth this friendly understanding to which the Minister of Finance has referred and which the Japanese government treat as being independent of the treaty? Are these documents in the possession of the government?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, but they are of a confidential nature.


George Henry Cowan: Do they, in any degree, change the conditions set forth in the letter of December 23, 1907?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think so; I think they are quite consistent with one another.


George Henry Cowan: Then I will be safe in assuming that the minister, when he is speaking of a friendly understanding, is referring to the understanding as set forth in the letter of December 23, 1907?
Mrf. FIELDING, Yes, but you must read that in the light of the fact that article 1 ceases.


George Henry Cowan: Yes, but the substance of the understanding is to be found in that letter.


William Stevens Fielding: The essence of the understanding is the restriction of the immigration of Japanese to Canada.


George Henry Cowan: To be found in this letter?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes in the letter to the Postmaster General, that is substan-' tially correct.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But this letter is implemented by a note of a confidential nature.


George Henry Cowan: But that note of a confidential nature does not change the character of the understanding.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is the understanding.


George Henry Cowan: This letter is the understanding?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Implemented by a note of a confidential nature.


George Henry Cowan: But the note of a confidential nature does not change or modify the understanding in this letter?


William Stevens Fielding: And that note which did not change the understanding was a correct expression of the understanding at the time; but my hon. friend must read it now in the light of the fact that article 1 is being terminated by the Japanese authorities 'themselves, and he must read that termination into that letter.


George Henry Cowan: If the minister will kindly exercise a little confidence in my ability to read that letter, and wait, he will see what I wish to say. I wish now to ask him to what document I may look for this friendly understanding. I understand that I am to look to that letter of the 23rd of December, 1907.


William Stevens Fielding: And the history of the last four years. We must read it in the light of that understanding with respect to the restriction, and the way in which that restriction was carried out is a legitimate part of the study of the question at this moment.


George Henry Cowan: Then I am to understand that that friendly understanding, to which the minister refers in his letter of May, embodies not only the terms of this letter of the 23rd of December, but the whole history of Japan and Canada in connection with this transaction. Am I right in that?


William Stevens Fielding: No, not the whole history of the number of Japanese subjects who came in. The understanding has reference to the number of Japanese subjects coming into Canada, and the results of the last four years in that respect are a useful element in the study of the question and' in the interpretation of the understanding.


George Henry Cowan: But the whole understanding itself is to be found in this letter. We might as well confess that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the letter plus a note of a confidential character.


George Henry Cowan: But that does not modify it. Does it modify it?	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It does not.


George Henry Cowan: We have got something at last. This friendly understanding is to be found in a letter which reads as follows:
In reply to your note of even date, I have the honour to state that although the existing treaty between Japan and Canada absolutely guarantees to Japanese subjects full liberty to enter, travel, and reside in any part of the Dominion of Canada, yet it is, not the intention of the imperial government to insist upon the complete enjoyments of the rights and privileges guaranteed by those stipulations when that would involve disregard of special conditions which may prevail in Canada from time to time.
In other words, that understanding hands over to the Japanese government the power to consider the special conditions obtaining in Canada; and if those special conditions require them to limit the number of Japanese coming into Canada from Japan, they say they will do it. In other words, we have handed over our power to legislate for the protection of the people of Canada to the government of Japan.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is your inference.


George Henry Cowan: Will the hon. the Postmaster General draw any other inference from it, I will give him the opportunity.
I would regret very much to find myself wrong. Will the hon. Postmaster General please give me the right inference to be drawn from that letter?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman is waxing too eloquent on his own inference.
I will let him go on.


George Henry Cowan: But, in the interest of truth, and perhaps to the delight of the House, the minister could expatiate * upon the pleasures of life in Japan while he was explaining exactly the right inference to be drawn from this letter. Does he wish the opportunity?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I am listening.


George Henry Cowan: Well, we will look at_ it again. The Japanese-there are forty-nine millions of them-have full liberty to enter, travel, and reside in Canada, but that liberty will be checked, not by the Canadian government, but by the Japanese government, after studying the conditions, not of Japan, but forsooth, ' the special conditions which may prevail in Canada from time to time.' If we need more Japanese immigrants, the power is no longer in the Canadian government .to decide, if we need fewer Japanese immigrants, the power to decide that is no longer" in the Canadian government. Under this friendly understanding it is in the Japanese government. Now, it may be that I I have not a right interpretation of this

sentence. I am willing to be writ down as a man incapable of construing English if I am wrong in my construction of that sentence. That, I have ascertained at least, is the basis of this friendly understanding that is going to be continued, that is independent of a treaty, and that does not expire with the treaty. By the way, perhaps the Minister of Finance would tell me, out of the heap of his oriental wisdom, whether he agrees with the Japanese government in saying that this friendly understanding is independent of the treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I do not hesitate to say that the Japanese government, I have reason to believe, regard it as quite independent of the treaty.


George Henry Cowan: And it does not terminate with the treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, that is my view, unless either party wishes to terminate it. They are willing to continue it, and we have no objection.


George Henry Cowan: Then, this is an understanding between two nations that does not expire on the 16th or the 17th of July, 1911, with the expiration of that trea.ty. I wonder what member of the government ever told the people of Canada that before that they had entered into an understanding with Japan on the subject of immigration which does not expire with the treaty adhered to on the 31st of January, 1906. Perhaps the minister will tell me now just when this friendly arrangement will expire. Is there any limit put to it?


William Stevens Fielding: I should say when either party becomes displeased with it.


George Henry Cowan: Now, perhaps the minister will be good enough, out of the abundance of his reasons, to tell us why we want this treaty with Japan. Is it in the public interest 'of Canada that we should encourage immigration from Japan? Does the Minister of Finance regard it as so?
Silence. Then, if it is not in the interest of Canada to encourage immigration from Japan, why in the name of all that is sensible have we entered into this agreement which does not expire with the treaty?
T",e minister give a single reason for it. 1 do not think he can give one reason m the public interest of Canada. I do not believe he can justify before the people of Canada having entered into that secret understanding with J apan, which does not expire on the 17th of July next, when the people of Canada believed that it would expire.
The fact is that under that friendly understanding with Japan, the Japanese people have free^ right of entry and residence In Canada, and that free right is to be Mr. COWAN.
restricted only by the Japanese government. There is nothing more to it, and we are handing over for no reason which any minister or public man dare state publicly, and are continuing to hand over, in spite of the expiration of this treaty, this power to regulate immigration into Canada. What reason can any public man give for handing over to a foreign power the jurisdiction which was given by the Act of confederation to this parliament with regard to immigration? What reason can the government give in the public interest for doing it? They can give none; and mark you, the Postmaster General (Mr. Lem-ieux) sneered once, in answer to a suggestion I made, that the right of the Japanese to enter Canada under the Japanese Treaty is less encumbered by conditions than the right of an Englishman, a Scotchman, an Irishman or a Frenchman under our Immigration Act. Perhaps the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) will make bold to say again that I am wrong in my construction of the Japanese Treaty or of the friendly understanding or of the Immigration Act. I say again you are not, by this friendly understanding, putting the immigrants from the mother land on an even keel with the immigrants from Japan; you are discriminating in favour of Japanese immigration. You cannot cut down those rights acquired by agreement between two nations hy an Immigration Act. The United States evidently believe that cannot be done because they made an express stipulation in their treaty that Japan shall be subject to the immigration laws of the United States. But under this friendly understanding which this government has entered into, every Japanese subject has an absolute right to free entry and residence in Canada except when that right is restricted by his own government. That understanding gives privileges and preference to the Japanese immigrant which the immigrants from other countries do not enjoy. Can any reason in the public interest be advanced for this discrimination in favour of the Japanese? Are we so anxious to increase the Japanese population of Canada that we are going to discriminate in their favour against Irishmen, Englishmen and Scotchmen and men from other European countries? That was the legal effect under the old treaty which expires on the 17th July next, and it will be the effect of the continued understanding between the two nations. The difference between a treaty and an understanding is the difference between tweedle dum and tweedle dee. It is infinitesimal. It does not modify the fact that when an agreement between nations is entered into, neither one has any right to pare down that agreement, and limit by legislation the rights of the citizens of the other coun-

try with regard to immigration or any other subject. So that we are presenting to the world this spectacle. We started out with a great desire to make treaties, and we blundered into this treaty in January, 1906. The government blundered into it and tried to justify it by the misleading statement that they had an agreement with Japan limiting the number of Japanese immigrants to come from Japan into Canada. Within six months after that treaty was ratified, 8,125 Japanese immigrants had landed in the ports of Vancouver and Victoria. Then my hon. friends opposite will say: Oh, but our Postmaster General went over and made this arrangement, and the number coming into the country since has been considerably reduced. With that point I propose to deal later, but the fact remains that this agreement will continue to the Japanese people the right which the people of the United Kingdom would be delighted to enjoy, the right of free entry and free residence, the right to be restricted only by the government of the country from which the immigrant comes. Suppose that right were given to Englishmen, do you not think it would increase the number of English, Scotch and Irish immigrants? Is it any wonder that the Japanese were so alert to avail themselves of this right and Tush into Canada in such numbers?
The vice of the thing is this, and no one knows it better than the Finance Minister -I venture to say that he has wished a thousand times he had never made the fatal blunder of entering into this foolish treaty of the 31st January, 1906, the vice of the thing is this, that you have selected a people who never intend to become Canadian citizens, who are unfit to become Canadian citizens, and you are giving them a preference in our immigration field over every other people in the known world.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I see absolutely no reason why we should continue this alleged friendly understanding. The advantage of the tariff arrangement has been discussed to-night fully by my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) I think he has shown that its advantages are nil. Why should we not avail ourselves of this opportunity, when this treaty is expiring, to make no arrangement that is not to the advantage and honour of Canada? The commercial side of the treaty is of little or no benefit to Canada. The balance of trade is with Japan, and gold has to go from Canada to Japan to meet that balance. This ' friendly understanding' on the subject of immigration, I venture to say, is, in the view of ninety per cent of the people who are affected by it, a most unfriendly arrangement so far as the interests of Canada are concerned. I see no necessity for Canada making any move at the present juncture. She does not
have to adhere to that agreement. There is no breach of national honour or national etiquette in our failing to adhere to that agreement. There is no advantage in adhering to that agreement or making a new commercial arrangement. Why not, with the dignity and self-respect that becomes a nation, exercise the power given us by that Confederation Act, the power to regulate and restrict and govern immigration from any country we please according to the interests of Canada? Why do we hand that power to a foreign country? What advantage are we getting in return? How does it add to our self-respect or advance any of our interests? What end is it attaining for Canada? Why not stand exactly as we are in all treaty relations between the two countries, until we can get an arrangement that is really for the interest of the country?
Now, I know of no power possessed by the government of Canada which enables it to enter into an agreement that has never been submitted to parliament for ratification and which is described by the representative of the Japanese government in this language:
The understanding arrived at between the two governments


The Canadian and the Japanese.
-in 1908 on the subject of immigration is quite independent of the existing treaty concluded between Japan and Canada in 1906 End is not terminated on the expiration of that treaty between Japan and Canada.
I am prepared to say that the Canadian government has no power to enter into a side agreement with a nation which agreement was never submitted to parliament and is not part of the British treaty. I am prepared to state that the government does not need to take the view that there exists any understanding or agreement independent of the treaty and not expiring with the treaty. There is no necessity put upon the government to take that view; and I say it is in the interest of Canada generally that no such view should be taken, and no action taken such as the minister has outlined tonight.
I can only say, in conclusion, that I know that the people who live in these conditions, and who are as broad and generous-minded as any other part of the electorate of Canada, regardless of occupation or origin, race or creed, are of one mind in believing that it is a fatal mistake in the interests of Canada, looking to her larger destiny, to encourage by treaty or friendly understanding with Japan, the immigration of people who never intend to become citizens of Canada and who take the place in that western country of men wdro should be citizens undertaking the responsibilities of citizens. In that western country we have duties to perform; we have to establish

there the institutions that have made Canada and the other portions of the British Empire what they are. We have to do this by our own exertions. And when you find that of the people we are adding to the population of this country, twenty-five per cent of them at least are aliens and intend to remain aliens, who intend to leave the country, who take upon themselves no part of the duties of citizenship-I tell you that you are casting upon what the Prime Minister (iSir Wilfrid Laurier) in an unfortunate moment called the ' white portion of British Columbia.' a burden that may become,^ one of these days, greater than they can bear.
I	have no desire to refer to past events or to affect in the slightest degree the relations between Japan and Canada or between Japan and the British Empire. I hope these relations may always remain cordial. But I do say that the men who propose these arrangements with Japan on a subject which, under the Confederation Act we have the power to deal with, are not rising to the great height of Canada's destiny in those matters that affect not only Canada but the whole Anglo-Saxon race. I say there are other duties cast upon us besides this twopenny half-penny chasing after the dollar in the remote corners of the earth. I say that our patriotism should not be of that sordid kind which is measured by the price of a ton of lead in Japan or of a sack of potatoes on the Boston market. I think we have other and higher duties to perform. I feel_ that this government is failing, and failing absolutely, in the performance of those high duties, in this attempt to put through this arrangement with Japan.


George Gerald King: At this late hour of the night and at this late stage of the session, I would not like to detain the House more than a moment or two. But I feel, after listening
II	the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) that I would be doing an injustice to those whom I more particularly represent in this House, the working classes of this country, if I allowed his remarks to pass without comment.
I was particularly struck with one phrase the hon. member made use of, that there was danger of casting on British Columbia a burden greater than she could bear. As I listened to his remarks I could not help feeling that if many speeches of that kind were delivered throughout Canada, we would be casting upon this country a greater burden than the people would be able to bear. I wonder if the hon. member realizes the extent and magnitude of this question of Oriental immigration. It has been my privilege to see something of the 300 millions of India, to see something of the 400 millions of China, to see something of the 50 millions of Japan; and as I wandered through those countries and Mr. COWANr
saw those multitudes, and thought that we on this side of the Pacific were a people of only 8 or 9 millions, I eould not help feeling that the manner of dealing with the problem of Oriental immigration was one of the most important and far reaching concerns of this nation. Now what is the manner my hon. frined suggests tonight? It is that we should claim the rights which we have under the British North America Act, and begin to legislate in this parliament by a series of acts in the nature of exclusion.


George Henry Cowan: I never suggested such a thing.


George Gerald King: What other meaning can be attached to my hon. friend's remarks? He has spoken of the arrangement which this government is making.


George Henry Cowan: When I say that I did not made such a statement, and every one in this House knows I did not, I have a right to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw his assertion.


George Gerald King: I am prepared to accept what my hon. friend says as to his statement, but every hon. gentleman in this House will draw his own inference from his remarks. There are only two methods by which this question of Oriental immigration can be dealt with. There is either the method of diplomacy which this government has followed, and there is the other method of hurling defiance in the face of these Oriental people and telling them that, despite their numbers, despite their industrial and commercial importance, we shall legislate against them in a fashion which will exclude them totally from our shores. Now I believe with all my heart that it is absolutely necessary to restrict immigration from the Orient. I think in the interest, not only of the working classes of this country, but of all other classes it is absolutely necessary that the people of the Orient shall be restrained from coming to this country. But there are two methods of doing that. One method is to attempt it by legislation, with the possibility of incurring the hostility of those peoples, the other method is to allow those people themselves to show their desire to deal with us as a friendly nation, and when they express a willingness to restrict their own emigration, if they carry out that promise faithfully, to give them an opportunity to do so, and to continue that arrangement with them as long as we have reason to believe in their good faith. Now that is the position we are in with regard to Japan at the present day.
Our position, and the posftion of the nation to the south of us, is precisely analogous in more than one particular. We have

each had a (treaty recently with Japan, a trade treaty which deals also with the subject of immigration. In the treaty with the United States I believe the American government reserved to itself the right to handle the question of immigration as it pleased. At the time we were discussing this treaty with Japan some years ago, hon. gentlemen opposite urged that we on this side of the House should have put into our agreement the same clause which was in the agreement of the United States, namely, that nothing in that trade treaty should in any way restrict our privileges in the matter of legislating on the subject of immigration. But what has taken place in the United States within the last six months as a result of their experience? The United States has entered into a new treaty with Japan, and what is the first clause in that treaty? This treaty has been signed within the past few weeks, on the fifth day of April in fact, and the first article in that treaty reads as follows:
Tlie citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter, travel and reside in the territories of the other, to carry on trade wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactures, warehouses and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established.


George Henry Cowan: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to read on to that section which shows that all these rights are subject to the Immigration Act of the United States.
Mr. KING The hon. gentleman may read any section he pleases.


George Henry Cowan: But it is there.


George Gerald King: I am reading what is here at present, and no language can be more emphatic than this:
The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter, travel and reside in the territories of the other.
That is the language which appears as part of the treaty lately entered into between the United States and Japan, and which gives complete liberty of movement in the matter of immigration between the two countries. Now my hon. friend says: Bead on. After you get through the treaty altogether, I find at the end of it the following paragraph, which comes under the head of a declaration, not as part of the treaty, but as a separate document altogether, _signed by Mr. Uchida, who is the ambassador of the Japanese government at
Washington. And what are the words of this declaration?
In proceeding this day to the signature of the treaty of commerce and navigation between Japan and the United States, the undersigned, Japanese ambassador in Washington, duly authorized by his government, has the honour to declare that the Imperial Japanese government are fully prepared to maintain with equal effectiveness the limitation and control which they have for the past three years exercised in regulation of the immigration of labourers to the United States.


Martin Burrell: The minister surely does not mean to intimate that a formal declaration of that kind by a plenipotentiary is to be compared with the shadowy assurance which this government has got?


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend complain that we have not an assurance? His friend is complaining that we have too much.


George Gerald King: I may say that I regard the two assurances in every particular, so far as honour can make them such, on exactly the same footing. This assurance is given by the highest representative of Japan in the United States to the United States government, given on the honour of the Japanese government. The assurance with this government is also given by the highest representative of the government of Japan in Canada, and given with the full honour and knowledge of the Japanese government and on its behalf. Moreover, the assurances given by the Japanese government to the government of Canada have been given in formal documents signed by the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, and given to the British Ambassador in Japan.


George Henry Cowan: It may be that the minister's copy differs from mine, but my copy contains this:
And whereas, the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States to the ratification of the said treaty was given with the understanding ' that the treaty shall not be deemed to repeal or affect any of the provisions of the Act of Congress entitled ' An Act to Regulate the Immigration of Aliens into the United States ', approved February 20, 1907.'


George Gerald King: Exactly the same thing applies to this country. We have in this country an Act respecting immigration from other countries, relating to different classes of undesirable immigrants, and that law is enforced against Japan as against every other country, and the United States is in exactly the same position. My hon. friend cannot have looked into the matter carefully, or he would know that we have in this country immigration laws applicable to all immigrants that come to this country, whether on the

Atlantic or on the Pacific, and the stipulation to which my hon. friend has just referred applies exactly in the same way to Canada.


George Henry Cowan: Was that under the old treaty, too, ratified on the 31st of January, 1906?


George Gerald King: Yes.


George Henry Cowan: So they are subject to the Immigration Act. I suppose it was on legal advice at that time that the government was acting?


George Gerald King: My hon. friend is endeavouring to insinuate that it is not a fact that our laws in regard to the various classes of immigrants that are undesirable coming to our shores, operate against Japan. I inform him that I have seen myself the officials of this government putting those laws into force on the Pacific coast, turning back men and, refusing them the right to land in this country because they were not able to pass the medical examination which was required of them. My hon. friend knows the law has been enforced out in British Columbia.


George Henry Cowan: That is not answering what I said. The treaty between the United States and Japan is subject to the Immigration Act of the United States while our treaty is not subject to the Canadian Immigration Act.


William Stevens Fielding: There will be no treaty after the 17th July.


George Gerald King: I was just going to point out to my hon. friend that under the treaty the United States have found it desirable to make with the Japanese government they have given the Japanese the free right of entry into the United States. The immigration of Japanese into the United States is restricted only by the general application of the United Slates immigration laws along lines exactly parallel to our own; that is with reference to the question of diseased and undesirable immigrants and the like. With that exception the whole matter of immigration from Japan to the United States is 'based on the declaration that:
The Imperial Japanese government are fully prepared to maintain with equal effectiveness the limitation and control which they have for the past three years exercised in regulation of the emigration of labourers to the United States.
I may say to my hon. friend that perhaps he is not aware of the fact that the agreement between Japan and the United States went into effect subsequent to the time at which the arrangement was effected between Canada and Japan. My hon. friend the Postmaster General left this Mr. KING.
country for Japan in December, 1907. He was able at that time, through negotiations with the Japanese government and with the assistance of the British Ambassador, to make an arrangement which has effectively stopped emigration of any extent from Japan to Canada. After that arrangement had been effected the United States government sought to make a similar arrangement with the government of Japan. They were successful in getting either in part or in whole what this government got with Japan, but not more; and that arrangement has been found to work so satisfactorily that the United States government, in consenting to this treaty with Japan, has accepted the assurance that this arrangement will continue to work satisfactorily as far as immigration is concerned. That assurance is given irrespective of the treaty one way or the other. It is because of the policy of the Japanese government, that they have given this assurance to two different countries. It is part of their present policy that their people shall not come to this side of the water, but that those who leave Tokio and other Japanese cities shall emigrate to different parts of the Orient, Corea and Manchuria in particular. That is why this government has found a more effective way of dealing with this question by friendly negotiations through the channels of diplomacy rather than by an attitude of defiance and by the passing of exclusion laws against the citizens of 'that country. I have some figures here which show the immigration from Japan under this present arrangement.


George Henry Cowan: Does the minister mean that it is better to allow the Japanese government to exercise the right of restricting immigration from Japan into Canada than that Canada should exercise that right herself?


George Gerald King: 
Mr. BARNARD.: and that is that that arrangement was not what the Postmaster General asked when he went there; he certainly wanted something more than that, but he did not get all he asked for. Of course the correspondence, and what took place between him and the Imperial Japanese government 1 assume was more or less of a confidential nature, but I have here what purports to be a copy of the letter from the Postmaster General to Count Hayashi, dated 23rd Dec-cember, 1907, the reply to which is the agreement which is now under discussion. He states in that letter:
I understand the imperial government is not able to accede to my wishes in the matter of limiting the number of the above immigrants. I am therefore persuaded in the sequel of negotiations that it is quite unnecessary for me to further dispute the fact that the Canadian government's desire cannot be acceded to.
What he asked for I do not know, but he evidently thought he should get much more than he did get; at any rate he asked for it, and did not get it. The people of British Columbia are not satisfied, and have not been satisfied with this agreement as it stands. They are not satisfied because the control of this immigration is in the hands of the Japanese government to deal with as they see fit. The letter of December 23rd, 1907, which is the basis of the agreement, provides that the Japanese government is to give careful consideration to local conditions prevailing in Canada, and that for the purpose of this discussion means in British Columbia, with a view of meeting the desires of the government of the Dominion of Canada, as far as compatible with the spirit of the treaty, and the dignity of the State. That is to say, when they feel inclined, they can send as many immigrants as they" like into British Columbia, and the Dominion government has no right to say anything in protest. It is unnecessary, and 'would be futile at this stage of the proceedings to _ discuss the desirability, or undesirability of Japanese immigration.


George Gerald King: Where does he find any language which will give him any reason to say that this government has bound itself so that it has no right to say what immigration shall come into this country?


George Henry Barnard: I understand this government has accepted this letter, and this letter states that the imperial government is to give serious consideration to local conditions prevailing in Canada with a view to meeting the desires of the government of the Dominion as far as is compatible with the spirit of the treaty, and the dignity of the state. That is, if the imperial government do not think it compatible with the spirit of the treaty, or the dignity of the State of Japan, they would Mr. BARNARD.
be still living up to their arrangement, and coud do as they pleased. '


George Gerald King: That is simplv an offer on the part of the Japanese government to this government. It does not in any way restrict the power of this government to do what it thinks right in the premises provided that offer is not lived .up to.


George Henry Barnard: That is the whole agreement that the Minister of Labour has been telling us is such a very fine agreement. Surely he does not propose to continue that agreement which he praised so highly.


George Gerald King: What I have praised is an arrangement whereby the Japanese government have voluntarily offered to do a certain thing which has left this goverpment absolutely free to do what it thinks best. That is the arrangement I have applauded.


George Henry Barnard: The government at Ottawa have not appreciated the feelings of the people of British Columbia, they never have from the time that this question first became a live issue. I do not wish to enter on anything particularly controversial in .connection with this matter to-night, but we have had statements from different ministers which go to show beyond question that the sympathies, and the feelings of the government were not at one with the people of British Columbia. The government undoubtedly made a blunder when they first entered into this treaty, a blunder which -was absolutely unnecessary because the details were called to their attention by the imperial government at the time, and the imperial government informed this government . that they did not need to adhere to that treaty so far as the question of immigration of labour was concerned. In spite of that they adhered to the treaty, and found themselves in trouble by reason of having, done so. At this time it would be a mistake on the part of the government to perpetuate that blunder; let this matter drop, and begin all over again. The people of British Columbia wish to develop their own province along their own lines. We think, rightly or wrongly, that we have the finest province in the Dominion. We have any amount of difficulties to overcome, and we do not want these difficulties increased by a large influx of alien population which can never be assimilated with ithe population of the province, and which will be for all time to come a detriment to it.


George Gerald King: Heair, hear.


Mr. GOODEVE.: I would like to add a word or two of protest in regard to the resolution. If the resolution ps it is on the Order Paper was all that we had in connection with the matter to be dealt with,
I would have nothing whatever to say, but yesterday the Finance Minister brought

down a return of correspondence leading *up to the resolution that we have on the Order Paper. In that return I find a letter which the Finance Minister lias read' in the House this evening. In it he referred to the fact that he trusts the same relations will continue in regard to immigration that have been in existence since the letters referred to between the Postmaster General and the Imperial Japanese government were exchanged. I absolutely agree with the argument advanced by the leader of the opposition, that we must read the reference in the letter addressed by the Finance Minister to the Imperial Japanese government in connection with article 1 of the original treaty to which undoubtedly it refers.
The whole argument of the lion. Minister of Labour has been that they have no treaty now, and that therefore we can at any time restrict the immigration of Japanese subjects. But that is contrary to the correspondence brought down and laid on the table yesterday, and repeated by the Minister of Finance to-night. Following that argument, the Minister of Labour refers to the recent treaty between the United States and Japan, from which he endeavours to argue that they are using exactly the same agreement that we have had with the Japanese government. But what are the facts? As the hon. member for Vancouver pointed out, in the latter clause of the agreement between the United States and Japan, it is expressly stated:
And, whereas, the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States for the ratification of the said treaty as given with the un-dei-sbanding that that treaty was not to be deemed to repeal or affeot any of the provisions of the Act of Congress entitled an Act to regulate immigration into the United States.
By that clause the United States absolutely claim the right to control the immigration. The hon. Minister of Labour says that refers only to criminal immigration; but in the original treaty made with Japan that class of immigration was not excepted. That was one of the objections taken by the province of British Columbia, namely, that instead of retaining control over our own immigration, we had handed it over to the Japanese government.


George Gerald King: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. The objection was this, that we had allowed to go on the statute that section of the treaty which said that the subjects of either country were to have the right of free entry. The question was not in regard to our not having applied for immigration laws against undesirable classes, but it was that the Japanese would have the right to enter this country without any restriction.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The objection was that we had failed to put in a clause regulating 299
immigration, and the result was a large influx in the following year.


George Gerald King: The fact that we did not expressly name our immigration Act did not exclude its provisions from applying to the Japanese in the same way as to immigration from other nations. Any labourer from Germany who could pass our laws in that regard could also come from Japan.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The Minister of Labour does not seem to recognize the fact that the treaty superseded any immigration laws we had, and we had absolutely no control over either criminal or other immigration, at that time. It is quite true that possibly the Japanese government would not have taken objection	to	our	excludingcriminal immigration, although even in regard to that	we	have	no absolute right under	the	treaty	;	but we
failed to retain control over our own immigration, even of labourers from Japan. We are satisfied that this government should have friendly trade relations with Japan; but at the time this treaty was made with Great Britain, the Secretary of State for the Colonies called attention to the fact that the colonies could accept these rights and privileges with respect to trade, and yet retain control of immigration. We have no objection to trading with these people; on the contrary, we are from time to time increasing our shipping in that direction, and we desire to have trade with them; but the Japanese government, through the imperial government, said that they were quite prepared that the Dominion government should accept these trade relations and still retain control of her own immigration. What is the condition to-night? This treaty lapses in July next, and we had a right, not only as citizens of British Columbia, but as citizens of the Dominion of Canada, to expect that this government would have taken advantage of that opportunity to retain control of our own immigration. There was absolutely no necessity for the Minister of Finance, in negotiating on behalf of this government, to report that they had difficulties in regard to immigration, and practically to continue the treaty. You have not only deliberately handed over the control you had given to them by the treaty with Great Britain, but handed over that control by that letter without any reciprocal return whatever. I do not mean to say that we would value Japan as a place of immigration for Canadian citizens, but we had at least that reciprocal right by the treaty. To-day that right is taken away. The letter of the Finance Minister deals with the arrangement based on the letter about which the hon. member for Vancouver was so careful to ask, and as to which he got the assurance of both the Postmaster General and the Finance Minister



that it was the basis of the agreement. Under that letter the Japanese government indefinitely, or at least to the full extent of two years, will have the absolute right, if they so desire-and they will only be guided after an investigation of the Canadian situation-to control that immigration, and we have absolutely no rights in return.


William Stevens Fielding: Where does my hon. friend find that?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I find it in a letter which was Tead here to-night by the hon. gentleman. No one swill dispute that that letter bases the position we occupy tonight in connection with article (1) of the original treaty and in connection with the agreement based on the letter of the Postmaster General.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend must not say that no one disputes it because I do.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I would like to kno'w on what ground.


William Stevens Fielding: I have explained that already.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: And while doing that, we have not even the previous concessions, which 'we had under the treaty. There are no reciprocal concessions with regard to immigration. True there are with regard to trade, but .absolutely none with regard to immigration, and that is why I enter my protest, not only on behalf of the people of British Columbia but of the Dominion.
I do not propose at this late hour to go into all the arguments why we think this immigration is not suitable to Canada. Every one will agree that we cannot assimilate Asiatic immigration and make the Asiatics good Canadian citizens. But that is no reason why we should not trade with them, and the Japanese recognized that in the treaty of 1906 and said they were quite prepared that the Dominion should accept the advantages of a trade treaty, but still retain control of her own immigration. iNow when the opportunity arises this year tio resume our control of immigration* we find, by the letter of the Finance Minister, that the government has given away the right to control that immigration. I am free to admit, from the figures furnished by the Department of Labour which I assume are correct, that to a large extent the Japanese have restricted immigration, but that is purely a matter of goodwill on their part, and it is on that my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr, Cowan) argued that to-day the Japanese have more rights with regard to immigration than British people. They have the absolute right and freedom to come in, reside, travel, &c.-rights exceed-Mr. GOODEVE.
ing those which any other nationality has to-day. It is on that basis we object to this proposed agreement. We do not object to the proposed extension of our trade or our traffic regulations, but solely to our immigration regulations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On what does my hon. friend base his statement that under the treaty the Japanese have greater right of entry than British subjects? .


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: J base it on the fact that under the original treaty we Tetain no control over the immigration from Japan whereas British immigrants from other countries are subject to our Immigration laws.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not the case. Our Immigration Act applies to the people of Japan as well as to all other people as regards disabilities of any kind contained in that Act. That is a statement I make with the full responsibility of the government.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I take exception to that. A treaty obligation overrides that Act, and I appeal to the lawyers in the Housq if I am .not correct.


Martin Burrell: If the minister's view be correct, why should the United States have found it necessary to have a special protocol making the Japanese subject to their immigration laws.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the clause in the United States Treaty, which says that the treaty does not exempt the Japanese from the immigration laws of the United States- and which clause is contained in the body of that treaty-has the effect my hon. friend says it has, why is it that a protocol was required outside of that treaty to continue the agreement between the United States and Japan? Why did they .want that agreement to continue if their immigration laws shut out Japanese immigration? Either one of two things. Either the United States immigration laws did not have that effect or else the United States, like ourselves, considered it better for the Japanese themselves to restrict emigration to the United States than for the Americans to pass laws and regulations to shut the Japanese .out.


Robert Laird Borden: The protocol deals with something which is not covered by the general immigration laws jof the United States.	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But if these laws apply what need was there for a protocol?


Robert Laird Borden: Because the general immigration laws do not touch that particular -subject.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The immigration laws of the .United States can shut anybody out. They can shut the Japanese out; but by reason of the protocol attached .to the treaty, it is evident that the United States authorities .prefer a friendly arrangement of .that kind to being obliged themselves to shut the Japanese out by their own laws. They might he able to -do that under the treaty but they preferred a friendly arrangement with the Japanese because, [DOT]like ourselves, *they prefer the policy of friendly relations between people, rather 'than be under the necessity of insisting on their full rights by shutting them out. .The 'policy of this government has been that we should .secure -the restriction of Japanese immigration by friendly arrangement with the Japanese government, under .which the Japanese government would restrict that immigration themselves, rather than undertake to restrict it by our laws.
Mr. iGOODEVE. Why does not the government of Canada make similar arrangements with all other countries and allow all other countries to restrict immigration to Canada? If the government are going to hand ovetr to one country the right to control emigration to .Canada, it would only be logical that they should give that right to other countries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a matter of fact we have just srfeh an -arrangemnt with the government of India. My Jh.on. colleague the Minister of Labour ,(Mr. King) went to England some time ago in consequence of certain immigration of Hindoos, into British Columbia which was objectionable.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: That was a British country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And he then made an arrangement with the Indian authorities by which they agreed to- restrict and discourage the emigration to Canada of those Hindoos. >
My right hon. leader stated n,ot long ago in this House that he would be glad, as soon as the time was ripe, to make a similar arrangement with .China if possible. It is true that with regard to European countries generally, we have no such arrangement, but we have .other means of dealing with them. We might adopt it there also if the opportunity .should arise, but it has not yet arisen. With Japan, however, we had the -opportunity of making such an arrangement, and we did make it with the most satisfactory results. There is a direct difference between the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, and that of this government. The policy of this government is to deal wi'th Oriental immigration by meains of arrangements by which the governments of those countries will themselves restrict 299i
emigration from them to Canada, .and we shall not be obliged to pass regulations to restrict it ourselves. Apparently hon.. gentlemen opposite think it better to-ignore the friendly proposals of govern

ments in the- Orient who are willing to agree to such an arrangement, and have Canada herself pass such drastic regulations as they would like for the purpose of shutting out Oriental immigration. That seems, so far as the discussion, to-night has shown it, to be the direct difference 'between the two policies here to-night.
There is another point on which I wish to say a word. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to consider that the arrangement is-dependent on the treaty. I have no hesitation in saying that the arrangement is not dependent on the treaty. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) read an extract from the document which was laid on the table to-day by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) which bears out entirely what I say now. The memorandum is explicit that the understanding arrived at beweert the -two governments in 1908 on the subject of immigration is quite independent of the existing treaty and does not terminate on the expiration of that treaty, and that is quite in accord with the understanding we have always had on the immigration question. The immigration arrangement was made after the treaty. It is a mutual arrangement by which the Japanese government undertakes to restrict the emigration of Japanese to Canada. As a result of that, Canada makes no drastic regulations of immigration against the Japanese. If the Japanese government did not maintain its part of that arrangement Canada would be free to make any restrictions she chose in regard to Japanese immigration. We believe it is better in the interest of Canada-and not only in the interest of Canada but in the interest of Japan-that the Japanese government themselves should restrict their emigration to Canada. We wish them to continue that. The Japanese government also wishes to continue it. But I wish to have it clearly understood that this arrangement is independent of the treaty and that it is dependent upon the faithful recognition of the arrangement by both sides to the agreement. If at any time the Canadian government considers that the Japanese government is not fulfilling its obl.gations, or the Japanese government considers that the Canadian government is not fulfilling its obligations, either party would have the right to terminate the arrangement at once. It is not a treaty, but an arrangement, and it continues by the mutual good feeling and good understanding between the two countries and can be terminated the minute that that mutual feeling of faith and confidence ceases to exist.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: With reference to the similar agreement that the Minister of Agriculture has stated they have made with the Indian government, it must be remembered that the people of India are British subjects and would of necessity have to be dealt with in an entirely different manner from those who are not British subjects. I can readily understand an arrangement of that kind being made wTith our fellow subjects. It was a difficult question to handle, and if an agreement of that kind was come to, I think it is eminently satisfactory, and I am quite prepared to give credit for it. But, speak-inf for myself alone, and not on behalf of this side of the House, I differ entirely with the policy of the present government in regard to foreign and alien immigration-handing over the absolute control of that immigration to the foreigners themselves. I say it is not a question of defiance as stated by the Minister of Labour (Mr. King). There is absolutely nothing infra dig in treating with Japan on the basis of controlling immigration. And I point out to the government that they did not consider it so, and the British government themselves did not consider it so, as shown by the letters from the Colonial Secretary. I have not the letters before me now, but I think that on three separate occasions by cable and afterwards by letter they stated to this government that they could have all the benefits of the trade rela-ticns and still retain control of immigration. Further, these hon. gentlemen argue quite contrary to what they argued before, for they stated that until this treaty expired nothing could be done in regard to immigration. I think that was the argument used in this House,-in fact I am quite sure of it. Now they are arguing that the arrangement is entirely independent of the treaty. I am protesting because the time has come when we are again in the position to say to Japan, without offending them in the slightest degree, that we will resume control of immigration. I respect the progress the Japanese have made, and we are glad to interchange commerce with them; but that is no reason why we should hand over to them the con trol of immigration. It is difficult to make a parallel case. It did occur to me to ask whether we should request Japan to allow us to control our emigration going to Japan. But we are a different country. We are the last great open country-as the government likes to put it, 'the last Great West,' and it is not likely that our citizens, for a century to come at least, will be seeking to emigrate to these countries. So, we cannot apply that parallel. But, it is for that very reason that we should exercise the greatest care, because we are the last great west and desire to build up Mr. FISHER.
here a Canadian nationality; because we believe in our own young nationhood; because we believe that immigration should be restricted, and not only criminals should be excluded, but only the best people of European countries should be selected, only those people who can assimilate with us to make one united, sound, Anglo-Saxon race. That is the principle which I advocate, along with others on this side of the House. It is not the idea that we should defy these people; neither do they feel that it would be contrary to their dignity that we should retain complete control of immigration. I think it would be more consonant with the dignity of the Canadian parliament that we should say to Japan that while we welcome her trade, yet we intend to maintain control of our own immigration.


William Stevens Fielding: Is my hon. friend advocating exclusion or restriction?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Control, we must control our own immigration.


William Stevens Fielding: But we have control. If we are not satisfied, if any day we believe that more Japanese are coming into the country than we think is desirable, all we have to do is to enforce such laws as the parliament of Canada may see fit to pass to that end.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The letter the Postmaster General read from the representative of the Imperial Japanese government is clear on that point. It states clearly that they, Japan, must be guided by Canadian conditions, not the conditions that we set forth, but their understanding of our conditions. They are to be the judges, and that is what I am objecting to, that is the issue between us. I say that we should maintain such control of our immigration as becomes the great Canadian people. The Minister of Agriculture went further. He says: Why, we did that with India, we are going to do it with China; and it may be possible, he said, that we shall extend the same treatment to other European countries. I say we differ with him. We have an absolute right, and it is our duty, to retain control of our own immigration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I understand the hon. gentleman's remarks, he would exclude by our immigration laws against Japan, all Oriental immigrants.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I want to retain control.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no question that we do maintain control of our immigration laws, as they are admitted by the comity of nations. For instance, in spite of clause 1 of the treaty passed between Canada and Japan in 1906, giving recipro-

cal entry to British subjects in Japan and Japanese subjects into Canada, the laws which apply against the white races as regards paupers, anarchists, diseased and undesirables generally, these immigration laws which apply by the comity of nations to all people and races, apply to the Japanese as well. If to-day there were landed on the shores of British Columbia anarchists, paupers and diseased, unfit mentally and physically to become Canadian citizens, they would be excluded according to the immigration regulations passed by this parliament and enforced by the Minister of the Interior. Besides that, there was in 1906 the general law applying to Japanese and all other nations, and there was a special arrangement. I have not got it under my hand at the moment, but it was quoted in the debate on the Address which took place in 1907-8 and in 1909 after the last general election. There was an arrangement made by the Japanese and Canadian governments to restrict the number of immigrants coming from Japan to Canada. After the treaty went into force, through some misapprehension on the other side of the Pacific, a general influx of Japanese took place into Canada, and riots occurred in the streets of Vancouver. We remonstrated, and as a result an arrangement w'as arrived at between the Japanese government and the Canadian government. Now what has been the result of that agreement? My hon. friend read only one portion of the letter which was handed to me by the Foreign Minister in Tokio. That part of the letter reads as follows:
In reply to your note of even date, I have the honour to State that although the existing treaty between Japan and Canada absolutely guarantees the Japanese subjects full liberty to enter, travel and reside in any part of the Dominion of Canada, yet it is not the intention of the Imperial government to insist upon the complete enjoyment of the rights and privileges guaranteed by those stipulations when that would involve disregard of special conditions which may prevail in Canada from time to time.
My hon. friend stopped there and did not proceed any further. Let me read the next sentence:
Acting, in this spirit, and having particular regard to circumstances of recent occurrences in British Columbia, the Imperial government have decided to take efficient means to restrict emigration to Canada.
Now what is that restriction, admitted by the Japanese government themselves? I tell my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), who knows that I am right, that the agreement does consist not only in a letter which was published at the time and
which I have just read, but it is implemented by a note front the Japanese government of a confidential nature which we are not at liberty to publish, which is known not only to this government but.to the British government as well. Would we be justified in publishing it? Is it not sufficient to quote the words of the Foreign Minister of Japan, who says in his letter addressed to myself that they intend to take efficient means to restrict emigration to Canada. In a letter which I read concurrently with this one I find these words:
In order to further this object, I undei'stand they are willing to restrict voluntarily within reasonable limits the volume of immigration.
Now because no number is mentioned, does that imply that there is not a numerical restriction? If my hon. friend will allow himself to be guided by common sense, by his experience in British Columbia in the summer and fall of 1907, as well as in 1908, not less than 8,000 or 9,000 immigrants came from Japan to Canada. This was the cause of riots in the streets of Vancouver. Now what has happened since then? You have the figures, they are loyally sent to this government by the Japanese consul in Ottawa, and there we find the exact number of Japanese immigrants coming to Canada. We know that Japan has lived up to that agreement, and I have no hesitation in saying that the agreement has been most loyally and most faithfully carried out to the letter.


George Henry Cowan: The Minister of Finance and the Postmaster General have both given us to understand that although we are handing over to the Japanese government the power to restrict immigration into Canada, yet we still retain that power which we agreed to hand over to Japan. You must either eat your cake or keep it. If you are giving the power to restrict immigration to Japan as long as that agreement is in existence, you cannot exercise that power which you have given away.


George Gerald King: Can my hon. friend tell me where, when this treaty expires, and it will in July, there is anything in the agreement to which he refers which will prCwent this government from enacting any legislation it pleases in reference to immigration from Japan?


George Henry Cowan: There is the friendly understanding or agreement that the Japanese government and not the Canadian government shall exercise control over migration into Canada. As long as that agreement endures you cannot exercise a power which, by that agreement, you have given to the Japanese government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose the agreement is abrogated?


George Henry Cowan: That is what we say will surely happen.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Supposing it is in six months, what then?


George Henry Cowan: Then we would have the control which we ought to have now. As long as that agreement endures it gives the control to the Japanese government and we cannot exercise it. I do not know that anything further need be said in answer to the argument that although we have given our cake to the Japanese government we still keep it. That is the argument, but I say it is impossible. If you have given them the control over immigration into Canada you cannot exercise that control as long as the agreement continues. I was a little astounded tonight to learn that this agreement has blossomed into a policy, forsooth, for Canada, that throughout the whole world we are hunting for bidders for the power to legislate with regard to immigration into Canada. We have gone to India and now we are trying to get China, if you please, to study the special conditions in Canada and to determine the number of immigrants that should come into Canada according to her judgment, and not according to our own. When we have exhausted ithe yellow races we are going to Eflrope and we are offer. ing to give away the jurisdiction conferred upon this parliament by the Confederation Act. We are bartering the whole thing away. This is quite of a piece with the policy that proposes to barter away to a foreign country the power to legislate with regard to our tariff. The two policies have this in common that they are consistent the one with the other. They are able to give away the powers of legislation vested in this parliament by the Act of union ito a foreign country and have no return whatever to Canada.
I was delighted with the pleasant, selfsatisfied assertion of the hon. Minister of Labour when he rose in his place and declared in an orotund voice that he peculiarly represented the labour interests in Canada. I am prepared to admit that he does represent the labouring interests in this House in a peculiar way. When he consigned to the scrap heap the resolution in favour of technical education, better calculated than almost any other Bill that could be introduced into this House to develop a common citizenship in Canada, a national life and a national sentiment, he represented labour in a peculiar fashion.


George Gerald King: What Bill does the hon. gentleman refer to? There was never such a Bill before the House.


George Henry Cowan: Again, when the eighthour Bill came before the House


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William Stevens Fielding: What has this to do with the Japanese question?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: A point of order is raised. The question before the Chair is that of the treaty with Japan. I do not know what conclusion the hon. gentleman is going to draw from the argument he is now bringing forward, but whatever argument he brings forward must be applied to the particular resolution before the Chair. The connection is not very apparent to the past record of the Minister of Labour.
Mr, COWAN. I must apologize, Mr. Chairman, for the fact that the connection is not apparent because the connection of the remark of the hon. Minister of Labour that he represents labour in this House in a peculiar fashion is not exactly apparent as being apropos of the question under discussion. I am forced to deal with the matter in the same way the Minister of Labour did and I want to show that the policy which he is attempting to inaugurate in this House as a representative of labour in a peculiar fashion, culminating in this agreement, is a policy that from start to finish, is inimical to the best interests of the workingmen of Canada. I think I am justified, when he says that he is the peculiar representative of labour in this House, to agree with him to the extent of saying that nis representation of that great interest-the labour interest-is a peculiar one. I was about to say, subject to your correction, that he is correct in saying that his position in this House as the representative of that class was peculiar when he mutilated that eight-hour Bill that has been before this House every session since I have had the honour of being a member of the House until it finally became a travesty on what it was when introduced. If he represents labour in the same peculiar way in reference to this question that peculiar way is one that the people and especially the labouring interests of Canada dp not appreciate.
There is one more question to which I wish to make a very brief reference. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), with all the outward suits and trappings of eloquence, rose to the height of this great argument and to his own height, and said, a few moments ago, that the treaty now in existence between Japan and Canada is subject to our Immigration Act because his government had so determined it. The minister and his government cannot lift themselves over the stile by their boot straps in that way. They cannot make rules that govern the interpretation of international treaties. While they may exercise great power within a small radius, the arm of that power canhot reach to the

extent that they can control the international rules that govern the interpretation of treaties. I would like some responsible lawyer on the other side to get up and repeat what the Minister of Agriculture had the hardihood to say that the treaty now in existence between Canada and Japan is subject to the Immigration Act of Canada. The Postmaster General in his own eloquent fashion has attempted to show that the Japanese immigrant coming into Canada is subject by law to exactly the same conditions as the English immigrant coming into Canada. Can the Postmaster General tell me that the provisions in the Immigration Act requiring the English immigrant to have $50 in his pocket would apply to the Japanese immigrant coming into Canada?


George Gerald King: That is not in the Act, that is a regulation.


George Henry Cowan: Mr. Chairman, the profundity of that remark is exactly in keeping with every argument that has been made in support of this ' friendly understanding.' ' It is not in the Act, it is in the regulation.' That regulation is made by virtue of the Act, and, therefore, that provision is enforced by virtue of an Act of this parliament. Whether it is in the Act or in the regulation, x want to know if, out of the depths from which that remark came, I can get an answer to the question whether that provision can be lawfully applied to a Japanese immigrant coining into Canada under the present Japanese Treaty. No answer. The thing is so superficial and so out of joint with every principle of international law, and international usage that it taxes a man's common sense to deal with it. I believe that the member for Carleton has a thought upon this subject. We have heard him time and again in this House laying down the laws, not only the domestic laws, but the international laws, and rules and usages that govern the relations of nations, with a face of wisdom that would do credit to Coke. Perhaps he can tell me if the Japanese immigrant is immune from that regulation which requires an immigrant to have $50 in his poke, and if he is immune why is he immune? Why does the English immigrant have to show up or go back, and why has the Japanese immigrant a right to say: I will not show up, I will enter freely, and reside and travel in your country, and you can demand proof that I possess that $50 till you are black in the face, I will not give it. He has a perfect right to say that. Why again have we enlarged this policy of giving favours to any country that 'will undertake the legislative duties of this country? Why do we surrender our legislative functions to J apan, to India, or to China? This effort to show that the Japanese immigrant is1 on an even keel with the English immigrant is futile, it is impossible for you to show it. You cannot, for example, exact that $50 provision. That is a specimen brick of the whole structure. There are many other onerous conditions that apply to the English, Scotch and Irish immigrant coming into Canada that do not apply to the Japanese immigrant. Do we want to make this a preserve of China and Japan?
I wish to say publicly what I have never said publicly before, that, my duties in Vancouver in September, 1907, at the time of the riot, to which the Postmaster General referred, revealed to me a state of things of which I think it is well for this House to take some cognizance. It is an absolute fact that a portion of the Dominion of Canada in the city of Vancouver was in the insurrectionist control of the Japanese for five days, and that notwithstanding the fact that there was a ' friendly understanding ' at that very time. The Minister of Agriculture had told the hon. the leader of the opposition that that friendly agreement was both verbal and in writing. Notwithstanding that same friendly understanding, the influx to which the Postmaster General has referred took place and these 8,000 or 9,000 men, army reservists, bound by the most solemn oath ever administered to a subject of any country to return to the home land at the bidding of their emperor, no matter what their obligations to another foreign country, gathered and took actual possession of a portion of the city of Vancouver. The powers that be in Canada, the police of the city, the arm that enforces the laws of Canada, was powerless in the face of that insurrectionist mob. I do not want to sound the note of danger too strongly, but I tell you that British subjects who live in those conditions and realize what they mean to the arm that enforces the law, realize that the condition of things is absolutely and entirely different from any condition that we ever saw in Canada before, and I hope we will never see such a condition again. They Tealize that it is our duty, while we maintain the most friendly and courteous relations with those people, to see to it that not they, but we study the special conditions in Canada, which will tell us whether or not we want more immigration from that country. We cannot do that as long as we have this agreement. I think that right now is the time when we should recover to ourselves the power that we have voluntarily given away, and maintain it in the public interest. The Postmaster General was anxious to ascertain what exercise we would make of that control if we had it back. That would depend entirely on the special conditions.

and it is our duty to study these conditions, and should not be the duty of a foreign power. These special conditions are in Canada and our solemn duty is to legislate under the powers given to us in the Confederation Act, and to enforce the Jaw. We have been derelict in both these duties, we have been handing over the legislative ipower to a foreign country, an 1 when a little disturbance came, we were *unable to enforce the domestic laws of our country.
Keeping in mind these conditions, it behooves us to go carefully. We in the west know it, we realize these problems as the people in the east do not, and I hope that this House will not take a sectional view of this question. We in British Columbia I hope take no narrow view of this question. We do not wish to legislate against the Japanese. We do not wish to discriminate against them, but we wish to retain our own national self-respect, and to exercise the legislative and administrative control which it is not only our right, but our duty to exercise.


Frank Oliver: It seems to me that some of our hon. friends opposite are unduly excited about the measure of control which Canada exercises in regard to immigration. We have an immigration law, and it applies to such people, and in such way as the parliament of Canada sees fit to decide that it shall apply. I do not know what more our friends want. The idea that they seem to have that Canada has in some way abrogated its control of its own affairs does not seem to me to have any warrant. We pass a statute, and we pass regulations under that statute which declare that certain people are admitted to Canada under certain conditions, and certain other people are admitted to Canada under certain other conditions. That does not in any way argue that Canada has not control of her own immigration laws or her own affairs. It may be that it suits Canada to deal with one class of immigrants in one way, and with another class in another way. We have done sov as a matter of fact; and if it suits Canada to deal with Japanese immigrants under certain conditions, with Hindu immigrants under other conditions, with Chinese immigrants under other conditions, and with European immigrants under different conditions, in what way is Canada's control over immigration abrogated? I cannot see any warrant for the suggestion. Our hon. friends have taken the view that in the case of Japan we have handed over our authority in regard to immigration to Canada, to the government of Japan. I fail to see the foundation for their view. They are pleased to put it that we have negotiated with Japan, and have said to Japan, we will accept in immigration
Mr. COWAN
matters such direction and legislation as you see fit. From my point of view, it is this way; we have said to Japan, unless you restrict the movement of your peaple to Canada, we will take such measures as will restrict it. That seems to me to be the position, and there is no derogation from the authority of Canada in taking that position, nor is there any handing over of our authority over immigration from Japan. Immigrants from Japan are subject to our immigration laws the same as any other immigrants. If our hon. friends want any enlightment on the subject, they will find that during the excitement in regard to immigration from Japan, when large numbers of Japanese had come to British Columbia, and large numbers of others were in prospect of coming, while we were negotiating with Japan as to the attitude that Japan should take in pegard to her citizens who were under her control, it was just as necessary for us to take action in regard to her citizens who were not under her control. It will be remembered that the movement of the Japanese into British Columbia was not so much a movement from Japan as it was from the Sandwich Islands, which are a part of the United States. There were thousands of those people there, and there was a concerted movement to bring them to Canada. No law of Japan could control that movement; but the parliament of Canada passed legislation empowering the government to take certain action. An amendment to the Immigration Act was passed, called the indirect passage provision, authorizing the Governor in Council to pass regulations to prevent the landing in Canada of persons who came otherwise than from the country of their citizenship or birth. This amendment was passed for the purpose of excluding these Japanese from the Sandwich Islands who were going to be brought to Canada in thousands, and the result was that they were excluded.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Was it not a fact that before that applied to Japan you had to get the consent of Japan?


Frank Oliver: Certainly we did not have to get the consent of Japan. We had to get the consent of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and I may say we had some difficulty in getting it; but once we got that, there was no impediment whatever. We passed the order in council, and the prospective movement was checked, and did not take place. It is a figment of the imagination to suppose that the government of Canada is not controlling its own immigration affairs; but if by frendly arrangement the government of Japan sees fit to take action that will arrive at the same end as other action which the government of Canada might take, and certainly would take, it seems to me that

there is no fault to be found, and no derogation from the authority of Canada or the proper exercise of that authority. Surely it is better policy to be on friendly terms with another country than on unfriendly terms. It is better not to have restrictive and coercive measure's if they cap be avoided. We would be very glad to-day if we could have an arrangement with the United States that would remove the difficulties that arise along the three thousand miles of our border by reason of the exclusion of undesirables; everybody will agree that that would be a good thing. The same with the Empire of Japan, 'if we can have a friendly arrangement with that country, it is better in the interests of this country, and of the world. The hon. member for Vancouver expressed surprise that a certain Act should have blossomed out into a policy. Well, I understand that this Act is a part of the general policy of the Liberal government of Canada. It is always the policy of the Liberal government of Canada, if I understand aright, to make a friendly arrangement rather than to have unfriendly acts: and the prosperity which Canada has achieved under the Liberal administration is all the evidence I want that that policy is the best policy for Canada, and I believe that it is the most acceptable to the peoole of Canada.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The Minister of the Interior started out by taking the direct opposite view to that of the other four ministers who have spoken to-night. He argued from entirely different premises. I do not know whether or not he was in the House while they were speaking, but certainly they laid it down that they had decided as a policy that they would allow the Japanese-and the Minister of Agriculture went further and said that they were negotiating to allow the Chinese-to regulate their immigration into Canada instead of Canada regulating it itself. So that is entirely contrary to the argument of the Minister of the Interior started out with, although he ended somewhat by following along the same lines as the other four ministers. With regard to the other question which has been raised, particularly by the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) over and over again, namely, on what ground I base my statement that the Japanese in this particular instance were regulating the emigration into Canada, I had not the papers at the time, but I have them now, and I propose to read the one in connection with the other which I think will prove conclusively the argument I have made. I have here a letter of December 23, 1907, addressed to the Minister of Labour from the Japanese minister. I shall not read the whole of it as it is in ' Hansard '. In that letter the Japanese minister says:
In reply to your note of recent date, I have the honour to state that although the existing treaty between Japan and Canada absolutely guarantees Japanese subjects full liberty to enter, travel and reside in any part of the Dominion of Canada, yet it is not the intention of the Imperial government to insist upon the complete enjoyment of the rights and privileges guaranteed by those stipulations when that would involve disregard of special conditions which may prevail in Canada from time to time.
Then he goes on:
In carrying out this purpose the Imperial government

That is the imperial government of J apan

-in pursuance of the policy above stated, will give careful consideration to local conditions prevailing in Canada with a view to meeting the desires of the government of the Dominion as far as is compatible with the spirit of the treaty and the dignity of the state.
Absolutely as far as compatible with the spirit of thet treaty, and the dignity of the state. Based on that treaty


William Stevens Fielding: Here we have the admission of the Minister of Finance that the agreement is based on that letter I have just read.


William Stevens Fielding: Not guilty.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: It cannot be based on anything else. What is the agreement that is entirely satisfactory to the minister?


William Stevens Fielding: The agreement, or understanding which was expressed in a letter read by the hon. member for Vancouver, in which it was stated by the Japanese authorities that this understanding was absolutely outside the treaty and in no way dependent upon it.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: But the Minister of Finance says he is now dealing with a new condition, and I must hold him to that. I am discussing the resolution on the Order Paper, and that resolution is based on a certain return brought down by the Minister of Finance.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot find anything of the kind on the Order Paper.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: In connection with that resolution the minister gives us a certain return which he lays on the table as full information. I find the last paragraph of that return is just as I stated. He proposes that the agreement shall continue. I ask what agreement? It must be some agreement. And we have the admission that the agreement was the agreement based on that letter I have just read, and which was accepted by this government. That being the case we take exception to it because we think that the time has arrived when we should take back the control over that immigration. It does not matter whether_ or not the Japanese have lived up to the spirit of that agreement. The question is we have not the sole and absolute control which we ought to have, and there is no reciprocal benefit for the Dominion. We have the right to know on what basis the minister is binding us for another indefinite term of years. I put him the question, and so did my hon. friend from Vancouver, and he said it is on the basis laid out in these letters. That being the case, I think I have proved the contention I have made.


Martin Burrell: Let me reply to the remark made by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) who said very clearly that in no respect had Canada deferred to the wishes of Japan in curtailing the immigration from Hawaii. I have here a speech by the Postmaster General made in this House on January 28, 1908, and in the course of that speech he said:
But I can tell him that public opinion in Canada, public opinion even in British Columbia, accepts in good faith the assurance given by the Japanese government. But that is not Mr. GOODEVE.
all. We have this written assurance from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is the more binding because it is given of Japan's own free will. We also have the declaration that we may stop any immigration of Japanese originating from the Island of Hawaii, whence this great influx of labour came. Still more than that, we have a formal declaration that no contract labour will come to Canada from Japan or Hawaii or any other place where Japanese are colonized.
I think that shows pretty clearly that the government did get the consent of the Japanese before they dealt with the question of Hawaii. In a debate of this kind we should not lose sight of the fact that we are all Canadians trying to deal with an immensely grave question and to deal with it in the best interests of the future of Canada. And I must enter rather a protest against the tone of the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) who told us there were two ways of dealing with this question, one by conciliation or diplomacy, and the other by ' defiance,' to use a word which he repeated several times, the very plain imputation being that those who do not agree with the particular form of diplomacy which he favours were following the other method. I think that is very regrettable. I can assure the Minister of Labour and the other members of the government that the average man in British Columbia regards this question as of supreme national importance: he is not looking at it in the narrow-minded way. And I think it was gratuitous folly, also almost to assume that we are * hurling defiance ' at another nation on a question which should be above that method of treatment. This is all the more to be noted because nearly every one of the members of this government have come round to the views in favour of restriction that they now entertain simply through the opinion in British Columbia expressed year after year. I do not wish to weary the House, but I could quote passage after passage from the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux)-although he came round sooner than the others-the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), and many other members of the government to show that they did not understand the gravity of this question or appreciate our view until the constant reiteration of those views and compelled them to look into the question, and to their gradually being converted to the views we hold, though their methods of solving the problem may be different. The government tells us that ours is simply a policy of harsh legislation, while theirs is a policy of diplomacy. One thing is certainly true-that no Canadian has the right to forget that, for the people of Japan and for ourselves, the time has come, when we should look this question frankly in the face and recognize

that oriental immigration into western Canada is an impossible thing without creating violent friction between the two countries. But let me point out also to the government, who argue that we favour an intolerant method, that the Japanese do not hesitate to exclude the Chinese labourers from their country. They have a clause forbidding absolutely the Chinese Coolies who come into competition, and fierce competition with the Japanese labourers. When economic conditions are sufficiently stringent and national dangers sufficiently grave, the Japanese government does not hesitate to practise what this government tells us we ought not to practise in regard to Japan. The Minister of Agriculture asked us whether we want restriction or exclusion. We want exclusion. And he himself is coming round to that view. I could quote that from his speeches to show that the principle of exclusion commends itself to him. We have had a new doctrine from the Minister of Labour, the Postmaster General and the Minister of Agriculture. They have taken the ground that the treaty is subject to our immigration law. I cannot say that the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture were very clear to me. In section 38 of our Immigration Act are these words:
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order, whenever he deems it necessary or expedient, prohibit for a stated period or permanently the landing in Canada, or the landing at any specified port of Canada of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the old mate or the climates of Canada, or an immigrant of any specified class, occupation or character.
I could quote, if there were time, a number of passages from government speakers to show that the Japanese are regarded by them as not suited for the requirement of Canada and, therefore, would come under the section. According to the Minister of Agriculture the Japanese treaty would have to be read in the light of that section. If they were to plainly say that it would save trouble. Now, let me point out the situation in the United States-I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question on that point which he did not answer very clearly. In the former treaty with the United States they have this clause:
It is, however, understood that the stipulations obtained in this and the preceding article do not in any way effect the laws ordinances and regulations with respect to trade, the immigration of labourers, police and the public security wthich are in force, or which may hereafter be enacted in either two countries.
The United States had that clause in their treaty; and, after much correspondence, and with great efforts on the part of Japan to restrain the United States from
putting such enactments into their immigration law as would mean absolute exclusion, they deleted this clause from their present treaty, as is known to the government, and in doing that it is perfectly clear the present treaty did not come.under the Immigration Act of the United States, and for that very reason the United States put in this very protocol which has been referred to and which distinctly says that this treaty is on the understanding that it shall be subject to the general immigration law of the United States. That, I think, is absolutely clear. Now, if we are to solve this question I hold we should solve it by having admitted the principle of our inalienable right to control our own immigration. But, if we were to make any other arrangement, the arrangement the United States have in this treaty is far ahead of anything we have. It means a contract, practically, on the part of a recognized plenipotentiary of Japan to maintain restriction which has almost amounted to exclusion in the past three years, and in addition put the whole matter under the immigration law of the United States, which, in spite of anything said here to-night, I fail to see it done in our case.
I have only to repeat that our feeling in British Columbia must not be misunderstood. We regard the whole matter as of intense, vital importance not only to British Columbia but to the whole of Canada. We are looking to the future. No man can say what the development in the national life of Japan may be-what clashes there may be between the east and the west-that is too big a subject to go into. But we should be fools if we were to shut our eyes to the possibilities of grave dangers, and it. would be grave danger to allow the Japanese people to imagine that we do not control, had not control, over these matters ourselves, or to think anything else but to face the broad fact that fusion of the two races is impossible, that we should be better friends far apart, and a frank recognition of these things now would save a great deal of trouble in the future.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. Fielding moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 223) respecting duties of customs on importations from Japan.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill Tead the first time and second time, and the House went into committee on the Bill.
William Stevens Fielding: This Bill has been prepared and submitted to 'the Justice Department, and is giving effect to the resolution which the House has just adopted. It is substantially for the same purpose, and has the approval of the Justice Department.


George Henry Cowan: I want to examine tha't Bill more Carefully.


William Stevens Fielding: It can only go through with general consent. We will let the Bill go through, and stand for third reading to-morrow, so that hon. gentlemen opposite may examine it.
On section 1,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would allow them the privilege of sending free goods in (here the same as into the United States.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the principle of the favoured nations. Any concessions granted to any country would have to be granted to Japan, the same as by the present treaty.
Progress reported.


NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS AT QUEBEC.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 222) respecting the National BaJttlefields at Quebec.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood we were *to have )a ruling of the Speaker as to the regularity with which the Bill was introduced.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not understand that my h'on. friend raised a formal objection. He mentioned that ihe would raise it later on. I do not thitnk the objection can be taken seriously, because, as I explained yesterday, this is not a money Bill. The commission which was organized by chapters 57 and 58 Edward VII., is empowered to receive from various sections of the country, subscriptions towards the acquiring and maintaining *of the National Battlefields on the Plains of Abraham. I have here the statute which constituted that commission, and the powers of the commission are defined in section 7:
The commission may (a) receive and expend any moneys, whether appropriated by parliament or the legislatures or contributed by any municipality or other body or private individual, for the purposes authorized by this Act;
(b)	remove all buildings and other structures upon fhe lands taken or acquired, and erect a museum and such monuments and statues or other works as seem fitting or appro-prite; and
(c)	lay out and construct on or through the said lands such avenues, drives or paths, gardens, squares or other works as are, in the opinion of the commission, desirable for the improvement of the grounds and the conversion thereof into a national park of a character to commemorate worthily the great events which happened there.
Now, the same statute also enacted that whenever they acquired property for the purpose mentioned in the statute, the payment for such lands, properties, and build-Mr. FIELDING
ings and for the maintenance of this park, must be ratified by the Governor in Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose this was a Bill for the purpose of the commencement of a new navy and it would entail a charge on the revenue in future, the minister could with equal propriety, advance the same argument that he is doing now. There would not be a dollar spent until it was voted by parliament on this undertaking which is expected to involve in future a charge upon the revenue of the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Unquestionably. If the commission were coming before us today asking aid from parliament towards the acquisition of the properties and lands mentioned in this Bill, unquestionably it would have to be dealt with through a resolution to the House. My hon. friend -would be perfectly right then, but, at the present instance, the commission has a trust fund in its own hands, subscriptions received from various parts of the empire, and it is with the money that the commission has in its own hands that it purposes to purchase some of the properties mentioned in the Bill. Under these circumstances the objection taken by my hon. friend does not apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think I had a perfect right to raise the point of order. I understand distinctly that I have a right to have the ruling of the Chair upon it and that is all I ask. It is my right and I shall insist upon it at some stage of this Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly, when the third reading comes, my hon. friend will be quite'at liberty to raise the objection.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not quite at liberty to raise it, but I do raise it and my understanding was that the Speaker was to rule upon it the next time we reached the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not so understand it. At all events I shall be glad to have the decision of the Chair and I am sure that my hon. friend will find that his objection does not apply in the present instance. The object of the Bill is clearly mentioned in the preamble. The commission has authority to purchase, as my hon. friend will see by chapter 58, 7 and 8 Edward VII, certain properties and lands for the National Battlefields Park at Quebec. The lands to be acquired now are the lands which will complete, according to the plan of the architect engaged by the commission, the park in question.


Haughton Lennox: I have been singularly unfortunate in failing to make myself clear or else the hon. gentleman is a little obtuse. What I desire the hon. gentleman to point out, is whether or not

the purpose, that is now sought to be accomplished is within the scope ol the purpose for which the commission was organized.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman, a moment ago, read an extract from the statute stating that it had the right to receive and dispose of moneys in accordance with the purpose and objects mentioned in the original statute. If he would refer to the part of the statute which says what the objects are or what they can do we will know what they can do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Section 5, of chapter 57, 7 and 8 Edward VII, provides that:
The commisison may purchase, acquire and hold the lands or immovable property in the city of Quebec, or in the vicinity thereof, where the great battles were fought, or which were occupied by the various commands of the respective armies upon the battlefields.
The lands mentioned in the sections of the Bill which I have the honour to present to the committee are exactly the lands where the two battles were fought. The hon. gentleman will see that it is within the scope of the powers of the commission.


Haughton Lennox: I really do not see it.
I would think that probably they have the right to acquire lands and that they probably have the right to acquire the lands that are here spoken of. I have not read the Bill, but I heard it explained by the minister the other day and one of the objects was that it was to lend money to the village of Montcalm.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is provided for in the last clause of the Bill, and when we reach that I will explain it.


Haughton Lennox: All I was concerned about- and I am not very much concerned because the government will take the responsibility-was to know whether we had the right to authorize the commission to lend money in the way contemplated by this Bill. I would think we had not, but I am not going to try to embarrass the position or delay the passage of the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think that my hon. friend, with his legal experience, will see that it- is within the power of the commission to do what is applied for now. By clause 5 they are empowered to purchase land where the two battlefields are situated. By another clause they purpose opening an avenue between the Plains of Abraham and the Monument des Braves on the Ste. Foye road. In order to open that avenue they are obliged to apply to the municipality of the town of Montcalm. The municipality is ready to 1
cede the lisiere needed for the avenue in question, which will be one of the features of the great national park and, in order to cede the lisiere the town of Montcalm is obliged to pay a certain price for the acquisition of the property. The town of Montcalm has proposed to get from the commission a loan of $15,000 which will be applied towards the acquisition of the li-si&re. The property will revert to the commission. The commission, within thirty years, will have recovered the amount of $15,000 with interest at three per cent per annum. Otherwise the commission would have been forced to take another avenue called the Belvidere avenue, which would cost $19,000. By this transaction the commission save $4,000, immediately, and get, in the long run, the lisiere gratis. From Mr. Todd's report my hon. friend will see that for spectacular effect this is the only available place to locate that avenue.


Mr. BLAIN.: What amount has been expended by this government in connection with this work?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The government of Canada contributed $300,000 for the celebration, including the reception to the present K,ing, and distinguished visitors from France, the United States and the various colonies. The commission has not spent any of the money subscribed from the various colonies, and by the Daughters of the Empire, or the votes of $100,000 each from the governments of Ontario and Quebec.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: Why are they obliged to come to parliament, have they no power under the original statute to acquire property?


Rodolphe Lemieux: By section 10 of chapter 57, 1908, it is provided:
*No land or immovable property shall be purchased or acquired by the oomimiission ex-oept with the previous authority of parliament, and no expenditure shall be made by the commission until it has been approved by parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much land in all is there, and how much is it intended to purchase?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cannot state the acreage necessary to complete the park. I have here a plan which I shall show to my hon. friend. Later on the commission may apply to parliament for some aid for the maintenance of the park, and then they will probably give to the House a more elaborate plan than the present one, which is only for the purpose of this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It appears that it is contemplated buying a considerable quantity of land. We ought to be informed

9490
from whom this land is going to be purchased, what it is going to cost the country, and its area.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I gave yesterday the report prepared by the architect, Mr. Todd, in which my hon. friend will find a description of about the area of the park. I could not give it exactly myself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely the minister ought to be able to tell the House how much land it is proposed to purchase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may say that no payment will be made for these lands without receiving the sanction of parliament. The members of the commission have told me that already they have approached the owners of the various properties. My hon. friend can be assured that nothing will be done in this matter that will not redound to the credit of the commissioners.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That seems to be, I was going to say, only trifling with the House. We do not know how much they propose to. buy, what options they have received or what they are committing the conntry to-nothing at all but the assurance that the commissioners will do nothing but what is right, and that parliament will be called on to approve of what they do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The total area is 220 acres. Many of the properties belong to the federal government, some belong to the local government, and two or three belong either to the federal government or the local government.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is the purchase of this property accomplished in this indirect way? Would it not be better to acquire it directly?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It will cost $4,000 less this way than the other project of passing through Belvidere road but Anally it will cost nothing to the commission. It is a loan which the commission makes to the municipality of Montcalm, in order that the municipality may be in a position to purchase the strip of land necessary to have the avenue. Then the municipality undertakes to cede that strip to the commission and within thirty years to pay that $50,000 loan with interest of 3 per cept.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["I have the honour to inform the House that T have received the following communication:\nOttawa, 19th May, 1911.\nSir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber this afternoon at five o'clock to give the Royal Assent to certain Bills which have passed the Senate and House of Commons during the present session of parliament.\nI have the honour to be, sir,\nYour obedient servant, (Sgd.) D. O. MALCOLM, Governor General's Secretary. The Honourable The Speaker,\nHouse of Commons"]
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before you leave the Chair, Sir, I had an understanding that the Speaker was to give a ruling on this Bill.


Mr SPROULE.: 


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule by which we are guided is section 54 of the British North America Act:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to pass any vote, resolution, address or Bill for the appointment of any part of the public revenue, or any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or Bill is proposed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But this is likely to cost $165,000, and the commission will not have enough to defray the expenses.


William Stevens Fielding: We have to take the resolution as it stands and it imposes no burden on the treasury. Surely my hon. friend will see that this is not in that sense a money bill. We have to take things as they are and not possibilities.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I can only judge of the Bill now before me and, for that reason the objection is not sustained.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
['I can only judge of the Bill now before me and, for that reason the objection is not sustained.']
William Pugsley: I am going to ask the committee to pass some items that it is very important to have voted in order to carry on work which has largely to be done by day work, some of it being for repairs. Then there are some items for dredging, in regard to which it is necessary to have the full vote, because the dredging work is performed in the summer season.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Amagua-dees pond (Castle bay)-to complete addition to wharf and road, $500.


Haughton Lennox: Where is this?


William Stevens Fielding: In Nova Scotia.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is a local election going on in Nova Scotia.


William Pugsley: This has nothing to do with that election.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is a portion of the whole vote already given, I should think that would be sufficient to keep the work going during the season. The understanding was that we would vote a certain sum which would keep all public works going until about the 1st of September. We will be able to vote the rest of the supply long before the 1st of September.


William Pugsley: I have kept that in mind. I asked my deputy to go through the items, and act on that principle. But suppose there is $1,000 to be spent on a wharf, and that work ought to be done in a fortnight, or in a month. The men who are to be paid for their day's work will not be able to understand why the government cannot pay them every week. I have had these

items marked, and I showed them to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I have not heard from him, but I do not think he would consider it unreasonable that this should be' done. I am leaving hundreds of items in my estimates which I do not propose to touch at all, only those that are absolutely essential in order to carry on these works during the working season.
Argyle sound-repairs and extension to public wharf, $700.


William Pugsley: This is in the county of Yarmouth.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the minister say that I had consented to these items?


William Pugsley: No, I said I had no reason to suppose that my hon. friend would object to them.


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Pugsley: I did mot say that the hon. gentleman had agreed to them, but I said that I had not reason to suppose my hon. friend objected.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, that he had no Teason to suppose that the hon. gentleman objected.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does that mean that he was satisfied?


William Pugsley: No, I do inot think it.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)- What the hon. gentleman did in reference to the matter was to supply me with a) copy of the estimates with the items marked to which the minister desired to direct my attention. I placed this in the hands of the 'cotnmittee on this side of the House, which looks after these matters. [DOT][DOT]


William Pugsley: What does the committee think?


Robert Laird Borden: The members *of the committee aire here now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is enough iin the list to keep us going until morning.


William Pugsley: The items that I aim asking to h'ave passed 'are for small repairs ot for some other work which has to be done by day work, and which has to be done in the .summer season. They are all believed to be necessary works and in some cases for material are actually made. Unless these amounts are voted I would have, in the course of a short time, to stop the work. That is not in the public interest. There are hundreds of items in my estimates that still remain.


Haughton Lennox: There are hundreds of items every year which the minister takes
and does not attempt to expend the money. It is kept dangling before the electors for years and some of these are probably of that character.


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Blain: Is there much shipping at Argyle Sound?


William Pugsley: I do not think there is a great deal, but the wharf is there and it requires repairs. The Item is only $700.


Robert Laird Borden: May I inter-nipt to ask the tninister with respect to the marked copy of the estimates he handed to me? What is meant by the marks? Some aire marked with straight lines and some 'with crosses.


William Pugsley: The straight line means an existing wharf, and the cross means a ne!w work on which the Work is to be done by day labour. I am not asking for votes for any works which have to be done by contract.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman want all these items?


William Pugsley: Yes, the deputy tells me that it would be very awkward if we do not get thdm.


Richard Blain: How many will be left?
Mr. tPUGSLEY. Hundreds.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the minister want us seriously to believe that this money is required by the 1st September.


William Pugsley: The deputy tells me tha't it is.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Five-twelfths would be all tha't would be spent.


William Pugsley: No, it would not be sufficient.


Richard Blain: Does inot my hon. friend think 'tWat this is a violation of the proposition laid down by the Prime Minister (before leaving for Europe?


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


Richard Blain: I understood the . Prime Minister to make the statement in the House that he desired before leaving that a certain amount be passed. He made a subsequent statement in the House asking that further items be passed riaming in particular the annuities of Indians. As I understand it the list now submitted by the Minister of Public Works is a brand new list.


William Pugsley: There is no understanding, and no obligation, expressed or implied, upon hon. gentlemen opposite to pass these items, but I understand that

we are perfectly free to submit them for consideration.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are we, at twenty minutes past one, to take up these items? When we passed the three-twelths additional it gave you a supply until the 1st of September. We will meet in the middle of July and the hon. gentleman will have six weeks from then until the 1st of September wherein he can report what has been spent and tell us how much more he needs, if any. If we pass this whole item we have voted the money in full and then no information and no criticism are any good. It is done. We are voting money without knowing whether we should vote it or not when we vote it in full. As long as we retain a portion of each item we are free to protect the people by refusing to vote the balance. At twenty minutes past one in the morning I do not think it is reasonable that we should be asked to strain our minds with regard to these items and pass them.


William Pugsley: What my hon. friend says would be quite true if there were a lump sum voted which we could draw upon for different works. Let me answer the hon. gentleman by reference to the item we now have under consideration. It is for repairs and extensions to a wharf. The item is $700 and five-twelths of that would be a little over $300. When the work is undertaken it has to be all done.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. gentleman say seriously that it will not be finished by the 18th July?


William Pugsley: Certainly it should be finished in three weeks time.


Haughton Lennox: It can be done in three weeks after we come back.


William Pugsley: If the repairs are urgently required there should be no delay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that none of these are contract works.


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about Port Arthur for which $650,000 is asked. Is not that a contract work?


William Pugsley: I am not asking for that. I have decided on abandoning that. I told the hon. leader of the opposition that I would leave that out.


Robert Laird Borden: The list .which the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule), has in his hands is a list which the hon. Minister of Finance was good enough to give to me by way of notice that a certain number of items would be presented, and that we would be urged to pass them in full.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
-Mr. PUGSLEY.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Public Works afterwards saw me, and said that the first six items would not be pressed at all.
Mr.PUGSLEY. Yes, and the reason was that I felt that my hon. friend might fairly object to these because they are large items. I took these small items which are necessary to do repair work, and other small works, which, from their nature, could better be done by the day than by contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about your extra dredging for which you are asking $3,000,000? That could not possibly be done inside the time.


William Pugsley: With a vote of only that proportion the work would have to stop in July. This is in the county of Yarmouth.


Mr. JAMESON.: What is the nature of the work to be done?


William Pugsley: This is undertaken on the report of the resident engineer. It is to provide for the reflooring of the present wharf and a short extension of cribwork 28 feet long. The wharf was built 10 years ago and there has been no expenditure on it since.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is wharfage collected on it?


William Pugsley: I am not sure if this has been transferred to the Marine and.Finance Department or not, but I think it has not.


Adam Brown Crosby: We passed an Act a session or two ago providing for the transfer of all these wharfs to the Marine and Fisheries Department, the idea being that wharfage was to be collected on them all. I do not want to insist on wharfage being collected on any wharf because the people derive the benefit from a free service, but I have been told that where wharfage is collected there is sometimes discrimination as between different persons using the wharf and when you have not uniformity in different places people residing in places where wharfage is collected are dissatisfied when they go to other places and find that wharfage is not collected. Whatever system is adopted it should be carried out uniformly and universally.


William Pugsley: I have been very reluctant to comply with all requests made by the Marine Department for the transfer of wharfs to them, because I know the collection of wharfage in some cases at least would be a hardship on the people. The wharfage is not very much to the government, but it is quite a burden on the people who have to pay. Two wharfs, one in New Brunswick and one in Nova Scotia, at Campbell'ton and Digby, pay about one-sixth of all

wharfage collected in the Dominion. Some years ago a proposal was made to collect wharfage on the St. John river where no wharfage is collected on the provincial wharfs, and the people objected very strongly. Only this morning I found a request from the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries to transfer all wharfs to that department. I do not think I shall do so without bringing the matter before council and having it talked over. I would like to see some better system adopted, and possibly I ought to transfer all the wharfs to the Marine Department. But the Marine Department does not repair the wharfs, except some little repairs to the extent of $25. The repairs are all done in my department.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that when a wharf is transferred to the Marine Department, dues are at once collected?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: I do not think the revenue will show any great amount of dues.


William Pugsley: The revenue is very small except in cities and towns, and at these small wharfs in the country districts it seems hardly worth while to collect it.
Argyle sound-repairs and extension to public wharf, $700.


Clarence Jameson: When is it proposed to go on with this work? Votes of this character have been placed in the estimates from time to time, and have not been expended, but have been merely dangled before the eyes of the people and used for the purpose of securing votes, and after the election is over it. is found that the money has not been expended or the work gone on with. Will the minister give me the direct statement to-night that he intends to go on with this work?


William Pugsley: This work has been asked for, not by the member for the county nor by any of our friends in the county, but by the resident engineer, who reports that it is necessary. The intention is to go right ahead with the work this year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this amount intended to cover the whole expenditure?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Has not my hon. friend been careless in letting his wharf go to pieces? It has been standing for ten years, and now this is a hurry-up order.


William Pugsley: No, it is not a hurry-up order, but Mr. Dadwell, the resident engineer, says that the work is necessary, and that is why the vote is proposed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the size of this extension?


William Pugsley: Twenty-eight feet long, eleven feet wide and ten high.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: I hope the minister does not intend to waste the time of the House on small items such as this, which can easily be voted after the recess. They surely cannot expend more than five-twelfths of this $700 in these six weeks. I do not see any urgent necessity for passing this item.


William Pugsley: The deputy minister reports that in respect of these works the engineer is instructed to go ahead and make the repairs; he assembles the men, appoints the foremen, and they go to work-It does not take them long to spend $700. If they cannot go on and complete the work, it has to be left half finished, and when a further amount is voted, the men have to be brought back again. In many cases, if these repairs" are not made, it means serious damage to the wharfs and an expenditure of thousands of dollars.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister state what is the nature of the traffic carried on at that wharf?


William Pugsley: I have not ihat information. I am told that it is a fishing and trading district. I am told this is to accommodate fishing vessels and other small craft.


Adam Brown Crosby: I understand it is to be extended 28 feet long by 11 feet wide and 10 feet high. Is that 10 feet over the surface of the water?


William Pugsley: We do not build on top of the water.


Adam Brown Crosby: If you build it much under water, you will not have any on top.


William Pugsley: We do not want very much above the water. A couple of feet above the surface is sufficient. It is only for small vessels drawing about 8 feet of water. The neap tide is 10 feet.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this owned by the government?


William Pugsley: Yes, it was built by the government in 1902.


Richard Blain: The minister says that the revenue was about $30,000 for the whole Dominion for these wharfs. In the Auditor General's Report I find that the contribution of Ontario was last year $5,661; Quebec, $2,879.29; Nova Scotia, $5,456.46; New Brunswick, $3,637; British Columbia, $314.16; making a total of $20,042.46.


William Pugsley: Suppose I admit all that would my hon. friend cease further objection?	_



950&


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not wait until the 14th of June?


William Pugsley: These amounts are for repairs and my engineers report that they are absolutely essential. The work is urgently required, and if the repairs are not made the result may be a considerable loss to the country. Every reasonable man knows that to be the case. If hon. members opposite wish to keep back supply they can do it, for there are a large number of items in my department. But the responsibility must rest with them. I want it to be borne in mind that I began early in the session and remained here day after day and night after night trying to get these items through. But the hon. member for Simcoe and the hon. member for Grenville specially requested that further time should not be spent on the Public Works items, because my department had been fully discussed. We yielded to that and the items were allowed to stand. I am not asking for amounts for wharfs to be built by contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This for day labour.


William Pugsley: Yes, entirely, and the men who do the work must be paid.


Robert Laird Borden: I made a certain arrangement with the Prime Minister about Supply. I am anxious to carry out that arrangement and if there is any doubt I will give the benefit of the doubt against myself. I did not hear anything about items that were to be passed in full until the risrht hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made his statement in the House. But I thought his statement reasonable and assented at once. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) sent me, yesterday, I think, a list, not very large in number but rather large in amount, forty-seven items altogether, which he said he would like to have presented to the committee and voted in full if possible. That was followed by a list from the Minister of Public Works covering 449 items. It seems a pretty large wholesale order especially when one felt that he had fulfilled what had been arranged before the Prime Minister went away.


William Pugsley: But they do not amount altogether to as much as the five or six items I have abandoned.


Robert Laird Borden: Some are small, but some are fairly substantial. I think it would be hardly worth while to waste a great deal of time in endeavouring to pass to-night 449 items, unless hon. members on this side are prepared to pass them as a wholesale order and without information.
. Mr. PUGSLEY.


William Pugsley: How would it do to put it over until the morning?


Robert Laird Borden: I think that would be a good idea.


William Pugsley: Very well, we will do that.


Richard Blain: This is an item of $700. The minister's statement is that if the money is not voted the work cannot be done. Did not that suggest itself to him at the beginning of the session, six- months ago?


William Pugsley: There are about 1,100
items in my department. We have to be guided by the reports of the engineers, and a great many of them are reported as urgent. I began last November and taking the items in order, did everything I could to get them all through, but yielded as I explained to the request of some hon. members opposite that the discussion of the Public Works items should be suspended. We have now reached the time when the working season is beginning,, it will be necessary to have this money to pay these men, and it will be a great hardship if they cannot get their pay when it is due.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not see why the hon. gentleman's deputy did not come to him with the information about the urgency of these votes two or three months ago. I cannot see any bona fides in it; apparently there are none. The five-twelfths voted ought to cover the purpose. The explanation is, to say the least very fishy.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we had better accept the suggestion of the Minister of Public Works and adjourn until tomorrow.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps some other minister might get some items through. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has some suggestions to offer.


Morley Currie: If the Minister of Railways desires to break the arrangement in this matter he can urge these things.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not urging anything. I am ' the mildest mannered mart that ever cut a throat.'


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand the desire to break an arrangement.


George Perry Graham: I will submit the items,, and we will leave them till morning if hon. members say so. The first is an amount of $10,000 to pay expenses in connection with cases before the Board of Railway Commissioners. We have a very important case before the board in the telegraph investiga-

tion. It would be embarrassing while they are in the midst of that- case; if it prove that there is no money to pay expenses. The next item is for several compassionate allowances for the heirs of two men drowned in the Hudson bay survey and others who lost their lives in the employ of the department.


Robert Laird Borden: Carried.


George Perry Graham: The next item is for protecting highways. This is for the removal of level crossings, and I want to remove more of these crossings. The engineer siays he would rush the work as it is dangerous to leave things until the fall rain. I have an item for this purpose in the mam estimates.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Have not you a regular statutory amount for that work?


George Perry Graham: No, we always take a vote for it. The vote was criticised as being too small. It was too small.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister tell me if this is necessary for the purpose of rendering the crossing safe, is it necessary now?


George Perry Graham: Aly engineer says that if this remains only partially completed when the fall comes on, it would make it very disagreeable and even dangerous. To be working in the fall rains is liable to cause slides and troubles of that kind. There are two more items I would like to have passed. One has reference to the dock at Halifax, for which there is a vote of $600,000. The shippers there urge that they must have accommodation for this next season's trade, and my department is afraid that five-twelfths of this sum, which will be less than half, will not be sufficient for rushing the work, and possibly we may run out of money. The other item is to complete the Welland canal survey. I hope to have a recommendation to the House when w e meet again, at least by November, and I hope to get some information as to the route when we meet again after adjournment. I do not wish to urge these items if there is any opposition.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Air. Fielding, House adjourned at 2.13 a.m., Friday.

Friday, May 19, 1911.
The SPEAKER took the 'Chair ait Eleven o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee ion Bill (No. 223) ito -amend an Act of the present session 3001
intituled an Act respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
On -section 1: correction of clerical error by insertion of the W|ords ' principal and ' before the word < interest.'
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to have *an assurance from the h-om. Minister of Finance (Air. Fielding) that this is really a clerical -error. We passed this /Bill in the Railway Committee this morning on the understanding that tftie intention had been to guarantee principal -and interest. It will make a great difference if it is ito be made to include principal. If it is really a clerical error I am not opposing it.


William Stevens Fielding: I understood the Bill was to go to the Railway Committee and I presume they investigated it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It was a very short sitting this morning. (The statement -was made, the House was going to sit in a few minutes, and we only had the word of Mr. Wuinwright for it. I am mot questioning it, but I would like to know if it is really a clerical error.


William Stevens Fielding: From what I have heard it is not a clerical error in so far as any of the officers of ,the House ^.re concerned, but it is -a clerical error in tlio application.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Bill followed the application?


William Stevens Fielding: I-fancy so. .1 have not given any close attention to the matter, but I assumed that the Railway iCommlt-tee would look into that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We assumed that it was all right, but we thought we would have some assurance from some member tof the cabinet when the Bill came to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Railway Committee .did not look into it, and.Mr. Wainwright read the resolution passed by the board asking to have this done. It 'cleaTly -said ' principal .arid interest,' but, Air. Wain-Vdight said, in some accountable way when the Bill was drafted the word 'principal' was omitted?
Air. EA1MERSON. The bonds were prepared in accordance with the resolution, were they not?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes. When the Bill went back ito the company they noticed this error for the first time.


William Stevens Fielding: If the resolution clearly intended ito include principal, and it being a matter between the 'two companies, I do hot think we should offer -any objection to it. 1	'	i ,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not objecting; 1 want to make sure of the facts, that is all.
Dill 'reported, read the third time and passed.


OFFICIAL STATUS OF FOREIGN CONSULS.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of tihe day being called:
Mr. LEWIS.: Mt. Speaker, I wish to ask the government 'a .question. During last session I asked them whether they were taking any steps to change the status *of foreign consuls now in Ottawa. We are now negotiating treaties with other nations, and it is necessary that something (should be done in regard to this matter. Reply-ling to my question on December 2, .1909, 'the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir [DOT]Wilfrid Laurier) said:
The question which my hon. friend lias brought to our attention is an important one, not perhaps so much on account of the drawing room as on account of the duties which consuls-general now discharge in Canada. We have no diplomatic service in Canada, and the consuls-general are exercising by tolerance some, I shall not say diplomatic powers, but powers very often cognate to such. The question is one which should he settled, and the matter is now engaging the attention of the government.
I would like to ask the bon. leader of [DOT]the House (Mr. Fielding) if any steps have been taken, nr if the government [DOT]purpose taking any steps in the -immediate future, to deal with this question. The 'present colonial conference should 'be the place to bring this up.	;
' Mr. FIELDING. The matter has engaged the attention of the government. I 'regret that I .am not in a position to give any positive statement as to the results, hut I can assure the hon. gentleman .that (this question has .been considered along the lines of the statement (of my right *lion. Mend the Prime Minister. I
I CANADIAN COMMERCIAL AGENT AT '	WASHINGTON.


Edward Norman Lewis: I wish to ask another question. On December 15, 1909, I brought forward the question of .a commercial iagent to represent Canada at Washington, /stating- at that time that we have commercial agents in /almost every Country in the world-the Netherlands, Australia and 'some countries connected with us by treaties, 'but that in the country of our greatest commercial neighbour, with which [DOT]we have the most intimate personal and other relations, we have no agent.
The matter was again brought up in this House on March 14, 1910, when reference was made to an article in the Toronto Mr. FIELDING
' Daily Star.' I then asked the government whether it was not high time that it should have an agent at Washington so as to furnish us with information of what was going on in the United States, a country with whom we had such large dealings. I pointed out that every commercial agent of the United States in Canada sent a weekly report as to our commerce and as to how the United States merchants could improve their business with Canada. The government at that time stated that they had no fault to find with the British ambassador, but I say that this agent would not replace the British ambassador hut would be there to advise and consult with him, and I have no doubt the British Ambassador would welcome the appointment of such an agent.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand the hon. member is putting a question; what is the question please?


Edward Norman Lewis: I asked whether the government had taken steps to appoint a commercial agent at Washington and whether, if not, they do not consider it high time to do so?


William Stevens Fielding: Washington is not a commercial city and the conditions under which commercial agents are appointed in other places would certainly not apply to Washington. If there were an agent at Washington at all he would probably have to be something more than a mere commercial agent. While the matter has not escaped the attention of the government, no action has been taken upon it.


Edward Norman Lewis: Why should we not have a commercial agent in other large American centres?


William Stevens Fielding: Speaking from recollection I think we did have a commercial agent in Chicago, but my impression is that he was transferred to another place. There certainly would be no reason why we should not have commercial agents in commercial centres in the United States, unless it be that in appointing such agents somebody might say that we were disloyal.


GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Frank Oliver: (Minister of Interior) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 209) respecting grain.


Robert Laird Borden: Please explain.


Frank Oliver: This Bill was introduced in the Senate, discussed there at length, referred to a special committee to hear objections which might be offered to certain portions of the Bill, reported to the Senate and considered by the Senate and passed. While the Bill is somewhat bulky the portion of it which is new legislation is comparatively small. Hitherto, the grain

trade has been administered under the Manitoba Grain Act and a certain portion of the Grain Inspection Act. It was desirable to provide for still better administration of the handling of western grain and it was thought a commission should be appointed to control the grain trade instead of it being controlled direct by the Department of Trade and Commerce through its officials. Instead of bringing in a Bill merely to -make provision for the appointment of a grain commission, it was thought better to consolidate the Manitoba Grain Act and that portion of the Grain and Inspection Act relating to grain, into one statute, providing in addition for the appointment of a board to control the grain and administer the Act. It was in regard to the constitution of the board and the authority that would be vested in it, that the Senate spent such a large part of their time considering the measure. There is no change and there is not intended to be any change in the terms of the Manitoba Grain Act or of the Grain Inspection Act. The Senate thought it advisable only to take cognizance of the new principle that was being introduced. .It was thought, that after this board had exercised its authority during the coming grain handling season it would be a proper time to make a further revision of the Grain Act and the Grain Inspection Act, feeling that it would be better to have the advantage of the knowledge and experience of this board than to undertake to deal with details at the present time. As a matter of fact it is not understood that the present law requires amendment, for I am given to understand that the administration of these Acts has been as satisfactory in principle and detail as could possibly be expected from the administration of any Act so complicated and so closely concerned with the business interests of the people. However, it was found that the authority vested in the officers of the denartment was inadequate, and provision is made in the Bill to extend the authority of those who administer the Act. It is desired to have the Bill passed so that it can come into operation as soon as possible. We may get the advantage of the knowledge of the grain commission acting under the special authority conferred on them, in order that we may the sooner arrive at a conclusion as to what amendments may or may not be necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the the new part of the bill?


Frank Oliver: The several clauses providing for the appointment of the Board of Grain Commissioners, namely sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, together with sections 123, 124, and I think 229.	.
Aside from that, to all intents and purposes, there is no attempt to amend the existing Act.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Is it the intention, to put this Bill through to the third reading to-day?


Frank Oliver: That is something which of course I cannot say. I would be glad to do so if the House would agree, but we might .consider that in committee.


Robert Laird Borden: In the very great pressure of work during the past two or three days, and it is only during that time that this Bill has been on the Ordsr Paper, it is manifestly impossible for any considerable number of members to have themselves acquainted with the scheme of this measure. I do not profess to have done so. It is exceedingly important that such legislation should be passed at the earliest possible moment as would remove the grievances from which the grain growers of the west have been admittedly suffering during many years in the past. They have proposed to the government during the past year or two a certain scheme by which that may be accomplished. As I recollect their claim went to the extent of asking the government to take over, by actual ownership or lease, the terminal elevators and to operate those elevators under complete government supervision and control, so that the mixing of grain and the other frauds which are claimed to have been perpetrated upon the grain growers would be impossible of future continuance. I do not understand that anything of that kind is proposed by this measure, except the constitution of a board or commission, and I suppose it is expected that that board or commission will have a more complete and effective supervision of these matters than has been possible in the past.


Frank Oliver: Section 17 of the Bill gives the proposed commission authority to take over for operation terminal elevators. That, of course, is an important feature of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Section 17 is as follows:
Upon the construction, acquisition, leasing or expropriation by His Majesty of any terminal elevator, the board shall be charged with its operation and management, and the board may, with the approval of the Governor General in Council, make regulations for its management and operation and prescribe a tariff of fees and charges for the use thereof.
Has the government come to any conclusion as to the policy upon which it will embark in that connection?

951G


Frank Oliver: I have said on previous occasions that the policy of the government is not to undertake as a government to interfere with such an important portion of the trade of our country unless and until they feel themselves to be fully; informed in regard to the effect of any action they may take, and, therefore, they desire the authority contained in this Bill to provide for a commission which will 'be able to take knowledge of all the facts of the case, and will have authority to deal with these facts, and to bring into force a policy of actual operation of elevators, if, after investigation, in the judgment of the board it is considered to be feasible and desirable.


Robert Laird Borden: The declaration of the minister of the Interior is contained in a very long sentence which is accompanied with a great many qualifications. It does not seem to be very direct or to the point. He speaks of further information. Considering the extent to which these grievances have prevailed in the past, and that the government has been informed of these grievances not only through the public press, and through actions in court, but through inquiry after inquiry, and by delegation after delegation of these men from the west who have come here to press their claims-and I know that delegations were here four or five years ago urging exactly the same thing-it would seem quite reasonable, quite possible, quite necessary that the government should have made itself acquainted with the facts and have come to its own conclusion upon these matters long ago. Why is it necessary, after all this investigation, after all these inquiries, after all these delegations, to appoint a board for the purpose of coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the facts are such that the government should embark on a certain policy? The minister proposes to move the House into committee on the Bill. I think this Bill should receive greater consideration, and a fuller discussion than we could possibly give to it in the time at our command during this day.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: The Winnipeg Grain Exchange, which is a rather important commercial body, has been in communication with me for the last few days. They are objecting to this Bill being proceeded with now until they have an opportunity of disclosing their case to this House. They have, not had an opportunity up to date. This Bill comes to us through the Senate. While passing through the *Senate it was referred to a special subcommittee of that House, not to consider the whole Bill, but to consider three clauses only


Robert Laird Borden: They wanted to be heard before that committee, but the committee refused to take evidence with respect to any other part of the Bill except those three clauses, 122, 123 and 242. The first refers simply to terminal elevators. 123 refers to the buying and selling of grain by the owners of terminal elevators and 242 deals with penalties. They never had an opportunity of being heard by the Senate Committee at all. The Bill never went to the Banking and Commerce Committee of the Senate but went direct to this special committee which reported direct to the Senate. Now it comes here for a second reading and in the ordinary course would be referred to a Committee of the whole House. The Winnipeg Grain Exchange or the Montreal Corn Exchange would not be heard before a Committee of the Whole House. That difficulty might be obviated if the Bill were referred toy this House to the Committee on Banking and Commerce or a special committee might consider the whole measure and hear evidence. I have here a telegram which was sent me by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, which handles from 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 bushels of grain per year, and therefore ought to know something about the business. This is the telegram:-
Winnipeg, May 15, 1911. Alexander Baggart, iM.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Grain Exchange request you to protest against the Grain Bill until exchange delegation i.s heard by committee of House. Exchange has repeatedly requested government for such hearing without success. Crain inen generally agreed that Grain Act will require amendment if reciprocity agreement passes to *prevent diversion of grain through American channels. Hence our anxiety to be heard before Bill passes House. Think more desirable legislation should toe postponed till after reciprocity matter disposed of.
' The WINNIPEG GRAIN EXCHANGE.
On receipt of that telegram I Had an interview with the Minister of Interior, and he intimated to me that he thought everybody had been heard and that he would like to get the Bill disposed of. I wired to this effect to the Grain Exchange, and on the 17th of May, I received this telegram
Telegram received. Senate only referred three clauses of Grain Bill respecting terminal elevators, ownership and penalties to special committee and refused discussion on all other clauses. This exchange both wired and wrote 'Sir Richard requesting that when Bill went to Commons, exchange would be heard before committee and especially in view of effect reciprocity agreement will have on grain trade. Reciprocity without necessary amendments to Grain Act will certainly seriously damage Canadian trade and unnecessarily divert _ grain through United States 1 channels. This is firm opinion. All interest

in grain trade urge strongly for second raiding after adjournment with opportunity all concerned submit facts to committee of House.
I have searched the records of the Senate and found that the allegations of fact set' out in this telegram are substantially true. These people want to be heard, they are vitally interested in the sucess of this country, and they can give as much information as any other body of men. If this Bill should be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, the object of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange would be attained.
I might say that the hon. the Minister of Interior (Mr. Oliver) informed me that the Corn Exchange in Montreal, a similar body, is of the same opinion and want practically what the Winnipeg Grain Exchange ask for. There is no doubt about the inquiry in the Senate having been directed solely to three clauses of the Bill. We want the Bill to be open to criticism. We all want information. I doubt if there is any man in this House who has the information required regarding this very important Bill, which as the Minister of the Interior has told us, is complicated and important, and if we want legislation to be perfect we want all the information we can have.


Mr. NEELY.: The most serious objection to delaying the passage of this measure is the fact that this present season is so far advanced that unless it is put through before adjournment, there is no probability of its going into effect in the present year so far as the grain trade is concerned. I quite agree that the subject is of too vital importance to be judged hastily or passed upon without the most serious consideration; but at the same time I am sure that this Bill has been long enough before us to enable us to give it at least cursory consideration. No one can fail to be impressed that it will provide considerable relief to the western producer of wheat. As the Minister of the Interior pointed out to the leader of the opposition, its primary object is to establish a Board of Grain Commissioners who shall have the interests of the grain trade of the whole of Canada in their jurisdiction. It is not to be expected that even if this House gave this Bill the most thoughtful and long continued consideration, it would pass a measure which would be absolutely without a flaw. But the first consideration to my mind is the establishing of this Board of Grain Commissioners. The Bill provides for government ownership and operation of the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, if, in the view of this, board, that is necessary m order to remedy the evils complained of; but in any case the first step, before any project of government operation could be
entered upon, would necessarily be to establish a commission which would have the absolute supervision and control of these terminal elevators. That is the primary object of the Bill; and even supposing there is no definite provision made for government ownership, which is the remedy demanded by the large majority of western grain producers, the establishing of this commission will enable the government to have this matter considered by the board before this House reassembles.
If my hon. friend from Winnipeg, or the leader of the opposition, or any member of the House, wants expert evidence on the question involved in the Bill as affecting this very important question, I can see that the conclusions of such a board of commissioners would be of inestimable value. I am free to say that, having given some consideration to the Bill, there are a number of its features that do not appeal to. me as covering all the necessities of the case. But, as I have said, we have come almost to adjournment and there is this year's crop to be considered. Delay in passing the Bill means that there will be no opportunity for the commission to dea. with the present year's crop; and so it would appear to me that in the interests of the people of the west there should be no delay in passing this Bill to-day. My hon. friend from Winnipeg has mentioned the fact that the Winnipeg Grain Exchange are anxious to be heard before a committee of this House. So far as my information goes-I am open to correction by my hon. friend from Winnipeg-the most serious objection that the Winnipeg Exchange, or the Montreal Exchange have to the matter is in reference to the very clauses that were submitted to the special committee of the Senate for their consideration. The Senate committe gave a number of sittings to the consideration of these clauses. So far as I know every interest was notified when these clauses were under consideration, and had an opportunity of being heard before that committee. The Senate committee having given due consideration to these representations, and having modified the Bill to its present form and sent it to this House, I do not see that any serious harm could come to the Grain Exchange, or to any one interested by the passing of this Bill now. The Grain Act is not a thing that we have not found : it necessary to change, from time to time. No matter in what form we pass this Bill, when the commission is appointed to take charge of the grain trade no doubt the? will suggest many changes in any legislation we pass. The western grain producer I think, is satisfied that the Bill furnished a very considerable amount of relief from the conditions he complains of at the pre-i sent time. For that reason, I would ask
951!)

that this Bill rather than being sent to a special committee of this House, or to any standing committee, should be put through the House in the form in which we have received it.


Mr. BARKER.: I would ask the ministel who has charge of the Bill, what is the object of presenting the Bill here to-day? This Bill, if passed in its present form, must go back to the Senate.


Frank Oliver: No.


Samuel Barker: The head note indicates that there are clauses that have not been before the House.


Frank Oliver: I am wrong if I said so. This Bill has been passed by the Senate, and if the House should pass it without amendment it would not need to go back to the Senate. Any amendments that are made would have to go back.


Samuel Barker: The head note says:
The clauses and portions of clauses inclosed within square brackets, namely 10, part of 12, subsection 1 of 14, 16 and 17, do not form part of the Bill as passed by the Senate. They are printed in the copy for information only. It J? i,'te'lde<1. to ProPo>se their insertion when the Bill is in Committee of the Whole in the House of Commons.


Frank Oliver: These are the sections involving the expenditure of money, and the Senate has not the authority to pass


Samuel Barker: Section 17 involves a very important matter of principle. It provides that the Governor in Council may authorize the minister to construct, acquire, lease, or expropriate for His Majesty any terminal elevator if parliament grants money for this purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bill would have to go back to the Senate in that case, would it not?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but only for the formal acceptance by the Senate of the provisions passed by the House in regard to money matters. Hon. members are aware that the Senate does not deal with questions of money, and as the Bill was introduced m the Senate,. these sections should not be considered by the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: I should hardly suppose that the minister would contend that section 16 would go to the Senate for the purpose of mere formal consideration. Sections 16 and 17, according to the minister constitute the most important part of the Bill


Frank Oliver: Yes.


David Bradley Neely: 


Robert Laird Borden: That is, all the important new provisions of the Bill have not been passed by the Senate at all.


William D. Staples: (is tOie additional fact "that if it is pushed (through to-day it must be done without our giving it any consideration. I forgot to say that this memorial is signed by [DOT]Edward J. Fream, secretary,


Mr. KNOWLES.: Representing as ,1 de [DOT]an important agricultural constituency, whose inhabitants have taken a live interest in this .proposed legislation, I wish [DOT]to give my humble support to this Bill land ask thalt it be proceeded Iwith.
It is true that it is contemplated that there may be an adjournment in the near future, but that is not compulsory. I cannot see any reason why the Bill cannot be proceeded with to-day. why, after the full discussion which has been enjoyed throughout the country, and in this House, on this very same question we might not, at this moment, be sufficiently well informed to proceed to pass this legislation. I do not agree with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples), that it is impossible to have it become law before the adjournment, because the Senate can facilitate the matter there, and it can be disposed of. It is almost certain that the Senate would not interfere with any amendment we might make in regard to the expenditure of money, because it is a principle well known under the British parliamentary system that the Upper Chamber should not interfere in the matter of public expenditure. The delay which has been caused is a delay that the government have reason not to be ashamed of, but to be proud of. Upon such an important Bill as this they have given the fullest opportunity to every person who desired to be heard.' A great many people appeared as witnesses before the special committee in the Senate? and l do not think that anybody should criticise or condemn the government, because the right hon. gentleman who had charge of the Bill in the Senate permitted delay for that purpose. I trust that my hon. friend from Macdonald will not be too harsh with the government for having brought the Bill in at this late day.


William D. Staples: It may satisfy you, but it will not satisfy me.


William Erskine Knowles: Perhaps, if he had not been so loquacious on Monday we would have had more time to deal with this question. A whole day was lost with a lot of "_"velmight llave Proceeded with this Bill. I trust that our hon. friends opposite will cease obstructing and opposing this Bill-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. KNOWLES-and do what is necessary in order to bring this legislation into effect.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. If there wag the faintest


Thomas Simpson Sproule: possible ground for saying that the Conservative party, or the opposition, were obstructing, I would not rise to a point of order, but when an hon. gentleman gets up for political purposes, and makes a statement absolutely out of whole cloth, saying that which he knows not to be a fact, I rise to a point of order, and I ask that the hon. gentleman take it back.


William Erskine Knowles: What is the point of order-that I told a story?


Mr. CASH.: Mr Speaker


Haughton Lennox: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that if any gentleman in this House rises to a point of order he at least has the right to have the Speaker pay some little attention to it?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I intend to rule upon it, and I have to give the decision that has been rendered in England, to the effect that the word ' obstruction ' is not unparliamentary. I am ruling from memory but if the hon. gentleman desires the precedent, my hon. friend the Deputy Speaker is looking it up, and I will give it in a moment. But, I know it has been so held by the English Speaker that the word ' obstruction ' is not unparliamentary.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker


An hon. MEMBER.: Order.


Haughton Lennox: Will the hon. gentleman keep quiet?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He wants his house painted.


Haughton Lennox: This is the hon. gentleman of whom I remarked some few years ago that I thought he was playing the buffoon, but he is playing something more important since,


William Stevens Fielding: That is not parliamentary.


Haughton Lennox: I have said that now, and if the hon. gentleman wants me to discuss it I can do so. If you recollect the decision to be as you state, Mr. Speaker, and you feel you are sure about it, I am quite willing to abide by your decision. I have accomplished my purpose, at all events, by calling attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman got up for the, purpose of making a purely political speech, and dragged in what he knows not to be the fact.
. Mr. KNOWLES. I want you to deal with it.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member (Mr. Lennox), is certainly not in order when he states that an hon. member makes a statement which he knows is not a fact.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, I do make that statement.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman must know that that is not parliamentary. He is bound to assume that when another hon. gentleman makes a statement he makes it in good faith. I.t may or may not be a fact, it may be a matter for a difference of opinion, but to say that an hon. gentleman has made a statement which he knows is not a fact, I do not think makes for good order in the House.


Haughton Lennox: I entirely differ from the hon. leader of the House (Mr. Fielding). We, on this side of the House know there has been no obstruction.


William Stevens Fielding: I never said anything about obstruction.


Haughton Lennox: I said that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles), made a statement which he knew was not a fact.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William Stevens Fielding: We should have your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I will rule on the first point first. In Peel's 'Decisions' it is said:
There is nothing unparliamentary in attributing obstruction to an hon. member.


Mr. BUREAU.: I want to know if the word ' buffoon ' is parliamentary? If not I want the hon. member to withdraw it.


Haughton Lennox: I did not use the expression at this time; it was at another session, and you are a little late.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The word would not be parliamentary if applied to a member of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman used the expression.


Haughton Lennox: I said that three qr, four years ago I had to apply the word ' buffoon ' to the hon. gentleman. He has graduated into a higher class since then.


Jacques Bureau: I ask your ruling. Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have not heard the expression, and as the hon. gentleman (Mr. LennoxL says he has not used it there is nothing to rule on.


Edward L. Cash: I understand this. Bill is a consolidation of the two grain Acts which have been in force for some years, the object of which is to carry out the desire of the farmers of the west to have the government divorce, as far as possible, the grain dealer or the grain handler, from the trade and to proceed bv way of the appointment of a commission to do this work. I do not understand the difference between the government doing this themselves. which they personally could not do. and doing it through a commission. Provision is made for the appointment of
a commission by this Bill. It has been the cry of the west to prevent the grain, after it has once passed into the hands of the government, and been graded, from being interfered with by other parties. They want it to go to the consumer as it is graded by the government, and that is what the government is trying to do. That is the main object of the present Bill, and it is proposed to accomplish that object through the appointment of a commission. It would be unfortunate if this could not be effected before the movement of the present season's crop. I see nothing in this Bill which should provoke contention. A number of members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange are of the same opinion as I am myself, that this matter should be' attended to in some such way as that which is here suggested. We may differ somewhat as to the details, but I cannot see how there can be any great difference of opinion as to the main provisions of the Bill. There has been a lot of discussion in the Senate on the question, and we have had some private elevator men obstructing and objecting to certain provisions. They have had certain clauses cut out which it would have been .better to have left in. As the time is so short I think we should proceed with the Rill at once in order that it mav be passed as it will ultimately result ip accomplishing the very object that the grain growers desire to have accomplished.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I just want to make a few remarks in connection with this Bill. A grain Bill has been before this House for a great many years. I understood the minister to say that with the exception of a very few clauses the Bill before us is simply a repetition of clauses of the Grain Act as it Stands on the statute-book. The grain growers of the west have either been sincere or they have not. For years the grain-growers of the west have urged on the government the redress of their grievances; they have had a grievance in connection with the weighing of the grain and in connection with unfair dockage and, most serious of all, the manner in which their grain was tampered with in the elevators. They urged that the identity of their wheat 'should be preserved so that when it reached the world's market in Liverpool they might receive the highest price possible for it. During this session, and during previous session's, it has been my privilege to address the House on the question of terminal elevators, and I point out again that the burden of the complaint of the delegation which came before us on the I6th of December last, was insistence on government operation of the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. The western farmers truly said that useless experiments have been tried long enough, that thou-

9.: 28
sands and thousands of dollars have been expended during the last few years in duplicating the 'supervisors at the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William, and these farmers who are the best judges on such a matter told the government that all that money was wasted, and that no good results followed. They pointed out that this duplication of supervision ultimately reflected on the price of the wheat, and that radical changes had to be made in the sy'st-em to make it effective for good. The question before us to-day is:	Does this
Bill give the farmers of the west what they have asked for?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I say the chief demand of our farmers is that the government should operate these terminal elevators, and that is denied them. Hon. gentlemen opposite who want to assist the government in getting out of a hole and in neglecting their duty, and the Grain Growers' Guide, may be satisfied with this Bill, but I am not; and if the Grain Growers' Guide is 'satisfied then it is not true to the arguments it has used in the last few years in connection with terminal elevators. The farmers of the west have asked for government operation principally; they have asked for government ownership, but to my mind it is not so important who owns the terminal elevators as it is who operates them, and there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that grants government operation. Will the Minister of the Interior answer this straight question: I's it the intention of the government at this session to provide in the estimates for money to buy or lease these terminal elevators and to operate them entirely by the government? If the Minister of the Interior answers that question in the affirmative I will admit there is something in clause 16 of the Bill to meet the demands of the farmers.


Frank Oliver: I am not authorized to speak for the government, but I would like to make the bargain with my hon. friend, that if he will let this Bill pass now we may possibly be able to get a sum in the estimates to enable the Bill to be operated in that way.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I will have to he more definite in my question, and the Minister of the Interior will have to be more definite in his answer. Here is what the United Farmers of Alberta say on the question:
The directors of the United Farmers of Alberta reaffirm their belief that absolute control of our terminals can only be secured through government ownership and operation. We view with alarm the apparent disposition of supporters of the government to still further experiment along the lines of control by Mr. SCHAFFNER.
supervision and inspection knowing as all concerned do this policy has failed entirely in the past.
That is a definite demand from the farmers. At this very session the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) was frank enough to admit that after the government had appointed 96 men to duplicate the service at Port Arthur and Fort William, and after spending thousands and thousands of dollars, the experiment was a failure, and that the only way to make the business a success was for the government to operate the terminal elevators. The minister says if I will allow this Bill to be read the second time and go to committee


Frank Oliver: I said that if the hon. gentleman and his friends will allow the Bill to pass there would be some object in the government providing a sum in the estimates, but until the Bill passes there is no warrant for the government putting a sum in the estimates.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I tell the Minister of the Interior-and I think I can speak for my colleagues from the west-that if he will promise us right now-no ' may ' about it- place a sum in the estimates to purchase or lease these elevators and to operate them by the government, I, and I believe my colleagues from the west, will allow the Bill to pass at once and give it no opposition. I am suspicious of that clause 16.


Frank Oliver: I might suggest to my hon. friend that it might not do any harm to try it. Let him allow the Bill to pass and take chances on the government voting the money and the farmers would not be any worse off.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We have had too much experience of letting things go through without a definite promise, to lead me to place any faith in the government. But I do say that if the minister would state right now that there will be a sum placed in the estimates to buy or lease these elevators and operate them, we will not oppose the Bill for a moment.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend knows that no member of the government can pledge the government off-hand in that way. and he is not fair in making such a challenge as that.


Robert Laird Borden: The government is here and can answer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And they have already this session given a similar pledge with reference to a dry dock, and if they can do that they can also give a pledge in connection with the terminal elevators.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I am mot familiar 'with the 'working of Hhe Privy Council, but

'as we all know this is a government Bill (promoted by the Minister of the Interior, lan'd Mere is no doubt that this Bill ba-s (been debated by 'the Council, and that the (minister has a pretty good idea as to 'what the government is willing to do. I 'believe fthe Council "will be prepared to do what ithe Minister of the Interior recommends, jlf the minister and Ithe government want jto meet the demands of the farmers they (have it in their power 'to (do so. This leommission business has been on trial for |a great many years, and the farmers (nave Icome to the conclusion that it does not Imeet the case. The farmers refuse to laccept or experiment with that system any Monger. I shall oppose this Bill until I ihave some promise from the government fllh-at they will this session place in the lestimates a sum of money for the acquisition or control of 'these elevators. I must accept the statement of my farmers and believe that they are sincere when they isay they will not accept any half measure. (This Bill 'as it stands does not give what (we want, it is absolutely useless. The ifarmers came here on December 16, and (presented their grievances. Now, on the J19th of May, 6 months after, on the day (the House is to adjourn, we are asked in lone day to pass over 200 sections of a IgPain Bill whidh has been before the gov-jernmen't for 'about 6 months. I am not (obstructing this Bill. If any one of my (constituents takes flhe position that I am, jl shall leave it to his opinion, but 1 want ia Bill passed that will mee't the demands jof the farmers. This Bill does not do so. If I take the stand I have t'aken this (morning, I think it will be absolutely 'unfair for the Grain Growers' Guide or (any other institution to say that I am obstructing this Bill. I want exactly what I advocated in this House, 'and what the farmers have asked, that is, that we should have government operation of the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: This Bill has been so well discussed by my hon. friends that there is little left for me to say, but, as [DOT]'the matter is one of paramount interest to the people of the west, I would be derelict in my 'duty to the farmers whom I try to represent, if I did not say a few words. I agree absolutely with my bon. friend from Souris who has put the case in a nutsihell. The farmers for years and years have been asking a certain thing. They sent a large deputation here, and the most important thing they asked for was the government control of terminal elevators. That request was the most strongly urged of any. The matter was discussed at that meeting by the farmers, the grain buyers and the millers, all of
whom voiced tlhe opinion 'that it was an absolute necessity for the grain trade of the west till at the government should control the terminal elevators. Now, at the eleventh hour, we are asked to pass a Bill not a clause of which touches in a practical manner the request laid before this government 'by the farmers, that the government should control the terminal elevators. I am not obstructing, 'but I am most seriously anxious to (have effective legislation put through, and it could go through in five minutes if flhe minister would take the bull by the horns or answer definitely the proposition laid down by 'the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sehaffner). Will the_ government vote the money? The ministers are nearly all here, and we could hear from each one of them separately in a moment. If the Minister of flhe Interior will say that he will do this, and use his influence to have i't put through Council, an'd the other ministers would say yes, that they would carry out the semi-pledges which they have been making to the farmers of the west the matter could be settled at once. The farmers' delegation asked for (half a dozen things, and the reply to all of them is:	We will give you reciprocity, we will
give you free trade in everything you produce, and you will have to buy everything you require in a protected market. By this grain Bill flhe farmers do not get what they wanted. As far as I can see there is only one little bunch "who will get anything out of this, and that is the three commissioners, who will be appointed and wtio I am quite certain will have been party heelers at some stage of the game. They are the only people who will get anything. The farmers are not getting anything they want, and for flhat reason I am with my friend from Souris, I am absolutely against this being passed at the eleventh hour in this way because it does not go one step in the direction of protecting the farmers' riglhts, and his wheat, and giving him what he has 'been asking for all these years.


Mr. BRADBURY.: When this question of government control of elevators was before this House two years ago and again a year ago, it was urged strongly from this side of the House that in the best interests of the farming community of western Canada the government should provide means for taking over and operating the terminal elevators. That matter was urged by every hon. member on this side of the House from the west. The attitude of the governinent's supporters from the west: was directly opposed to that. Thev advanced the argument that the government had appointed supervisors of the elevators, that tlhe elevators were now under government supervision, and that the men who had been

appointed should be given a fair chance to demonstrate whether the supervision would meet the requirements of the west oa- not. Che claim of the farmers of the west was that they were unfairly treated, in fact that their grain was tampered 'witih, that its identity was lost, and that the men who were operating the elevators were mixing the grain to the detriment of the farmers and to their own gain.
That was demonstrated in this House time and again. Some of the men who were guilty were punished and fined heavily. The attitude of the government on that question and of the western men was opposed to the proposition of the farmers that the elevators should be owned and operated by the government. They said in this House, one after the other, that they were not prepared to urge the government to grant the demands of the farmers in the west because they believed that the present system should be given a fair trial. The proposition of the government to-day is very similar to the conditions which have existed during the last two or three years. The control of the elevators is under government supervision and the country has paid out from $60,000 to $70,000 a year to men who are supposed to take control of the wheat passing through the elevators. But what the farmers believe is necessary is the government operation of^ those elevators pure and simple. The minister has intimated that if we would allow the Bill to go through, the government might see fit to put a sum in the estimates to carry out the wishes of the farmers. I would suggest that he would consult with his colleagues now and make a definite statement so that we might know whether the farmers are to be treated fairly or not or whether this is another gold-brick they are handing to the farmers. There can be no doubt that, when from time to time the farmers of the west have made requests to the government to redress their grievances, they have been side tracked. Thev came down to Ottawa a large delegation asking for reciprocity in natural products and manufactured goods, but the government astutely turned the tables on the farmers by giving them reciprocity in natural products whilst still main-a	protection	on agricultural
machinery and everything the farmer has to buy. Thus the farmer has to meet the competition of the world in everything he produces, but he is not given the advantage of competition in things he has to buy. This Bill is along the same lines. The farmers have adduced evidence m abundance to show that the only possible relief is the government tak-mg over these elevators and operating them. The question is whether the gov-Mr. BRADBURY.
ernment should own these elevators or not.
I hold that they should. I would therefore urge the Minister of the Interior to consult his colleagues now and see if it is not possible for him to make a definite statement to-day to the effect that he will provide the means for the government taking absolute control of these elevators. It seems to me that the government have been injudicious in bringing this Bill before the House at this eleventh hour within a few hours of adjournment. Surely we ought to have reasonable time to discuss a Bill of such vast importance. I do not want to delay this Bill unnecessarily, but I am not afraid of the insinuation made from the other side that we are obstructing. I am satisfied to oppose any measure which I believe is to the detriment of the farmers. This Bill does not meet the demands of the farmers, and the minister would be well advised to allow it to stand over until the House meets again so that we may place it fairly before the people in the meantime that the farmers may know what the government proposes to do.


William Stevens Fielding: It is quite evident that this Bill can hardly be classed among the non contentious measures; and as hours * and even minutes are beginning to become very precious if we are to carry out our intention of adjourning, I would suggest that the debate should be adjourned and the Bill stand over.
Mr. KING moved the aljournment of the debate.


Mr. LAKE.: 
TRADE RELATIONS WITH JAPAN.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 224) respecting duties of customs on importations from Japan.-Mr. Fielding-was considered in committee and reported without amendment.
Mr. FIELDING moved the third reading of the Bill.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the Bill is read the third time, I would like to allude to the fact that last evening there was a good deal of discussion upon the very important question of immigration. That discussion arose, however, out of some correspondence brought down in connection with this proposal from which it appeared that the government between the two governments embodied in a certain agreement which had been entered into some four years ;|go should be regarded as still continuing. The Bill itself contains no reference to the question of immigration. So far as this country is concerned, the fact that the treaty between Canada and Japan which came into operation a few years ago will cease to have any effect or operation after the 17th of July next leaves it entirely open to us in Canada to deal with that subject as we may see fit, unless the action of parliament in that regard would be impeded in any way by an understanding arrived at between the two governments. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has assured us that any such understanding as continues by virtue of the correspondence alluded to can De brought to a termination at once. Assuming that to be the case, and in view of the fact that the Bill itself does not deal in any way with the very important question of immigration I can see no reason why it should not pass.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), has correctly stated my understanding of the matter as I expressed it to the House last evening. The reference in the correspondence to immigration did not arise from the Japanese authorities at all. We regarded the assurance that had been given of the restriction of immigration as a desirable thing, and we were anxious to be assured that that arrangement would be continued, and hence I made the allusion to and hence, I think the allusion to it did not arise in the proposals of the Japanese authorities. My
hon. friend's statement of what we understand to be the situation is entirely correct.


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

[Stage Direction]
On consideration of an amendment-made by the Senate to Bill (No. 48) to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners' 1894.- Mr. Brodeur.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Section 1 of this Bill is designed to correct an error in the description of the harbour boundaries. That passed in this House. But when the Bill was before the Senate it was decided to further amend the Act. The first error was in the wording of the designation of the boundary. For the word ' southern ' we substitute ' eastern.' The Senate made another correction. Section 2 of the Bill transfers all the powers possessed by the Harbour Commissioners in .the port of Montreal up to the 19th of May, 1909, t >
the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. On the 19lth of May, 1909, by chapter 24 of the statutes of that year, assented to on that date the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal were relieved of all responsibility within the limits of the port of Montreal. It may be here stated that the port of Montreal, and the harbour of Montreal, are two separate and distinct areas, the harbour extending only to foot of the island of Montreal, but the port extending as far as Portneuf near Quebec. After the passing of the legislation in 1909, a doubt arose as to whether the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had jurisdiction in the port of Montreal. The proposed section in this Bill is to remove all such doubits on that point. Section 3 of the Bill is merely a verbal amendment. The heading of section 37 is ' recovery of rates, penalties and harbour dues.' As the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal no longer are the pilotage authorities, the reference to pilotage dues in the section is superfluous. Under section 39, of the Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1894, the Harbour Commissioners had originally the right to seize vessels for non-payment of pilotage dues. In 1909, this section was amended in regard to pilotage dues in so far as paragraph (a) of the section was concerned, but in reference to pilotage dues the paragraph (h) was however overlooked. That is the explanation given to me why this amendment was made in the Senate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought I heard the words read * The boundaries of the harbour of Montreal.' It is within the knowledge of my hon. friend that there is a certain litigation now pending before the courts

respecting the bounds of the harbour of Montreal as they existed a few years ago. Will this in any way affect that litigation?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am informed it does not affect it at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would seem to me that the rights of parties involved in that litigation should be in every way protected. I think my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) is much more familiar with that question than I am.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not yet been able to judge accurately of the alterations made in the Senate; they seem to make a new Bill. The Bill as it originally passed this House contained one clause substituting the words ' southern ' for the word ' eastern ' in the description of the boundaries. There is no doubt that correction needed to be made. The error arose from the fact that in Montreal we always talk of the north when we really mean the east. When a man is going north we say he is going east, and no doubt that is the way the error arose.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The difficulty is with respect to the western boundary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The amendments made by the Senate seem to me to constitute practically a new measure. While I have no reason to doubt that the provisions are reasonable, still I have not had time to consider them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the Senate has made several amendments, which have to be followed closely and compared with the previous language. We might let the Bill stand until after the noon recess, and take it up again after my hon. friend from St. Anne has had time to look into it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What will be taken up after recess?


William Stevens Fielding: I think we will go into Supply.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Am I to understand from the hon. member for St. Anne that he would ask the Bill to be postponed until after adjournment, unless, during the noon recess, he looks at the statute to see if there is anything in it debatable? I understand from the officers of the department that there is nothing debatable in it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will endeavour to examine it during the noon recess.


William Stevens Fielding: Unless this Bill be proceeded with, we will move the House into Supply. If the items under consideration Mr. EMMERSON.
last evening can be agreed to without debate; we will be glad to have them passed, but we do not wish them to be a cause of delay. If we have time we will take up the Bills respecting the Post Office Savings Banks, and the Customs, but with Supply ahead of them, in order to assist the clerks in their work.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at 'three o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before the House rose I was discussing the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill respecting the Montreal Harbour Commissioners. I have looked into tlhe powers conferred on the harbour commissioners under the old law, and I find that .some of 'these powers appear by this Bill to be transferred to the minister. I have no doubt there is some explanation of the fact. The statute of 1894. I find, did confer powers 'with regard to the port of Montreal upon the harbour commissioners which I hardly think it is intended to confer upon the minister. They have tlhe power to acquire vessels and property, and to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction. I do not think it is intended to confer these powers upon the minister, and therefore I think it -would be desirable that the Bill should stand over until we have had an opportunity of further considering it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no obejction to the position taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Doherty). The amendments made to the Bill were not submitted to me before they were proposed in the Senate; therefore, I am not in a position to insist upon 'them. However, nobody will suffer if the Bill is postponed until after the adjournment.
Debate adjourned.


MESSAGE FROM HIS EXCELLENCY.
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have the honour to inform the House that T have received the following communication:
Ottawa, 19th May, 1911.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber this afternoon at five o'clock to give the Royal Assent to certain Bills which have passed the Senate and House of Commons during the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, (Sgd.) D. O. MALCOLM, Governor General's Secretary. The Honourable The Speaker,
House of Commons



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.!
RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS Mr. ARMSTRONG:
What are the names of railway mail clerks injured or killed in railway accidents during the past ten years, and the names of those to whom or to whose families a compassionate allowance has been made
Mr. LEMIEUX-
(a) The following are the names of the Railway Mail Clerks, w(ho have 'been injured on duty during the past ten years: Halifax District-D. O'Sullivan, T. Keith. St. John District-J. P. Hipwell, A. S. Belyea, C. E. O'Reilly, H. D. Porter, C. J. Dionne.
Quebec District-A. Lachance, C. Audet, J. E. R. Roux.
Montreal District-W. E. C. Jones, A. Tetreault, C. W. Candlish, J. Lallier, J. H. Duval, J. Beaulieu.
Ottawa District-E. A. Beach, A. P. Black, W. E. Alguire, E. A. Roberts, W. H. Gass, J. D. C. McFarlane, Geo. C. Chatt-away, L. E. Galipeau.
Toronto District-W. Mitchell, T. J. Atkins, J. D. Thomson, T. H. Bren't, P. H. Wainwright, Thos. Mason, G. B. Stanton, W. J. Kirkpatrick.
London District-Geo. Matthews, A. J. Cheyne, W. McKee, W. J. May.
Winnipeg District-J. Kinney, J. W. Flatt, T. J. Smith, B. A. Parson, W. H. McKinnon, T. Glendinning, G. E. Hawkins, O. D. Benoit, A. M. Ferguson, S. H. Might, J. 0. Bernier, A. L. S. Emsley.
Moosejaw District-J. H. Lewis, W. B. Greenhalgh, R. M. Manahan, W. B McNair.
Calgary District-A. A. McLatchie, G. G. Buell, H. E. Wilson, E. J. Dutton, W. W. Peel, J. A. Poole.
Vancouver District-Uhos. Morton, R. F. Drummond, R. J. Herbert, F. N. Mc-Crimmon, W. Willis.
(b) The following Railway Mail Clerks have been kille'd during the past ten years, but in no instance has the family of any of them 'been granted a compassionate allowance (other tlhan the usual gratuity equal to two months' salary) as, in each case, the family had recourse against the Railway Company:
M. Roy, Quebec District, 3rd October, 1901.
R. E. Curran, Toronto District, accident 29th May, 1908, died 31st May, 1908.
W. D. Tye, London, 4th February, 1911.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What are the starting and terminal points of the various mail routes in North Grey and the intervening post offices where mail carrier calls?
2.	What are the hours of starting and termination of each of said routes, the name. and salary of each carrier, and the days of the week on which said mails are carried?
3.	What rural mail delivery routes have been established in said riding and what applications or petitions have been received therefor?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: 

SUPPLY-ENGLISH MAIL SERVICE TO THE MARITIME PROVINCES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair there is a matter that'I want to bring to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) and it is in respect to the mails from point's west of Montreal destined to points in the eastern provinces. Letters mailed in Ottawa after two o'clock in one day should reach Montreal at eight o'clock the next morning, and if addressed to a point anywhere in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, it seems to me that these letters, and other mail matter, should go to the east in the Intercolonial railway train which leaves Montreal at 12 o'clock. In a great many instances, with very many of which I am conversant, these letters and other mail matter are held until the Canadian Pacific railway train leaves Montreal at 7.25 in the evening, thus delaying the letters reaching their destination until some twenty-four hours after they should reach the recipients. It seems to me that there must be negligence on the part of somebody connected with the postal department. A few days ago, I think it was on Thursday of last week, I called the attention of the Postmaster General to the delays incident to the transmission of the English mails from Rimouski to points in the eastern provinces. I realize that this is a question between the Departments of the hon. Postmaster General and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. I showed where the mails which arrived at Rimouski at a certain hour went to St. John at an average rate of 12* miles an hour, and that the mails from Moncton only reached there at the average rate of a little over five miles an hour. That brings us back to the old stage coach days when the mail contractors had to enter into an agreement with the imperial and provincial governments that they would convey the mails between Halifax and Quebec at a rate of not less than five miles an hour. We have not advanced in any great degree beyond the conditions which prevailed in those bygone days. I realize that the delays 301J
are incident to a difficulty between the two departments.


Robert Laird Borden: In what case was it that the mails took so long?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mails which reached Rimouski on the 6th of May reached Halifax at an average rate of 121 miles an hour. They were delivered in Moncton some 53 hours after they had reached Rimouski and the average rate in that case was 5) or 51 miles per hour.


Robert Laird Borden: That is this year?


Henry Robert Emmerson: May 6th of this year. They were not delivered in Moncton until some time during the day on the 8th.


William Stevens Fielding: That does not mean the average rate of travel. My hon. friend is counting the time when they were not ti avelling.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were held somewhere.


William Stevens Fielding: But to say that it is the average rate is not a fair statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But they counted the average rate in the old days in respect to the stage coaches including stops at the houses of entertainment along the way. I bring this matter up, not with any desire to complain, but I think that the eastern provinces are entitled to a little more consideration. I do not attach the whole blame to the Department of the Postmaster General. There has been for many years a misunderstanding, or a failure to reach an understanding, between the two departments. It is true that to avoid these delays perhaps there would require to be special arrangements made with the Department of Railways and Canals. Now. with a department, such as that which the Postmaster General controls, with a surplus of nearly $1,000,000 a year, it seems to me that instead of that surplus going into the consolidated fund of Canada and being part of the revenues of Canada, it should toe applied in some way to the facilitating of the carriage of the mails, whether they are from England, or I care not from what point they may come. I am sorry that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is not in his place, but it seems to me that he should take cognizance of the conditions which prevail, and that an effort should be made by either the Postmaster General or the Minister of Railways and Canals to find a remedy. Mails mailed in Moncton at noon to-day will, via Canadian Pacific railway, reach Ottawa at one o'clock to-morrow, but if they are addressed to any point south of Lisgar street they would not be delivered until to-morrow morning. If mailed in

Moncton on Friday, although they reach the Ottawa post office at one o'clock on Saturday, they would not reach the addresses in the part of the city I have referred to until Monday morning. This matter should receive attention from the postal authorities.


Robert Laird Borden: The information brought down by the Postmaster General on the 11th of May shows delays of the mails up to twenty-two hours at Rimouski. I have correspondence which has passed between the secretary of the Halifax Board of Trade and the Post Office iDepartment from which, if time permit* i 1 would like to read copious extracts. Under date May 11, 1910, I quote from a letter addressed by the secretary of the Board of Trade to the Postmaster General:
Xast year, it was a frequent occurrence for the eastern mail to lie at Rimouski, or some point there, from twelve to twenty-two hours, and I think, sir, you will agree that it is rather rough treatment, when the western mails are forwarded immediately on their arrival by special train.
The Postmaster General in reply said that special trains are not ordered beyond Montreal and the Halifax Board of Trade answered that from Montreal to the west there are several trains a day, and, therefore, special trains are not necessary. The hoard of trade then forwarded to the Post Office Department a letter from a passenger giving his experience as follows:
On Friday morning, April 29, at 3 o'clock, the English mail was landed from the ss.
' Empress of Britain ' at Rimouski and some of the passengers also landed. The mails and passengers were kept at Rimouski station for twelve hours, when a local freight train dragged them into Campbellton, where they waited for the regular Intercolonial train, due in Halifax Saturday -fternoon about 5.15; the time from Rimouski to Campbellton, 123 miles, was 20 hours. The . merchants of the city of Halifax should have had English let-*)ers on their desks early Saturday morning, mstead of that, those mails did not reach here until 6.30 Saturday night, and were not delivered until Monday morning. Had the mails reached here Saturday morning as they should have done, the letters could have been answered that day-same leaving here Saturday night for England. The time of the mails and passengers from Rimouski to Halifax was forty hours, instead of 17J hours.
Another communication from the Board of Trade says:
The members of the council do not consider they were asking anything unreasonable when they asked that a special train be provided should it be found that the mails would have to lie at Rimouski for, say, over six or eight hours, and a recurrence of last winter when on one occasion, I think, there was a delay of twenty-one hours and on several occasions a delay verging on twenty hours, would war-Mr. EMMERSON.
rant a little outlay on your department to give better despatch.
I should think that from a business standpoint it would be well to send these mails forward because there are usually a number of passengers, and I imagine that it would pay fairly well to send a special train. The government operates the Intercolonial, and the government is responsible for the delivery of the mails, but there seems to be some friction between the Post Office Department and the Railway Department as to which shall be responsible for anv loss incurred by the speedy transportation of mails and passengers. I trust that such friction will not be allowed to militate against the public interest. We have a good steamship service between Britain and Canada-although not so good as we hope to have in the early future- and it is a very great handicap on that service that passengers and mails should be delayed twenty-two hours after landing.
I would not have been surprised had the Halifax city council and the Halifax Board of Trade expressed themselves even more strongly than they have. I do hope that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Railways will get together and see that better arrangement is' made so that in future delay and inconvenience to passen-j gers and mails will be obviated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have an excellent staff at Rimouski, and a mail tender which does good service. The business of the Post Office Department is to deliver the mails on the wharf at Rimouski, and there they await the first available train. Sometimes the trains are late, and for that the Post Office Department is not responsible. Besides, the Post Office Department does not carry passengers, and the bulk of the complaints come from passengers who have to wait for'the regular trains. I realize that the business men of Halifax and the maritime provinces have some reason to complain about this matter. I shall endeavour do force the Intercolonial railway and the Department of Railways to provide better train accommodation from Rimouski, and if it is possible to meet the Railway Department half way I shall do so. I may say that representations have also been received on this matter from the Minister of Finance, who represents the interests of Nova Scotia in the cabinet, and I shall urge the views presented, on the Department of Railways. As regards the mails which are sent from Ottawa to the maritime provinces I shall have the following memorandum from the controller of the railway mail service:
With reference to the despatch of mail to the maritime provinces, the Postmaster General is informed that all mail for the maritime provinces posted or received at Montreal

is despatched from there by 7.25 p.m Canadian Pacific railway train, except for the counties of Gloucester, Kent, Northumberland and Kestigouche in New Brunswick, mail for which is invariably forwarded via Intercolonial railway trains.	.
Any mail received at Montreal after departure of 7.25 p.m. Canadian- Pacific railway train is forwarded the following day by Intercolonial railway train at 12 noon, the only through train at present operated by the Intercolonial railway from Montreal to Halifax.
Next month (June) the Intercolonial will issue a new time-table under which a train leaves Montreal for Halifax at 8 a.m, and another at 7.15 p.m., and both these trains will carry mail (and have always done so) for the maritime provinces.
Any mail for the maritime provinces now posted in Ottawa up to 3.30 p.m., except for the counties mentioned, is despatched from Ottawa so as to connect with the 7.25 p.m. Canadian Pacific railway train from Montreal.
Any mail posted between 3.30 p.m. and 7.30 a.m. the following morning is despatched to connect with Intercolonial railway train at present leaving Montreal at 12 noon.
No reports or complaints have been received that mail for the maritime provinces is not forwarded by Intercolonial railway trains when same will gain thereby in delivery.
B. M. ARMSTRONG, Controller.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend may understand that to be the case but I have tested it personally and found that it is not so. I have mailed letters here before 10 o'clock in the evening addressed to Dorchester. The next morning, I travelled to Montreal and on to Dorchester on the Intercolonial railway train and reached Dorchester seven or eight hours before the letters arrived by the Canadian Pacific railway train which left Montreal several hours after I did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have myself had occasion to complain in this matter. The trouble is traceable to the point at which the letters are mailed. I have posted letters in the post office in the House of Commons at night addressed to my office on the other side of the Square, and they have not reached me before the next day at 12 o'clock. It is because the clerks in the post office here leave too early. They should not leave the House of Commons until after the House has adjourned and they should take all the mail matter that is posted. That is where the fault lies and I again call your attention to that fact.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-

Mr. WILSON (LAVAL).: 


Charles Avila Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Saturday the following question was asked of the Senate:



THE CANADIAN COMMISSIONER AT PARIS.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. LANDRY inquired:
Among the applicants for the position of Commissioner at Paris, left vacant by the death of Mr. Hector Fabre, is there one answering to the name of Charles Avila Wilson? If so, what qualifications did he think himself possessed of, and what competency! did he endeavour to impress upon the authorities in order to obtain the said position?
That is my name. Yesterday the right hon. Sir Richard Cartwright answered in this way:
Rt. Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT- So far as I have been able to ascertain no application was made by this party; but as there are several members of this Cabinet who are now absent from the country, I cannot reply with absolute certainty.
It is to answer with absolute certainty that I rise now. To the first question I answer emphatically, no. To the second question, I answer in the form so often used in this House, ' answered by the answer to the first question.' I never was an applicant, I never had the slightest idea of being an applicant. Though I am very glad to take a trip to Paris and to good old France occasionally I still prefer to live in Canada. Canada is good enough; for me.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Department of the Interior-Astronomical surveys-investigations and demarcations of the exterior boundaries of Canada, and the astronomical and geodetic work of the Department of the Interior, including expenses of the Dominion Astronomical Observatory, and $1,000 for W. F. King, as boundary commissioner, $260,000.
["It has been understood that, as respects all the items which have not been voted in full, there shall be voted a sum which, with what already has been voted, will make fiye-twelfths of the whole. That'is a matter involving calculations that have to be made by the clerks, who cannot complete their work until we ascertain what progress we would make this afternoon in passing the items in full. Now that that is understood, the clerks will be able to advance their work, and at the evening sitting I hope we will have the matter in complete form. I, therefore, move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.\nSome resolutions reported."]
Frank Oliver: The urgency of this item-arises from the fact that our boundary surveys are made in conjunction with those of the United States, pursuant to an understanding between the two countries that joint surveys shall be made. The survey parties have to be started out in early spring in order to do a season's work. A large part of the work is done during the summer season; a five-twelfths vote would not carry them through their summer's work and would cut them off during the summer. Part of this expenditure is for the Alaskan boundary where the work will be done this summer some distance north of the Arctic circle. In every way it is desirable that this sum should be available.


Robert Laird Borden: At what time does the commission complete its work for the season?


Frank Oliver: The work is always done in the summer, they come in in November.
Surveys, examination of survey returns, printing of plans, &c., $965,000.


Frank Oliver: The committee are aware that the township surveys of Dominion lands are carried on during the summer time. The parties have to start out early in order to do a summer's work. We have assumed that the money will be voted and the parties are now out.


Robert Laird Borden: How long have they been out.


Frank Oliver: They started out about the first of April.


Robert Laird Borden: What time do they -come in?


Frank Oliver: In November. Their work is done by November. If w-e only vote five-twelfths, they will be out of money when the summer is about half through.


Robert Laird Borden: One would think that five-twelfths would last until we come back again?


Frank Oliver: It is very expensive keeping parties in the field, and it would not be desirable to have to call them in for lack of funds.


Robert Laird Borden: Do they go out and remain out until the 1st of November, and then come in, and do you pay them then or during the summer?


Frank Oliver: The House has already voted one-sixth of the year's estimates. Out of that we have been able to arrange for the advances for the purchase of supplies, &c., always made to enable the surveyors to take the field. We now require a further sum to pay the expenses during the summer, and the wages. Five-twelfths would probably keep them going until the end of July, but would leave them actually stranded, and in the field at that time.


William D. Staples: Has the hon. minister given further consideration1 to the petition I presented to the House for the resurvey of township 8 in range 9, west of the first. The old mounds have become obliterated, and there is some dissatisfaction as regards the location of the line.
Mi\ OLIVER. In the province of Manitoba the resurveys made by our government are not recognized by the Manitoba government. This has practically tied up our efforts to resurvey lands in Manitoba. We may be able to come to some arrangement with the provincial government which Vill enable us to go forward with these surveys, but are tied up at present.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. -STAPLES. Has there been any correspondence with the provincial government?


Frank Oliver: Any amount of it.


William D. Staples: Can the hon. minister give any information as to the object of the large land survey done two years ago in township 9 range 10? There was an organization of -surveyors working there all summer, and the minister now says that the provincial government do not recognize the surveying done by the federal authorities. Why then was such a large amount expended?


Frank Oliver: I have not personal knowledge of the instance mentioned, and cannot give information at the moment.
iMr. BORDEN (Halifax). How much was spent last year?


Frank Oliver: 


Robert Laird Borden: How much to the 1st of September last?


Frank Oliver: I should say that considerably more than one-half the total would have been incurred by the 1-st of September, probably 66 per cent.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. minister says one-half would be incurred, but would it be s-pent? These parties are provided with supplies, and perhaps certain payments are made to their families in the interim, but the bulk of the payments are made after their return. Although one-half might be incurred by the 1st of September, I doubt if one-half would have to be paid. I thinlr the minister will find five-twelfths sufficient for the actual cash required, and when we come back no doubt the House will provide the balance.


Frank Oliver: I do not wi-sh to delay the House if my hon. friends opposite are not willing to pass the item.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose we take two-thirds?


Frank Oliver: We do not require the whole amount, but more than five-twelfths.


Mr. MAGRATH.: What proportion is required for -contract survey?


Frank Oliver: 


Charles Alexander Magrath: Is it not the case that these amounts are largely paid after the surveyor returns in November?


Frank Oliver: Certainly, we do not require the whole of the -money, and probably two-thirds would answer, but we have not made the calculations to enable us to make that division.


George Halsey Perley: There would be no difficulty in the contract surveys getting on

with five-twelfths before the 1st of September.


Frank Oliver: I am very sorry, but I have to say to the committee that five-twelfths will not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the service up to the time that that vote will expire. I say that on my fullest responsibility.


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister also say thart. it is customary to pay five-twelfths before the time mentioned? While I admit that five-twelfths may be earned by that date, is it customary to pay the money before the fall?


Frank Oliver: We have to pay bills as they are presented, and when money is earned it is necessary to provide for the payment. We might possibly get out of paying it, or not be called upon to pay it." On the other hand our surveyors get into jail sometimes because they are not in funds to pay, and we do not want to put them in that position.
There are several sub-items in vote 272 for which I ask consideration. This is the vote for Dominion lands and parks.
One sub-item is:
Contingencies, advertising, &c., $240,000.
This is to pay current expenses, such as the work of the homestead inspector, advertising, printing, and various other matters. The position is the same in regard to this and other items. We do not require the whole amount to carry us through the summer season, but we do require more than five-twelfths.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it. field work?


Frank Oliver: Yes, the homestead inspectors, the forest rangers, the fire rangers, and other parties in the field.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you asking for the whole amount?


Frank Oliver: 
George Henry Bradbury: There was an arrangement made to vote five-twelfths of Supply, and if you are going on making exceptions in this way you will nullify the arrangement.


William D. Staples: Has the minister sufficient to put him through until September 1?


Frank Oliver: No, five-twelfths will not carry us until September 1.


William D. Staples: How long will it carry you?


Frank Oliver: Probably until the end of July.


William D. Staples: We are to be back here on July 18.


Frank Oliver: Under this vote for Dominion lands and parks, there are the following items to which the same remarks would apply as to the item I have just mentioned. If the committee will vote two-thirds of these amounts we shall be very glad to make the change.


George Halsey Perley: Why not make it half? That would be ample.


Frank Oliver: It might be in some items, but not in all. The items to which I refer are:
Dominion. Lands (Surveys, $965,000.
Dominion Lands Contingencies, $240,000. Protection of timber, $255,000.
Irrigation surveys, $68,500.
(St. Mary and Milk rivers, $13,000.
National parks, $201,600.
Water investigations, $20,000.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), Is that all the minister wants?


Frank Oliver: All in that item. There are also two items relating to the Yukon, the grant to the Yukon council, and to the roads in the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you want these?


Frank Oliver: Summer is the only time when work can be done on the roads in the Yukon. We are anxious at any rate to have the whole of the road vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you want the vote for the council? *


Frank Oliver: That involves the general expenditure of the Yukon. However, if the committee will not agree to that I shall be glad to get the road vote, and drop the grant to the Yukon council, except that we get five-twelfths of it.


Robert Laird Borden: And you want two-thirds of these amounts?


Mr OLIVER.: No, two-thirds of the items referred to under Dominion lands and parks, but I would like the whole of the road vote to the Yukon, because the exnenditure, to be of any use, must be made early in the summer. Then there are two further items in the supplement-aries:
Water investigations, $55,000.
Seed grain advances, $60,000.
The water investigation is to go thoroughly into the question of water in the railway belt of British Columbia in view of the legislation which we have now before

the House, and which we hope to have passed, authorizing the Department of the Interior to deal with that question.


Robert Laird Borden: How much do you want?


Frank Oliver: We are asking for $55,000 in the supplementaries.


Robert Laird Borden: What proportion?


Frank Oliver: As the legislation has not passed, perhaps if we took five-twelfths it would answer our purpose. Seed grain, $60,000; that money is already spent, the seed grain is in the ground, and we would like to get the whole of the money. We would like to get two-thirds of the vote for Dominion lands, the whole of the Yukon roads, $50,000. We drop the grants to the Yukon council and surveys in British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: We are now voting one-half which, with one-sixth already voted, makes two-thirds.
Geological Survey Branch-lor explorations and surveys in Canada, including ethnological archeological and paleontological investigations; and to pay wages of explorers, draughtsmen and others, $142,000.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: This is to pay the salaries, expenses and outfitting of the geological parties in the field. Some of them are in the field now, and the rest are going out. We want the whole item if possible. We might be able to do with two-thirds. The expenditures are entirely during the summer. The expenditures are being made now; many of these parties are out in British Columbia, and one or two in the Yukon. Excepting the head of each party, who is an officer of the Geological Survey, all the rest of the men are hired, and have to be paid their monthly wages. We will probably require the whole amount. It would be very desirable if the House would vote the whole sum.
That was not in the list but it was mentioned las't evening.
Harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $40,000.
Kincardine-repairs to piers, $1,500.
Lake Nipissing-improvement of navigable channel in west arm leading through Shanty lake to Monetville, $3,500.
L'Orignal-repairs to wharf and freight shed, $1,000.
McGregor's creek-to pay W. F. Smith, $2,500; O'Keefe and Drew, $320, and the executors of the Poile estate, $1,500, in full and final settlement of all claims for losses sustained owing to damages caused to their properties in the city of Chatham by dredging performed in the creek by a government dredge, $4,320.
Montreal river-removal of boulders in Flat rapids, $3,000.
Pembroke-repairs to wharf and approach, $3,500.
Pelee Island-repairs to west dock, warehouse and approach, $1,000.
Port Hope-repairs to piers-to construct new superstructure on counterfort on west side of harbour and effect general repairs, $5,000.
Providence bay, Manitoulin island-warehouse built on stone embankment protected by cribwork, $3,650.
Rainy river-improvements at mouth, $60,000.
That is dredging work.
River Sydenham-second outlet from Chenal Ecarte to Mitchell's bay-protection of banks at Martin island with pile work, $1,000.
Saugeen river-repairs to north and south piers, $1,000.
Sheguiandah-Manitoulin island-repairs to wharf to make good damage by ice shoves, $4,000.
Southampton-harbour improvements, $3,000.
South Nation river-improvement of waterway, $4,000.
Thornbury-repairs to wharf, $1,000.
If any hon. gentleman would state any objection to any item to which there is objection, I would be quite willing to drop it.


George Halsey Perley: I think a chance should be given to the members to make inquiries and ask questions. If we grant one-half now, as we do to the Minister of the Interior, that would give the minister two-thirds altogether. That ought to be sufficient.


William Templeman: All right.


William Pugsley: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: They are all objectionable. We have no objection to giving the hon. gentleman the proportion arranged for, but we can go no further.


William Pugsley: Will you give a few of these in addition to what (has been done?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I do not think so. Ttie hon. gentleman will not need this money until the end of July when we will be back here. There is no reason for giving more than that called for by the arrangement made between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition.


William Pugsley: I w*ill not discuss the matter. Of course, if it is understood that hon. gentlemen are not willing to allow these items for repairs and work to be done by the day, the responsibility will

not be upon me. In Manitoba there is one item of $8,000 for general repairs and improvements. Repairs are needed in many places, the men have to be employed 'by the day, and I am -sure the public interest will suffer if that work is not done. Is there any objection to that?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There will not be many men employed on day work until after the 18th of July. There will be the five-twelfths of the estimates available which will provide more than is required.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I understand that is objected to?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, as far as I am concerned.


William Pugsley: Very well. Now in Saskatchewan and Alberta there are four items that I urgently ask for. There is the item of:
Harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $20,000.
These are in remote districts where it is necessary to send men to work by the day, and it will he extremely inconvenient if these men have to be recalled.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Where are the works?


William Pugsley: They are on the Saskatchewan and Peace rivers and Great Slave lake.


William D. Staples: What is the nature of the work?
I am sure that there will be no objection to giving him whatever he wants if *he makes out a good case. But, an arrangement has been entered into between the two leaders.


William Pugsley: I did not asume that ,to be the case because when we come back on the 18th July we have special business to take up, but if the leader of the opposition will make that statement, or if my hon. friend speaks with the authority of the other side, Ihen it will be different. I was assuming that when we come back we will not get into supply again perhaps until the autumn.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the minister's own look-out. I think that the position that we now take is absolutely reasonable under the circumstances, and we should not be expected to make pledges from one to the other. An arrangement was made and we propose to abide by it.


William Pugsley: Then I am to understand that in respect of all the itetas for harbours and rivers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the maritime provinces generally, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, every item is objected to?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You have the five-twelfths?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Except what has been allowed.


William Pugsley: Removing boulders, improving rapids, doing bridge work and making general improvements to assist navigation in the interest of the traders and settlers.


George Henry Bradbury: Do I understand that five-twelfths of these estimates have been arranged for?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: Then, of that item in Manitoba amounting to $8,000 you have authority to spend five-twelfths?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: Is not that sufficient until we come back?


William Pugsley: No, and I will tell my hon. friend why. The year will not expire until the 31st March next, and while this is supposed to be for the year, this is a class of work that has to be done during the open season. The season closes about the middle of October and therefore the five-twelfths will not enable us to" continue the work beyond midsunimer.


George Henry Bradbury: We will be back here on the 18th July, and if the minister will come down with anything that is special


Robert Laird Borden: If is not ex-ictly that, Mr. Chairman, if the minister ivill allow me to correct him. We are perfectly willing to take any one of these items and consider it whenever there is :ime and if there is time now. But when the minister asks us to take 449 items and pass them without discussion it is rather a remarkable order particularly in view of the understanding we have had. Among the items which he has presented to us as impressed with urgency I find a great many where the whole amount now asked is a revote, the money having been voted last year, and not a dollar expended You could hardly regard a case of that kind as a very urgent one. I observe a great many items of that kind.


William Pugsley: There are some.


Robert Laird Borden: A great many. For instance:
West Advocate-breakwater, $10,000.


William Pugsley: What province is that
dr. BORDEN (Halifax). In Nova Scotia.
?oulamond wharf-renewals and repairs to perstrueture, $1,600.
iitchfield-extension of breakwater, $4,000.

Liscomb harbour-wharf, $3,000.
Leonard's cove-breakwater, $1,500.
East Bay-wharf, $4,000.
Creignish-construction of landing pier, $2,500.
Central Economy-to renew stem of wharf,

So that the items of urgency do not seem to have been very carefully selected. I told my hon. friend, as he will remember, that I would do what I could to have a limited number of these items, really of a rush character, passed in full, but a wholesale order of 450 items embracing items of the character to which I have just alluded is a very different thing indeed.


William Pugsley: Well, suppose we come down to an item in regard to wihidh that objection would not apply. It is not a revote. I refer to item 158 for dredging, vessel repairs and new plant. Hon. gentlemen know that the dre'dging season is the summer season, and the officials of my department inform me that five-twelfths will not carry us along until the close of the summer season. I would, therefore, ask that that item be voted in full.


George Halsey Perley: The whole of it?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman will find that he has more than plenty to pay what will be required to pay before the 18th July.


William Pugsley: No, the difficulty is that we will have to stop the work -before the end of the dredging season. It seems to me that with respect to a great deal of necessary work, I shall have to refuse to give orders to go ahead at all, because the time will come early in the summer when there will be a lot of people clamouring for their pay, and I am not going to be in a position of not being able to pay them. It is very necessary, and the request is not unreasonable.


George Halsey Perley: The minister is making an effort to get political -capital out of this and to try and make the people believe that we are responsible for stopping the work by not voting the money. He has had lots of time to have his estimates passed had he been serious about them. We have been discussing things in this House that were not important at all; we spent two days on a Railway Act which could very well have gone over until after the adjournment, and this morning we were two hours discussing a Grain ~Act which the government must have known could not possibly have been rushed through the House in the very last hours. We do not object to these votes but we want an opportunity to discuss them and to understand them. The minister brings down here three or four hundred items without '


Robert Laird Borden: drawing a distinction between those which are urgent and those which are not, and he asks us to swallow them without knowing anything about them. Well, we object to that, and we think the people of the country will say we are right in objecting.


William Pugsley: For six or seven weeks early in the session my estimates were discussed day after day, and it was only on the special request of some hon. gentlemen opposite that we deferred the discussion on them and took up the estimates of some other departments. I have no intention of making political capital out of this; I may say there are a number of large items on page 56 which I thought were necessary, but the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister of the department were requested by me to cut down as closely as possible the items asked for, and to report what in their judgment it was absolutely essential in the public interest should be passed. The list of items which I handed the opposition was made out by the officials without any special instructions from me.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If there is urgency for these items the departmental officers knew it a month ago, and the minister could have arranged with his colleagues to give the discussion of them precedence, but he failed to do that. There is no urgency about it at all.


Richard Blain: This very item before us amounts to $2,000,000, and in it is included a revote for dredging in Saskatchewan and Alberta which was not expended last year and was not then considered urgent.


William Pugsley: That is for new dredging plant. I put it off until the present year, but the plant is necessary now.


Richard Blain: May I ask if this item includes anything for dredging at Port Credit this summer?


William Pugsley: I cannot say as to the details of that.


Richard Blain: Does not the minister think it is urgent?


William Pugsley: I am not sure whether that is on the program for this season or not, but we did some dredging there last year. We are dredging at Oakville in the adjoining constituency and propose working also at Bronte in Halton county. That work is only going to cost $1,400, but if we get at it right away it will be an enormous advantage to the people of the locality. I will not put people to work and not lie able to pay them.


George Halsey Perley: The minister has shown conclusively that he is not in earnest in asking for these votes. The leader of the opposition has demonstrated that the minister made out a list of items which he knew could not be accepted, including a number of revotes for work that was deferred from last year, and for which there was no urgency then. Had he made out a 'list of the urgent items he would have found us reasonable in passing them, but he knew we could not accept the list he presented and he simply endeavoured to put up a big bluff. His action is unfair in that respect.


William Pugsley: I would like to believe that my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) is reasonable, but if he says I am unreasonable I am unable to believe that he is reasonable. When he suggests that I am trying to put him in a hole, I answer that it would be cruelty to assist him in getting deeper in that direction than he already is. My officers inform me that all these items are equally urgent, but I suppose if I only brought down twenty items gentlemen opposite would tell me I should only have selected six. On reflection hon. gentlemen will see that this item of dredging ought to be_allowed. Dredging work is to-day as important as any work that can be done for the transportation interests of the country. Steamers are getting larger and in many cases harbours have silted in and in some cases there has been a lowering of water, particularly on the Great Lakes. But what is of the greatest importance is that the steamers are getting larger. There is a great deal of dredging work to be done. The inland waters freeze up in November and unless we can get the work done during the summer, we will be greatly handicapped and the public interest will be greatly prejudiced.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As I understand, the work the hon. gentleman has in mind has not been started yet. In that case five-twelfths of the amount will not have been earned by July 15. The hon. gentleman ignores the fact that we gre voting five-twelfths without discussion, he is asking for the other seven-twelfths. There is no possibility of excuse for saying that more than five-twelfths will be required before the end of July. The hon. gentleman takes care to give the opposition no credit for having voted the five-twelfths.


William Pugsley: I suppose I may take it for granted that hon. gentlemen are not willing to pass these items now, and, therefore, I shall not move further in them.
Mr, MAGRATH. Are the recommendations of his officers as to the urgency of these expenditures made in writing?


William Pugsley: Made in writing.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Has the hon. gentleman the memorandum?


William Pugsley: T shall send to my office for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The history of the hon. gentleman's conduct hardly bears out the statement which he makes to-day. He says these things are urgent. He got that information from the engineers of his department. I take the list handed to us yesterday, and I find Port Arthur * $650,000 for dredging, and the minister expects that will all be required before we get back and vote any more. Last year when we voted $600,000 he went on and spent nearly $400,000 more without anv vote, and- he could do it as well this year as. last year.


William Pugsley: That is not a desirable thing to do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit that, but it shows that the minister is equal to any emergency when he wishes to do a thing that we have not provided for in the regular way. If the dredges were employed every day they could not use up this amount in that time or anything like it. If urgency was the reason why did the minister discredit himself by putting forward an item like that? It tells the whole tale; it is not a desire to get through items where there is absolute urgency, but to get as many items on the programme as possible, and push them through without inquiry or anything else. The minister said some time ago that earlier in the session some members of the opposition desired that he should refrain from bringing forward his items, and should let other departments bring forward theirs. Why did he do it? Because of the crassness of human nature, that he did not seem willing to give any information to us. and only panned the questions put bv hon. members on this side of the House. In our judgment he did not desire to give information and, therefore, he was kept longer than he should have been to get his items through. Had he shown the same desire as is manifested by other ministers to give all the information possible, the House would have been more amiably inclined to let items go through, even although they had not the information; but it was because of the evident desire to give no information on any question asked, and of his attitude which seemed to say: Well they have to vote it sooner or later, and I will not give the information, I will jolly them along from week to week. When he would not give the information he was delayed from day to day. He said that some of us objected, arid asked to have the estimates of some of the other ministers brought on. That was because of the desire to get some I one who would give information, and not

be frittering away the time of the House as the Minister of Public Works^was doing in handling his estimates before the House when the opposition knew Jie was not sincere in his conduct, and was not making a reasonable effort to give the information.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member should not attribute insincerity to another hon. member.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well then, I shall say his burning desire, and his great sincerity.


William Pugsley: Nobody pays serious attention to my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The result was the same.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend's memory does not serve him- correctly. I was not complaining of any delay in getting my estimates through, I think they went through with very satisfactory progress indeed. I was greatly pleased at the way in which my hon. friends facilitated the progress of my estimates. They asked' that I should take a rest from the very great labour which they thought was being imposed on me working day after day and night after night, but I had nothing but feelings of gratification at the manner in which the hon. gentlemen facilitated the passage of the estimates. I have now the memorandum to which I referred, it is as follows:
Office of the Deputy Minister,
Ottawa, May 13, 1911. Memorandum to the Minister:-
The department is going to be greatly handicapped in its work this year owing to the full amounts of appropriations not being available. As you will realize, it is not possible, under such circumstances, to commence works by day labour. Where work is done that way, the money must be forthcoming to pay wages, and, in addition to that, it would not be good business to employ a foreman and a number of men, buy timber and commence repairing a wharf; get half way through and dismiss the whole lot, and take them on again two or three months later to finish the balance of the work.
As you are aware, one-sixth of the harbour and river appropriations .in the .main estimates have been voted, and possibly before the House adjourns next week, a further portion of one-third will be voted, making one-half >n all; but even so, our position as above outlined would not 'be much improved. Works could only be begun and left half finished, which would not be either economical or businesslike.
However, as hon. gentlemen take the view that it is not in the public interest that provision should be made for going on with these various works to which I have referred', I shall not press the matter any further


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hon. gentlemen have not taken that view. Hon. gentlemen believe that the works can be carried on in


Thomas Simpson Sproule: a business like way and successfully carried on with the amount they are willing to vote in most of these cases. An odd work might be picked out here and there where the circumstances were different, but it was because of the desire of the minister to select a great list of items about many of which there could be no urgency, and which could be proceeded with in the regular wav until the House resumes, that we were faced with the dilemma of not knowing what to give or what to withhold. Many of the items mentioned by the leader of the opposition were revotes, some of them have been in for two years in succession, and now it becomes terribly urgent that the money should be voted, although the money has been voted for two or three years without a stroke being done. Yet for three years not a stroke of work has been done. These things indicate to us. that the minister can scarcely be sincere in saying there is special urgency.
Mr. BLA1N. Since the minister has said that the opposition assisted him very materially in putting through his estimates in the earlier part of the session, liow many estimates were put through in his department? There must be a large number.


William Pugsley: During the early part of the session, I think all the public buildings through the Dominion were voted in full with the exception of some armouries.
To complete payment incurred in the Norji Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration before the Hague Tribunal-Revote, $50,000.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: I want to explain the necessity for this revote. About two months ago an item, of which this is in part a revote, was considered by this committee; and after some discussion, the committee voted $100,000 to complete the disbursements in connection with expenses at the Hague. My hon. friend fram East Hamilton (Mr. Barker) took considerable part in the discussion and will no doubt recollect the circumstances. That item was included in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March last, and as a result any unexpended portion lapsed on the 30th April. There remain still some accounts to pay, and as these accounts are overdue, and ought to be settled, I have taken the liberty of asking that this amount be voted now in full.
General protection of highways, $135,000.


George Perry Graham: This is an item for the subways and protection of level crossings on the Intercolonial railway. The urgency of the case is this, traffic must he continued, and we cannot take any chance of getting a subway partly through and then having to leave it incomplete.


George Halsey Perley: Are these contracts all made?


George Perry Graham: No, a good deal is done by our own men. This will include twelve level crossings.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If this is done by permanent employees, we pay them by the month or fortnight, and will not have to pay more than five-twelfths by the time we meet again.


George Perry Graham: We have to engage men in addition to our own. This is required for the protection of the public.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In that case I have no objection.
' Halifax-docks and wharfs at, $600,000.


George Perry Graham: This is even more urgent. An estimate was made for a dock of a certain size by Mr. Kennedy of Montreal, but a deputation from Halifax, representing the citizens, and the Board of Trade has been here urging strongly that the size of the dock be increased. If we increase the size, the amount voted will not pay more than two-thirds of the cost. We are urged stronglv to have the dock ready for next winter, and if we increase the size $200,000 more will be required.


George Halsey Perley: How much will the dock
While I am in favour of it I wish to call the attention of this committee to the fact that when it comes to a question of getting an item of $600,000 through for the port of Halifax which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) represents he is willing to support it, but refuses items for absolutely necessary public works in other sections of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) had gone after his items in the same way as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) went after his, I think he would have had exactly the same difficulty. The Minister of Railways selected a few items which he declared to this, committee are urgent, and he explained what the urgency is. So far as this item is concerned, if the minister says it is urgent, I am willing that it should go through. But, of course, the minister must pay some attention to the objection raised by his hon. colleague. He will have to take that into consideration. I leave it entirely to him. I have explained that, upon his explanation of Urgency, I am willing that this should be done, hut at the same time I think that proper consideration should be given to the protest of his colleague.
cost altogether?


George Perry Graham: The estimate was $600,000, but we are asked to increase the size, and that will cost $200,000 more.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the necessity of increasing the dock service is concerned, there can be no doubt. The traffic at Halifax more than doubled last winter, and there was great delay in the transmission of freight for that reason that the accommodation was entirely inadequate. I saw the delegation which came from Halifax three or four weeks ago, and which met the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways, and some other members of the cabinet. There is no doubt at all about the necessity of increasing the accommodation, and of doing that as speedily as possible. If the minister says it is necessary to vote this for the purpose of going on speedily with the work, I would not object.


William Pugsley: I am strongly in hope that this item will go through, but I would like to. call attention to the fact that in the presence of the leader of the opposition, the assurance was given that on the l*tn of July, when we resume any additional amounts required will be voted. Now, it cannot be assumed for a moment that $600,000 will be expended upon this work before the 18th of July. Mv hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and his friends have refused absolutely to permit items equal y necessary with this item to go through.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend, perhaps, did not hear me-perhaps he was quite willing not to hear me at the moment-when I expressed the hope that this item would go through, but I called attention to the inconsistent course of my hon. friend when it came to dealing with other public works in other parts of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: I told the Minister of Public Works here, and elsewhere; select the items you regard as of the greatest urgency, and we will endeavour to have them go through.


William Pugsley: I did that.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and the minister brought in 447 items.


William Pugsley: But in the aggregate, outside of dredging, not one-third of this item.


Mr LANCASTER.: There is no inconsistency. The Minister of Railways says that this is an urgent matter, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) for whom we on this side-without casting any reflections-have more rospe?* than we have for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) happens to agree with the Minister of Railways. Knowing what he knows about Halifax, when the Minister of Railways in his tactful way presents his case, the leader of the opposition threes with him. Having the unanimous 'opinion on both sides, we pass the item.

The Minister of Public Works is hopelessly alone in his opinion.


George Perry Graham: The next is:
Welland ship canal-To complete survey. $50,000.
I had been in hopes of laying the report on the table this session giving some definite information as to the Welland canal route. I now hope to be able to lay it on the table when the House meets again in July. Two or three routes have been surveyed, but none satisfactory. The surveyors are now investigating another. I have urged them to use all diligence, and make as great progress as possible. When the House meets I hope to be able to report a recommendation by the engineer of the proper route to take.


Morley Currie: I do not see why There is any urgency in this item. The country has a map of that section to scale of six foot intervals made by the Militia Department. An engineer knows that with !i map of that kind he can pretty near pick out a route even sitting in an office, .this whole thing is a big bluff hung up on the people of the Welland district to make Them believe that there is going to be a new canal. If the government is going to force its new policy'of trade relations with "^United States through parliament, a Welland canal will be only a detriment to Ps, because it will mean that we will be maintaining a great public work mainly for the use of foreign ships. The time when this House will reassemble will give ample opportunity to vote any further soipplies for this purpose the minister may need. It seems to me that the sum is exceedingly large for the survey of that country. The whole distance between the two lakes is only a two-hour run in an automobile; a man on a bicycle can cover it in about two hours and a half. I -suppose with a vote like this every good Liberal in that district will expect to be on the staff of that suivey. That is the only reason of urgency that I can see in this expenditure. The item sihould stand over.


George Perry Graham: This is not a question of -the survey of the surface. Borings have been made on several routes and must be made on another. It is too late to abandon the policy of at least completing the survey for the men in the field are working as hard as they can, and I have been urging.them to come to a definite conclusion as to the route.
in^beLiNCASTER1i The-V h'ave been making these surveys all winter, have they not?


George Perry Graham: More or less-yes- I
1 have,been much disappointed that the practical difficulties in the way Mr. LANCASTER.
have prevented the making of a report. I am not going to urge it, but I think that in the interest of the country and for the satisfaction of everybody, it would be a feood thing to complete these surveys as soon as possible. I have not been extravagant in asking heavy items, but this, I think, is urgent.


Morley Currie: I do not think the House is pining for information on this question. As a matter of fact there are 'two or three factions in the House, and the country fighting over these canals and, as one who stands aside from them all, my opinion is that it will take five or ten years to decide whether they are going to build the Nipissing and Georgian Bay canal, rebuild the old Welland, or build a new Welland. The idea of this expenditure, I suppose, is to dig post holes all over the escarpment, and you may be sure that in every post hole there will be an Italian, and a good Liberal at $4 or $5 a day bossing him. Every loose fish in that district that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Pater-'son) has not already engaged as a special officer will be attached to this survey, judging from the large sum asked for. The teork is not urgent; no lives will be lost -if it i-s not finished. Even if we had the information before the House, it would .take five or six months to consider it, and the loss of a month and a half-even if it were to take place-would not matter very much.


Mr. GORDON (Nipissing).: I do not see much use in spending this money on investigation. We all know that over a million dollars has been spent in investigating the feasibility of the Georgian Bay canal, and it has been demonstrated conclusively hot only that it is feasible, but that it is one of the best undertakings the country could possibly go into. That being the case, I do not see the use of spending money looking for another Toute for the Welland canal.


George Perry Graham: The House has voted money to complete the surveys of the Georgian Bay route, and all I ask is the same policy in this other case-money to complete the surveys. We have spent over a million dollars in investigating the Georgian Bay canal route.


George Gordon: But having done that, no commencement has been made to the canal. If you go on and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in this kind of way, what is the good of it?


Morley Currie: I think that item should stand. When this government cannot make up its mind for political reasons what line of action to take in an important matter, and starts spending money

on investigations, by the time they have investigated the question they will have spent enough money to (build the whole work. I think the government should decide what they are going to do and then spend money on it. But spending money on it beforehand is something that is going to be of no use. If the government wishes to go on with this canal, there is no reason why the money already voted will not carry them over six weeks. I do not see any urgency in the matter at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think this vote should be objected to under the circumstances. The fact that a large amount has been spent in investigations into the feasibility of the Georgian Bay canal is surely no reason why this reasonable amount should not be spent in connection with the enlargement of the Welland canal, which is such an essential link in our system of transportation.
For the decoration of public buildings throughout Canada in connection with the celebration of the coronation of His Majesty the King, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Carried.


George Halsey Perley: What is the plan for expending this money?


William Pugsley: I have conferred with the officials in my department, and it is thought that $25,000 will be sufficient to do a reasonable amount of decorating of public buildings throughout the country. There seems to be, as we have learned from communications sent to us, a desire in many sections of the country to celebrate the coronation of his Majesty. I have made inquiry, and find that this was not done when his late Majesty was crowned; there was no decoration of public buildings throughout the country. But I have had applications from different places, and I am sure that the people generally expect that we will take some part in the celebration in the way proposed.


Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: Will each small town that has a public building get a portion of this money for the purposes of decoration?


William Pugsley: I think that any town which proposes to celebrate the coronation, and to go to some expense, will receive a part of it. We will devote a sum proportionate to the population to the different towns to assist in the celebration.


Charles Avila Wilson: There are three small towns in my locality that have public buildings, and I think they ought to have their share of the money, so that they may make a decent showing on that occasion, if we are to spend any money for that purpose. I do not know whether it is wise for the government to spend it, or whether it
should not be the municipality. But if it is the opinion of the House that we ought to spend money in that way, I think there ought to be a sufficient allowance so that every town with public buildings might have a chance to get a portion of it for the purpose of decorating such buildings.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I understand the Minister of Public Works to say that this vote is for the purpose of decorating public buildings. Now how are the people in a county that has no government public building going to show their loyalty? Are they to be put in the background?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We will have to pay for it ourselves.


William Stevens Fielding: It has been understood that, as respects all the items which have not been voted in full, there shall be voted a sum which, with what already has been voted, will make fiye-twelfths of the whole. That'is a matter involving calculations that have to be made by the clerks, who cannot complete their work until we ascertain what progress we would make this afternoon in passing the items in full. Now that that is understood, the clerks will be able to advance their work, and at the evening sitting I hope we will have the matter in complete form. I, therefore, move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.
Some resolutions reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Resolutions reported, and agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House again went into Committee of Supply.
['I\nThat when this House adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Tuesday, July 18, 1911.']
William Stevens Fielding: The officials of the House have made more rapid progress than I had anticipated, and they have placed in my hands the schedules of the proportion of the votes which has been agreed to. They are very numerous, and I will ask the House to assume that the calculations are properly made by the officials.


Mr. MILLER.: Is there any possibility of making such an arrangement as will enable us to meet on the 1st of August rather than on the 18th of July?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that it is rather too late now. That would necessarily involve a further vote in Supply, and I am afraid it is too late to arrange that now.


Henry Horton Miller: I thought that probably it could have been arranged at this time.


William Stevens Fielding: I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you will not be expected to read all these items.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand thev cover the items of which a proportion is taken?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are they separate?


William Stevens Fielding: Each item is set forth for its exact proportion. It will be subject to a slight revision in consequence of the changes made within the last few minutes, but subject to that it is the exact sum which we vote.


Richard Blain: Does the minister know how much was voted in full.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot tell at this moment.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall ask the House to wait until the evening sitting for the Bill founded on this resolution.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved the second reading of Bill (No. 216) to amend the Post Office Act.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is important to give an instruction to the committee, and I would move to add to this motion:
And that it be an instruction from this. House to the said committee to so apportion the increases provided in section 1 of the Bill as to ensure, in the reclassification of employees referred to in said section, a salary calculated upon the duration of the services of said employees, so that officers of long and meritorious time of service should not he placed upon the same footing as officers but lately appointed.
I intended explaining this, but I shall not take the time of the committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This principle is followed throughout this and the other Bills, so that the motion need not be pressed forward. This principle is adopted in the department, and my hon. friend will see in considering the various sections of the Bill that it is being followed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend states that the principle contended for in this motion is followed, and will be followed-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.
Mr. MONK-I would withdraw the motion, but I would like it to go on record with the statement of my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It will be in ' Hansard


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It has been read by an hon. member, I suppose it is on ' Hansard'.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
Henry Horton Miller: On section 1,


Rodolphe Lemieux: The explanations that I gave in moving the resolution the other day are complete as regards the classification, the changes, and the increase. There are many minor details which add to the length of the Bill, but I shall ask the House to take for granted the explanations I gave the other day as to its general scope.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no doubt that the post office employees in our larger cities are suffering from a very considerable grievance on account of the difference between their salaries and the salaries of other civil servants, therefore it seems to me that the principle of this Bill cannot be opposed. At the same time we have not carried the Civil Service reform through all the branches of the service as we should have done. When we found that the excellent reform introduced by this government for the inside service worked satisfactorily, we should, without any unnecessary delay, have carried those reforms to the outside service. We did not do so because there is no doubt the government in reforming the inside service cut off from members of this House a patronage with which they were not willing to part, and we have continued for the outside service a system which is universally condemned. This has caused many inconveniences and disadvantages to the public at large, and to the Civil Service itself because the inequalities that existed for years in the outside service have been maintained, and we have found in the outside service new employees gaining government patronage and enjoying large salaries when really old and meritorious employees were less generously treated than these newcomers. That system will continue as long as we do not carry the reform from the inside to the outside service. The Postmaster General some time ago increased the salaries of the letter carriers. Their salaries were increased 40 per cent, and they undoubtedly deserved that increase. I believe that the letter carriers in the larger cities, like Montreal and Toronto, are to-day not sufficiently paid when you consider the work they have to do, the trust that is imposed in them and the expenses which have so greatly increased in our large cities. They have had an increase of 40 per cent, and yet men working alongside of them in the post offices have received no increase. The customs employees were increased some time ago 33J per cent. There is no reason why they should be increase and the post office employees should not be increased. What is the increase which my hon. friend provides for in this Bill? It is an increase of $50 a year except in the case of employees who belong to a class who receive on ap-

pointment $500. Take the case of a man in a large city who has been in the employ of the country for 20, 25, or 30 years, and who receives $1,000. He belongs to a class where the increase will be only $50 a year until he receives $1,200 which will be in four years, an increase of $4 a month. It does not seem to me that that is a fair increase. I have in mind the case of a man who has been 38 years in the public service, and who has belonged to the second class since 1887. He will receive an increase of $50 a year during the next four years in order to reach the maximum of his class. Another one whose case was brought to my attention in Montreal receives $1,000 after 26 years' service. These two men have been in positions of great trust, and have always given perfect satisfaction. Their salaries are, by common admission absolutely inadequate, yet they are to get an increase of $200 extending over four years or $4 a month. That is not a fair increase, it is not at all on the same footing as the increases in other branches of the service unless, as my hon. friend has stated, I do not understand the Act, and that it is intended to take these old employees from the class in which they are and put them in another class, say above the $1,200 maximum, where they will go from $1,200 to $1,600. Even in that case it does not seem to me that the increase given to those men is sufficient unless they skip a class and are put in a class quite above that in which they have been for so many years. These old employees And themselves working alongside men who have been appointed within the last two or three or five years, who receive the same salary, or very nearly the same salary, and some, I believe I can say truthfully, even more. This is not the proper way to ensure a good Civil Service in these large post offices where the bulk of the work devolves upon these very old and experienced employees who really conduct the business of the office. With regard to post office employees in Montreal generally, they do their work excellently, the cases of dereliction of duty and breaches of trust particularly are extremely rare when you consider the large responsibilities upon the employees.
I have no hesitation in saying that if in the city of Montreal, the system which has worked so well in the interior were transferred to the outside, at any rate in the Postal department, we would have a much larger revenue. In London, if you drop a letter into a box at a certain hour, you are sure that at a given hour it will be delivered into any other part of the city, but you cannot depend on anything of the kind in Montreal. This session, letters I (have sent from Ottawa to Montreal have been detained 24 hours. I do 302
not blame the officials because they are heavily worked and not neglectful but the system is bad. In Montreal we cannot rely on letters being promptly delivered there as they are elsewhere. Consequently when you want a letter delivered at a certain hour, you have to use other means than the postal service. Unless my hon. friend will do justice to these older employees by taking them out of their present position and putting them in a superior class, flhe advantages to them from this Bill will be very small. A man at $1,000 a year, who has given a quarter of a century to the service of his country, will stand to get an increase to $1,200 in four years. Of course it will be open to my hon. friend to change, his class, but the time has arrived to carry the reform from the interior to the outside service. The only obstacle in the way is the desire to give a sop of patronage to members of parliament. In the United States they have carried civil service reform very much further tfhan we have. They began with the customs in New York, where the spoils system had produced the worst results. That system is entirely done away with, and the postal service has been considerably improved also. I would invite my hon. friend to carry civil service reform into the postal department throughout the outside service, and in this way considerably increase our postal revenue.


Mr. RUSSELL.: The other night when we discussed the resolution, the minister gave us to understand that the men in the service were perfectly satisfied with the increases. But since the wording of the Bill has been made known, I have received several letters and telegrams from men in the service, indicating that tthey are anything but satisfied. Here is one telegram which I received:
Bill much less favourable than appears. Clerks greatly disappointed.
I had another letter from a clerk who pointed out to me that in a good many cases a large percentage were receiving practically no benefit from the increase. There is no doubt that the object of these resolutions was to increase the salaries of different clerks in the post office and railway mail service; but in the way these increases are proposed, in some cases the clerks have to work five or six years before they begin to derive any benefit. Take a clerk who is now at $900, he will (have to work ten years before he gets to the top of this increase or six years until he gets to the present maximum of $1,200. Then he begins to derive some benefit from what we are given to believe is an increase at present. It is not much of an increase the clerks are getting now. They are al-



ready getting {50 inciease in their salary per year, and have to go on working six years before they participate in the increases given under the new Bill. After thinking this matter over, perhaps the Postmaster General will consider favourably some of these things, and make the increase from {800 instead of from {1,000. That would be some sort of an important increase. It would be something in the way of an immediate increase to the men. There is no doubt that they have the same reason to expect an increase that the men of the inside service hhve. I do not see why there should not be an increase to the outside service as well as to the inside service who happen to be under the Civil Service Act. All are public servants of the Dominion, anti all give good Teturns for the salaries they receive. We should do justice to all public servants. But I suppose I need not deal at greater length with this question. The Postmaster General understands what we need. We desire some real benefit to the employees, and I think that what I have asked is not in any way unreasonable.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I desire to move, in conformity with what I stated a few moments ago, to add to the section the following proviso :
Provided that a new classification of all employees referred to in the foregoing section, whose term of employment in the public service exceed ten years, be effected upon the coming into force of the present Act, so as to ensure to said employees a salary proportioned to the duration of their services as compared with the salaries of officers more recently appointed.
I suppose the minister will have no objection to this. He says this is the principle that will guide him in the application of the law.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not think that, at the present stage, I could take it upon my.self to accept the amendment. I told my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), that the Bill as framed is exactly on the classification adopted for the inside service, and no added words of mine, or of my hon. friend could perfect it so far as that is concerned. He stated a moment ago that we should carry out as soon as possible the principle that the employees in the outside service in the larger cities should come under the Civil Service Act. If my hon. friend had been here the other day, and had listened to the long discussion which took place on the Bill he would have learned that that is my policy. We take the first step this year in classifying the clerks and employees in the post offices of the Dominion ag they are classified in the Post Office Department. The next step, and one that I intend to take, but to which parliament as a whole perhaps, is not yet committed, is the bring-Mr. RUSSELL.
ing of the outside officers under the operation of the Civil Service Act. That pledge I have given to the House, and I intend to carry it through. The Bill has been framed very carefully by the officers of the department, and I could not alter the wording of it. All 1 can say is that the older employees in the service will benefit by the Bill. I am told by my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Russell), that the increase is very small. I .heard the ^speech of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), the other night about the bank clerks; and that, and other things lead me to believe that the salaries in the post office will compare with the salaries in our financial institutions, and in other employments. The young man is appointed at {500 and gets a Taise of {100 if he behaves well. He goes up to {800, to {.1,000, to {1,200, to {1,600, and if he is a clever man, and knows how to make his way, if he shows some intelligence and some diligence in his readings he will soon be one of the best employees in the service. Examinations-we call them case examinations.-are required' every six months. This, as I said, is the first step. According to the arrangement, not by the whim or caprice of the minister, but by the reorganization of the post office system, there will be regular case examinations, and the best men in the service can have a chance to assert themselves, and to get increases. Again I say, that as a whole the increases are quite substantial, and will offer an opportunity to every diligent officer in the department. My hon. friend from East Toronto says he has heard many complaints about the increases. Well, my experience is that no man in the service is pleased when he gets {200 of an increase if he expected to get {250 or {300. But there must be a limit, and that limit is a question of policy. The government as a whole say that those employees can be increased to a certain limit, and not beyond. This is a charge upon the public revenues. I told the hon. gentleman the other day that the total increase of the employees of the post office would amount this year to over {51,000. Three years ago, we increased the letter carriers, which meant another charge on the public revenues, I made that increase cheerfully, and I think that the letter carriers as a body, are satisfied. Their salaries will reach {2.75 a day. Of course, there are a few agitators who can never be satisfied, who think they are entitled. to salaries equal to the indemnity of a member of parliament, or the. salary of a minister of the Crown. We cannot satisfy these agitators. The less work they do the more highly they think they are entitled to be paid. But, as I have said, the great majority of these men are satisfied. Of course, if they are encouraged by gentlemen who pat them on the shoulder and

say: Why do you not have some more? You are getting $2.75, but you ought to get $3. Demand it; the minister will give it to you. If they are talked to in that way dissatisfaction may increase. Of course, I am only administering a trust for the people of Canada, but I think from the expressions of opinion I have heard, the people are satisfied. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), spoke of young men in banks twenty and twenty-five years of age receiving $400 a year.
Why, Sir, in the Post Office Department they receive $500 on appointment, and an annual increase of $100 until they reach the maximum of their class. Then if they are diligent, if they are intelligent, if they show some .ability, they are taken into a higher class. But the man who simply performs his work in an easy way, who is always looking at the clock to leave the office, that man will not get beyond the maximum of his class. Now as regards the pull, or such influences as are mentioned by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), let me tell him this: During the last five years that I have been Postmaster General I have made very few appointments to positions carrying large salaries. I have in mind two or three officers who have been appointed to the higher positions. Let me mention the post office inspector at Ottawa, Mr. Bolduc, a brother of Senator Bolduc, belonging to a Conservative family, and a Conservative himself. He had served for twenty years in the Quebec district. I did not consider his political leanings, I only knew that he was the best man in the service in the province of Quebec, and I gave him that lift. I have in mind also another post office inspector whom I appointed the other day in Quebec to succeed Mr. Caouette. He had served the public for many years in the post office, and I was reminded by some of my friends that I should have taken a Liberal. But that gentleman is a man of ability, he has had a large experience, and that is the keystone of the whole service. Then I selected Mr. Green, of Quebec, a gentleman whose politics I do not know, but everybody admits that he was by far the best man', and I believe he was aiso an Irishman. In the higher positions of the service, the best men always reach the top.


Joseph Russell: I would like to ask the
minister a question. Under present conditions and regulations, is the department getting satisfactory men in the railway mail service? Have they any difficulty in maintaining the service with satisfactory men?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The only difficulty I find in getting men for the railway mail service is to find those who are able to 302J
pass the qualifying examinations. Otherwise, we get hundreds of men who are ready to serve as railway mail clerks, but they are not able to pass the qualifying examination. We are obliged to take them on as labourers, in twenty-five cases, out of forty, and give them a chance to learn their runs, and after a while they are able to pass the examination. But it is when the time comes to appoint railway mail clerks who can pass an examination without coming into the service first as labourers that we find difficulty. Later on they pass the examination and are appointed regularly. My hon. friend may be sure that we have hundreds and thousands of applications for the position, and the minister and the members are pestered through 'the applications we receive.


Joseph Russell: Is there any way in which you make the position attractive enough to get men who could qualify? When you get men who are able to qualify at the start, would you necessarily send for them from among the labourers you take in and train?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
George Henry Cowan: When the Postmaster General institutes a comparison between a post office employee and a bank employee he cannot afford to forget, the fact that a bank offers rewards for merit, and a preferment which the Post Office Department does not offer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A man can get to the top in the Post Office Department if he possesses the necessary energy and industry. The best men in the service are those who fought their way up from the bottom, who showed pluck and industry.


George Henry Cowan: I quite agree. But I say that even if a post office employee does reach the top, the reward he gets on reaching the top is nothing in comparison with the reward a bank employee receives who reaches the top in his calling.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the reward of the bank employee? The hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) told us the other night.


Mr.   OOWAN@: My hon. friend from Grey was referring to the ordinary employee of a bank. But human nature is so constituted that a man is willing to take a very small salary for his labour if the goal of his ambition offers a very high one, and if the reward when he reaches that goal is a great one. I want to point out to the minister that he cannot afford to overlook that fact, and that since he is not offering that great reward to the man who attains the goal of his ambition in the Post Office Department, it is the duty of a minister, and of the country to pay liberally the men for the work they perform in the service.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


REVILLON FRERES TRADING COMPANY, LIMITED.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 158) to incorporate Revillon Freres Trading Companv, Limited-Mr. Devlin.
Samuel Barker: The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin), had this Bill in charge, but he is not here. All the clauses were passed in committee with the exception of No. 10. That was laid over because of some technical changes made in section 10, by the law clerk, not altering in the least the sense or legal effect of the Bill. Since then clause 10 has been again submitted to the law clerk, a new clause has been agreed upon, and as I was a member of the committee to which, in a sense, the Bill was referred, I was about to propose a new clause 10. Perhaps as the hon. member for Wright is now in his place he will do it.


Mr. DEVLIN.: No, I would rather that the hon. gentleman should propose it.


Samuel Barker: I would, therefore, move that section 10, as it appears in the Bill, be struck out, and that the following be inserted in lieu thereof:
10. At least two directors shall be residents of Canada and subjects of His Majesty.
As to this, clause I may say. that the real proprietorship of Revillon Brothers is in old France, they are a very wealthy concern, they established a large business in Canada, and they are constituting a company to manage the Canadian business. The present Bill appoints five directors, and it was_ considered' advisable that at least two directors should be residents of Canada and British subjects. That is acceptable on all sides.
2. Non-resident directors may vote by proxy a,t "efting of directors, and such proxy shall be held by a director only, but no meet-Mr. LEMIEUX.
ing shall be competent to transact business unless at least two directors are present in person.
That, was discussed fully in committee, and I am aware that its terms are strictly in accordance with what the committee desired to include in the Bill.
3. No such proxy shall be valid unless it has been made or renewed in writing within one year next preceding the time of suc-h meeting.
That clause was not fully discussed in the committee, but it has been added in accordance with the general laws about proxies as to insurance, and all other such companies so as to prevent old proxies being held by parties, and used when perhaps all knowledge of them has expired. That simply requires that every proxy to be used shall be renewed within a year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 202) to incorporate the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company, Mr. Martin (Regina).

[Stage Direction]
Bill ,(No. 218) for the relief of George Mackay Sutherland.-Mr. Tolmie.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 216) to amend the Post Office Act, Mr. Lemieux.
George Henry Cowan: At six o'clock I was drawing the attention of the House to what seems to me ,to be the fact, that the analogy dra!wn by the Postmaster |General between the (position of a post office employee ,and a hank clerk is a fallacious one. In the case of the post office employee at the end of a long and faithful service, Ithere are awaiting him none of .those big rewards that human nature craves, mo m,oney rewards in the sense of princely incomes, nor social distinctions such |as the minister himself may attain unto in the shape of knighthood. And so to com-pen'sate for this lack of big rewards, ,the income from day to day should be sufficient to (furnish an incentive to the employee to do his (best, and at the same time to induce a better class of employees into the service. The analogy is not a fair one. Many of the post office employees are just as |well equipped as bank clerks. There are no Sir Edward Cloustons and no Sir Edward Walkers amongst them, but compensation should be made them in some form. Pefihaps the minister can tell us

how _ 'many 'mute inglorious Miltons are wasting their sweetness on the desert air' in his department. I draw the attention of the minister to another fact. I submitted to the House two years ago carefully collated figures which went to show that at that time the |cost of living on the Pacific coast was aJbout forty-six per cent greater than in the East. What provision is the minister making to meet this greater cost of living of his employees in the west?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I made a statement as to that the other day showing that an extra allowance was made to officials living west of Port Arthur. The leader of the House reminds me that time is precious, and that if there is to be discussion we must postpone the consideration of this Bill until after the adjournment. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it the intention not to pass the Bill now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: ^ The Supply Bill will come in a few minutes, and adjournment will take place this evening. This measure lias been already thoroughly discussed, and while I like discussion, yet the adjournment cannot be delayed, as the Deputy Governor will arrive shortly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There will be no delay so far as we are concerned. The Postmaster General took up most of the time to-day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In answering questions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It will only take a few minutes to put it through.


William Stevens Fielding: All rljght, put it through.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier announced that he had an amendment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the Postmaster General will carry out the idea suggested by that amendment, as I understood him to say he would, I will draw it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the object of the Bill; we both are agreed on that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would remark that I have done less talking than the Postmaster General. I notice that my hon. friend is developing a tendency of one of his eminent colleagues to absorb all the time of the House on his own measures.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name.	.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will not mention his name; one saturn devouring his own children is enough.


Richard Blain: I have considerable correspondence, which if time permitted, I would read, but I shall only read one paragraph in one letter, which says

I am now drawing $1,040 and have been over nineteen years in the service, so that it will be three years yet before I reach the present maximum of $1,200, and seven years before I reach the $1,400, or twenty-six years to get to the maximum salary.
I am not going to make any comments, but I hope the minister will give this some further consideration.


George Henry Bradbury: I have a telegram from Winnipeg regarding this matter:
Re Postmaster General's statement as reported in to-day's Winnipeg * Telegram ' that an allowance is paid western postal servants of $180 to $280 per year to meet extra cost of living in the west, we beg to draw your attention to the fact that the allowance paid at Winnipeg is from $200 to $180 according to salaries. $800 and under only receive a maximum allowance of $180. An allowance under $180 per year is entirely inadequate to meet the ever increasing cost of living in the west. Press for the maximum allowance of $180 on all salaries.	'
I do not know what that means, but I infer from it that they do not always get the $180 allowance, and I understood from the Postmaster General that they do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Samuel Barker: I have frequently had occasion in my constituency to look into complaints of officials in the hon. gentleman's department. I have not taken their statements, but have obtained information over a period of years, and I do not hesitate to say that there have been many cases of very gross injustice to deserving employees. I do not propose to go into any details, but ask the House to accept my word. I have not encouraged such complaints, but rather discouraged them, but my opinion is that if the Postmaster General, or his very able deputy minister will frequently look into the operation of the changes in the staff, and take some responsibility upon themselves for what is done in their names, a great deal of injustice will be prevented, and the staff generally will be better satisfied.
On section 9,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does that mean that they must pass an examination yearly?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a qualifying examination, and besides they must pass a

case examination. That applies to those who come up. to reach their maximum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a man has been 15 years in the service, surely he could not inprove in his work after that.


Robert Laird Borden: I have a communication from the western railway mail clerks, dated May 13, 1911, in which they point out that this Bill is not fair to them in several respects. No doubt the minister has received a similar communication.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why does he not relieve the injustice?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Post office officials are only human and poor humanity has always a grievance. Formerly they were appointed at $500 and received an annual increase of $50 until they reached $700. Now they are appointed at $500, and they reach $800 by annual increases of $100. Then instead of getting a maximum of $1,200, they get $1,400.


Robert Laird Borden: Here is what they say:
If you take the case of a man drawing $1,200, he is now drawing $1,200 and under the present schedule he also receives a living allowance of $120 or 10 per cent on his salary. Under the proposed schedule he advances to $1,250 by annual increases of $50 and loses his allowance of $120, making a reduction of $70 the first year and $20 the second year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The writer of that letter is under a misapprehension. I have received lots of such letters. They receive 10 per cent as a special allowance when they reach $1,200.


Robert Laird Borden: Then he is not accurate in supposing his salary wijl be reduced.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Will it be actually increased?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then 'they speak of their expectation of a flat increase of $150 and yearly increases of $60. They think this Iwould be only reasonable under the conditions of the services, particularly in view of the high cost of living.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When they are placed in the inside service I will seriously consider a flat increase such as the "inside service received.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the ohjeietion to putting them in the inside service receives.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no objection myself, but it takes time to commit parliament to it. This classification is based on the inside service. I hope, within ta year or two to (bring them into the inside service.
Mr. BORDEN i(Halifax). I hope so,- perfectly willing to take time, 'but not willing to take to eternity.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time an'd passed.
(ADJOURNMENT UNTIL JULY 18.
William Stevens Fielding: I
That when this House adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Tuesday, July 18, 1911.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Ways and Means.
["An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.\nAn Act to amend the Canada Medical Act.\nAn Act respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.\nAn Act respecting a patent of the Goldschmidt Thermet Company.\nAn Act to incorporate the Restigouche Riparian Association.\nAn Act foT the relief of Mary Jane Beatty.\nAn Act for the relief of Robert William Logan.\nAn Act respecting a patent of Conduits Company, Limited.\nAn Act to incorporate the Hudson Bay Mortgage Corporation.\nAn Act to incorporate the Imperial Steamship Company.\nAn Act to incorporate the Canadian Baptist Foreign Mission Board.\nAn Act respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.\nAn Act respecting The Alsek and Yukon Railway Company.\nAn Act to incorporate The Pacific and Hudson Bay Railway Company.\nAn Act respecting the Western Central Railway Company.\nAn Act to prohibit the improper use of Opium and other Drugs.\nAn Act respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.\nAn Act respecting the Hamilton Provident and Loan Society.\nAn Act to incorporate the Ontario-Miohigan Railway Company.\nAn Act to incorporate the British Columbia and White River Railway Company.\nAn Act respecting the Songhees Indian Reserve.\nAn Act to amend the Post Office Act.\nAn Act to correct certain clerical errors in the French Version of the Inland Revenue Act.\nAn Act for the relief of Walter Harvey Kirkland.\nAn Act for the relief of Mary Kathleen Grit-' tenden.\nAn Act for the relief of Pauline Winslow Saunderson.\nAn Act for the relief of Nellie Bridgland Morrison.\nAn Act for the relief of Frances Whittington Truesdell.\nAn Act to incorporate The Canada West Loan Corporation.\nAn Act to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to the Harbour of Toronto.\nAn Act to incorporate the Imperial Traction Company.\nAn Act respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.\nAn Act to amend the Department of Railways and Canals Act.\nAn Act respecting the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.\nAn Act respecting a Patent of The Boiler Flue Cleaner and Supply Company, Limited.\nAn Act to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of Trussed Concrete Steel Company, of Canada, Limited.\nAn Act for the relief of Violet Jane Dakin.\nAn Act; for the relief of Hugh Samuel Bell.", "An Act to provide for increasing the capital stook of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company.\nAn Act for the relief of Fanny Mary Healy.\nAn Act for the relief of Gertrude Mary Grantham.\nAn Act respecting the Canada National Fire Insurance Company.\nAn Act respecting certain Patents of Mun-derlolx and Company, Limited.\nAn Act respecting the Inspection and Sale of Seeds.\nAn Act respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.\nAn Act to amend the Fisheries Act.\nAn Act to amend the Indian Act.\nAn Act to incorporate the Alberta Electric Railway Company.\t,\nAn Act to incorporate the Hudsafc Bay, Peace River and Pacific Railway Company.\nAn Act to incorporate The Ontario and Abitibi Railway Company.\nAn Act to incorporate The Casualty Company of Canada.\nAn Act respecting La Sauvegarde Life Insurance Company.\nAn Act to incorporate The Western Canal Company.\nAn Act to incorporate The Continental Fire Insurance Company.\nAn Act respecting The Cariboo, Barkerville and Willow River Railway Company.\nAn Act respecting The Chatham, Wallace-burg and Lake Erie Railway Company.\nAn Act relating to Steamship Subsidies.\nAn Act to amend the Bank Act.\nAn Act to amend the Penny Bank Act.\nAn Act to incorporate The Albert and Moncton Railway Company.\nAn Act to authorize the government of Canada to acquire, by lease, a certain line of railway in the province of New Brunswick.\nAn Act to incorporate the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.\nAn Act to amend an Act of the present session intituled, 'An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.'\nAn Act respecting aid towards the construction of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway.\nAn Act relating to the establishment and expenses of the International Joint Commission under the Waterways Treaty of January the eleventh, nineteen hundred and nine.\nAn Act to amend the Water Carriage of Goods Act.\nAn Act to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.\nAn Act to amend the Railway Act.\nAn Act respecting Duties of Customs on Importations from Japan.\nAn Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec.\ni An Act respecting Forest Reserves and Parks.\nAn Act for the relief of William Fraser Currie.\nAn Act to amend the Post Office Act.\nAn Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years ending, respectively, March SI, 1911, and March 31, 1912.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.", 'Tuesday, July 18, 1911.']
William Stevens Fielding: That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1912, the sum of $353,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
['That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1912, the sum of $353,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.']
William Stevens Fielding: That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1912, the sum of $26,642,222.07 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
['That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1912, the sum of $26,642,222.07 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.']
William Stevens Fielding: That towards making good the Supply granted co His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1912, the sum of $7,934,806.56 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 225) for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years lending respectively 31st March 1911, and 31st March 1912.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee and reported (without amendment.
Mr. FIELDING moved the third reading of the Bill.
['That towards making good the Supply granted co His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1912, the sum of $7,934,806.56 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.']
Robert Laird Borden: If it is possible to keep any check upon the accuracy

of the figures, I take it for granted, as is always the case in such matters, that the computation has been accurately made, and in accordance with the resolutions which have been passed.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no doubt that it is correct. The officials are very careful.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolutions:
Whereas, by chapter 25, of the Statutes of 1910, it was provided that the Minister of Railways and Canals might, subject to the terms and couditions therein contained, lease lines of railway connecting with the government railways and operate them as a part of the government railways, but no leases have been made under the said Act: And, whereas, it is deemed advisable to make the provisions hereinafter contained for the leasing of the undermentioned line of railway. Therefore, it is resolved that it is expedient that the Minister of Railways and Canals be authorized, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to lease for a term not exceeding 99 years the following line of railway, namely:-The Bale railway, prc-perty of the Acadia Coal Company, Limited, extending from New Glasgow to Thorburn, iu the province of Nova Scotia, a distance of about six miles, upon terms and conditions to be approved of by the Government Railways Managing Board; provided, however, that the consideration by way of ren tal for such line of railway shall he an annual rental of one dollar and the carriage of the traffic of the company, its successors and assigns, upon the line of railway to be leased and upon the government railways, and between points to be designated and at rates not in excess of maximum fixed rates for such carriage between such points, such fixed rates to he subject to a provision for revision of such rates at the end of each period of 10 years during the continuance of the lease.
Such railway so leased shall become and be operated as a part of the government railways.
He said: Of course I do not hope to get these resolutions through to-night; but as we have a few moments to wait, I think it would be the part of wisdom for me to say a few words about these branch lines, so that hon. gentlemen can find them on ' Hansard,' and have an opportunity of thinking the subject over during the recess, and he able more intelligently to take it up again when the House reassembles. The great majority of the lines that might be available under lease to the Intercolonial are placed under two resolutions. The first "one referred to as the Vale railway, is a short road a little over five miles long, running out of New Glasgow, and owned by the Acadia Coal Company.
It really does its own traffic, and it is very desirable from the standpoint of the Intercolonial that, if reasonable arrangements can be made, that road should come under government control, and be leased as part of the government railways. The Acadia Coal Company owns the railway, and owns the 'Coal mines, and really does its own business, and little else. Just beyond the property of the Acadia coal mines there are other coal areas that might, so it has been represented to me, be well developed. But as one coal mine or coal company owns the railway, it does not at all encourage the development of the other coal areas by assisting them to carry their traffic. It has been represented to the department, and to the board of management that this road could he secured, not by the payment of any cash, but merely by an arrangement with them for a term of years as to the freight rates on their coal. Of course the Intercolonial would get all the traffic, as it does now, but it would be in the interest of the railway as well, to acquire that line. The Teason it is put in a separate resolution is, as I have said, that it can be acquired without the usual terms of lease, by an arrangement as to freight rates, and without the payment of any cash.
The other lines can hardly be said to be paying in themselves, apart from the government railway system, if we take them as single entities. The majority of them have a surplus of receipts- over expenses now, hut if we were to lease them, and pay interest on a certain amount, probably there would not be any surplus, probably there would be a deficit, treating them as mere entities, each line by itself. But this much must be borne in mind, I say it on behalf of the state owned railway, that it will not be long until other railway lines must have certain rights over the Intercolonial, or they will have to build a line from St. John to Halifax themselves. The Grand Trunk Pacific has running rights, under its contract, over the Intercolonial from Moncton to St. John, and from St. John to Halifax. Merely looking at these lines as entities in themselves, as not paying much, or not paying at all, should some other line secure any of these branches that now feed the Intercolonial, it would be a very serious thing for the state owneld railway.	That is one
side of it. The other side is the interest of the people.	Now, leaving
out of the question what detriment it would be to the state owned railway, and the decrease in the value of our property if these branch lines with their traffic were to be diverted to some other private owned road, there is another aspect.' Some of these roads governments have aided, and their operation is unsatisfactory. I will give an extreme case, the Salisbury and
[Stage Direction]
Albert road has ceased operation over a certain portion of it, the department has been advised. The people who for years have had railway facilities given them by this line, are at the present moment without any railway facilities. The government of Canada has aided that line, although it has I think a provincial charter. I presume the provincial government has also aided it, and the county itself gave aid. But notwithstanding all that, the people along that line of railway are now deprived of all railway facilities. I am bold enough to take the ground that it is the duty of some government to afford facilities to those people that formerly had them, even if it should cost some money. That is one class of line. The other class will come into the category I mentioned a few moments ago. It will be an immense detriment to the Intercolonial if they pass into other hands. I am not going into details at all, but I want the members of this House during recess to think over the situation of those lines, and ask themselves whether it is not advisable to give the Department of Railways power, under the terms outlined in the resolutions, which are very much restricted, to secure these lines, or a portion of them at least, for the reasons I have stated. On the other hand, where people are likely to be deprived, and have been deprived in some instances, of the railway transportation they have enjoyed for years, is it not our duty to do something in that respect? I submit the resolutions for the consideration of the House during the recess, so that when they come back they will be able, I hope, to support the measure.
John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to ask the minister what position those lines will be in whose bonds are guaranteed by the provincial government, and I think where the provincial government holds a mortgage on the railway? What position would that railway hold after it was leased by this government?


George Perry Graham: That is a question to be investigated by a judge of the Exchequer Court. _ My hon. friend will see in this resolution that the present condition of a line of that kind, its indebtedness, -where it is, and what the remuneration ought to be, will be investigated by a judge of the Exchequer Court. It strikes me that in a case of that kind probably some arrangement might be made, but at least on most of the _ lines I imagine interest is not being paid to any one on the bonds.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the meaning of the words ' present owners ' in one sentence, and then in the next sentence, 'owners thereof as of date of April 1, 1911.' Do they refer to the same person's!* Do Mr. GRAHAM.
* present owners ' mean owners of date of April 1, 1911?


George Perry Graham: As I understand it, when this Bill was introduced, if a date had not been fixed it might be possible to have the ownership revert to the original owners in order to have the conditions of taking over bettered.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that the explanation of the present wording? What is meant by the first of these two sentences when it speaks of ' present owners '?


George Perry Graham: Those are the owners of April 1, 1911.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In regard to the owners of April 1, 1911, the judge has only to make a report, but he makes a valuation with reference to what the present owners have paid for the Toad?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, I would not for a moment, at this stage, attempt to discuss the resolutions, but I have taken considerable interest in this matter. Indeed, I have had the honour of first bringing to the notice of parliament and the government the whole question of the absorption of the branch lines of the Intercolonial railway, and I think it is due to myself that I should say some few words in respect to the resolutions. If I were to evince a little exaltation with regard to the government having met my views, at least measurably, perhaps, I would be pardoned. However, my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), has thrown out some ideas which he wishes hon. members to consider during the adjournment. There are a_ few things that I would like him consider during the adjournment, and one is this, that _ in an undertaking of this character it is well-and I suppose we all recognize it-that two interests should be considered; first, the interests of the Intercolonial railway, second, the interests of the communities served by these several branch lines, and you might say, third, the interests of the whole country. But, as I understand it, the Intercolonial railway interests are representative of the interests of the whole of Canada. Now, I regret that there are one or two omissions with respect to railways in the province of Nova Scotia. I refer to the coal railways in the county of Cumberland. There is an omission of the power of expropriation with respect to some of these roads, or in respect to all of them. In a word, I would like to make my meaning clear in this regard. I hold that if there were power of expropriation given the government of Canada to take over some of these roads it would only be protecting the interests of the Intercolonial railway, and therefore, the interests of Canada, and it would enable them to secure lines of rail-

way which they might not be able to secure under the provisions of these resolutions. For instance, the coal railways in the county of Cumberland are so situated. One is the Maritime Coal and Railway Company, and the other is the Cumberland Coal and Railway Company. The first named is known as the Joggins road, or coal mine. The Maritime Coal and Railway Company have a line running from Maccan to Joggins mine a distance of 12 miles, and it is known as the Joggins railway. There are five distinct coal mines on that line of railway, tout the Josrgins mine so called is owned by the railway company. The other mines are owned by separate corporations. One is the Strath-cona mine, another is the Jubilee mine, another the Minudie mine, another the Fundy mine, and I think that there is still another tract or area known as the Boston area. These five companies, other than the coal and railway company, are placed at a very great disadvantage by reason of the fact that the railway company operate a coal mine on that same line of railway to the detriment of the other mines, and the result is a depreciation in the value of the coal mined by these separate corporations. It seems to me that in the interest of the Intercolonial railway the government should be in a position to secure that line whether the coal and railway company desire it or not. The Tight of eminent domain should apply and the powers of expropriation should be given, in the interests of the whole country, and in the interests of those several mines that are lying along the same route. The same condition applies to the Cumberland Coal and Railway Company which operates in connection with the Springhill mine. This js a railway running from Springhill Junction on the Intercolonial railway to tide-water at Parrsboro, in the county of Cumberland. That company operate lines, they own the railway, and there are several coal mining areas which are absolutely precluded from being developed by reason of the conditions resulting from the ownership of that railway. If the government had the power of expropriation they could secure these lines. The coal and railway companies as owners are not interested in parting with thesp roads. They make large dividends out of the operation of the railways, and while provision is made with respect to some of these railways there are many of them which will not take advantage of the opportunity of leasing or even selling their roads to the government of Canada in order that they might become a portion of the Intercolonial railway system. Then, theTe is the New Brunswick and Prince Edwrard Island Tail-wav, which, to my mind, commands the traffic of Prince Edward Island and is the key to the situation with respect to that
traffic. The Minister of Railways has said very clearly and distinctly that to the extent to which any of these branch lines are secured by any great private railway corporation the valuable asset of the government in the Intercolonial railway is thereby depreciated. We must look forward to the fact that as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have running rights over the Intercolonial railway from Moncton to Halifax, and from Moncton to St. John, so must the Canadian Pacific Railway Company secure those rights. So must the Canadian Northern in time secure those same running rights, and if one of these railways in the meantime were to step in and secure this New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway, secure the Albert railway, and secure some others of these branch lines the main trunk line would be depreciated in value. If the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have it in mind to secure any portion of the Intercolonial railway, either by purchase or by lease, or if the Canadian Northern have any such idea in their minds, naturally, as a business proposition, they would secure some of its main feeders, and securing them they would depreciate the value of the government asset, the value of the Intercolonial railway, and, therefore, they could derive a better bargain.
They would be in a position to say to the government of Canada:	We have control
of the branches which supply traffic, and to that extent the Intercolonial railway would be depreciated in value, and that would be a very easy way for any railway corporation to secure for practically a song the Intercolonial for their own use and benefit. Therefore, as a matter of protection the government should take power of expropriation. There are measures before parliament to-day to build new branches ' for the Intercolonial railway, and power of expropriation is given with respect to the right of way, and in order to protect the interests of the people, and of the Intercolonial railway the same principle should apply with respect to these branch lines. I already have evidence that one of these railways was secured by private individuals within the last six weeks for speculative purposes; in my judgment, for the mere purpose of holding it as against the Intercolonial railway, and playing off the Canadian Pacific railway, or the Canadian Northern railway as against the Intercolonial railway. Having secured this road they would have the Intercolonial railway and the government at a disadvantage in the event of any attempt on their part either with respect to securing running rights or leasehold interest on any particular portion of the Intercolonial railway. I ask the Min-

ister of Railways to consider during the adjournment, if, in self-protection, it would not be advisable to incorporate in this resolution a clause to secure powers of expropriation. If there were a clause giving the minister power to expropriate and exercise the right of eminent domain, we would be in a better position to deal with the owners of these several branch lines. I strongly urge upon him the advisability of carrying out this idea. It seems to me that the minister should by all means add to the list of railways to be secured the railway known as the Maritime Coal and Railway Company's road, and also the Cumberland Coal and Railway Company's road, the one 12 miles long and the other 30 miles long, speaking from memory. I know the value of many of these roads. The possibilities of the road formerly known as the Baie des Chaleurs railway are immense. The great fishing and lumber resources of Bonaven-ture and Gaspe counties cannot fail to make that railway in years to come one of the best paying roads the government could secure. Then the International road running from Campbellton to the St. John river protects the Intercolonial railway in its American traffic, it being a short line by which to convey to the New England market the stone and fish and great natural resources of that territory. Then, the Cara-quet road running from Bathurst to Shipe-gan and Tracadie traverses a country second to none in Canada as it runs through the county of Gloucester rich in mineral, lumbering, fishing and agricultural resources. That railway would add very materially to the value of the Intercolonial railway. Then there are the Kent Northern, and the Moncton and Buctouche railway in the county of Kent which are valuable pieces of line. Then the Albert railway traverses a district, the richest in mineral resources in eastern Canada. The great shale district, the rich natural gas and oil district of the county of Albert, and the great plaster industry predict for the future of that road as well as for the Salisbury and Harvey line great prosperity. The Intercolonial railway should secure that, and it should not be left to the whim of owners or speculators as to whether the people of Canada should or should not have these railways. It is a business proposition in the interests of the property of the people of Canada, and it should be so managed that no band of speculators, and no little corporation, or no aggregation of corporations should be allowed to hold up the people of Canada in securing leasehold rights in these railways. From a business standpoint there should be the right of expropriation, in justice to the Intercolonial railway, and to the communities which are served by these branch lines. I could give other reasons in support of my contention, Mr. EMMERSON.
but I shall reserve them until, if it is the will of Providence, we shall meet again.
I earnestly beseech the Minister of Railways and the government, and the hon. members of this House to study this question during the recess. I am not advocating it from a party standpoint; I advocate it because I believe it to be in the best interests of the Intercolonial railway and in the best interests of affording facilities for the interchange of interprovincial trade. I believe it is an absolute necessity from a business point of view that expropriation proceedings should be taken
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee on the resolution.
Progress reported.


McLEOD POST OFFICE.
John Herron: Is any progress being made on the McLeod post loffice? I have brought this matter to the attention of the House on several occasions. It is in a most disgraceful condition.


British South Africa.   ...@: I shall urge upon the Minister of Public Works the erection of a public building in McLeod. That is the only way to remedy the grievances.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-LEASE OF BRANCH LINES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the House igo into committee to consider the following proposed resolution;
Whereas, by chapter 25, of the statutes of 1910, it was provided that the Minister of Railways and Canals might subject to the terms and conditions therein contained, lease lines of railway connecting with the government railways and operate them as a part of the government railways but no leases have been made under the said Act, and whereas it is deemed advisable to make the provisions hereinafter contained for the leasing of certain of such lines of railway. Therefore, it is resolved, that it is expedient that the Minister of Railways and Canals be authorized, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to lease for a term not exceeding 99 years, any of the following fines of railway, namely:
The Quebec Oriental railway, extending from Matapedia to Paspebiac, a distance of about one hundred miles;
The Hampton and St. Martins railway, extending from Hampton to St. Martins, a distance of about thirty miles;
The Albert railway, extending from Salisbury to Albert, a distance of about forty-five miles;	_
The Moncton and Buctouche railway, extending from Moncton to Buctouche, a distance of about twenty-eight miles;
The Caraquet railway and Gulf Shore railway, together extending from Bathurst to Tracadie, a distance of about eighty-five miles;
The York and Carleton railway, extending from Cross Creek to and beyond Stanley, a distance of about ten miles;

The International railway, extending from Campbellton to the St. John Valley at St. Leonards, a distance of about one hundred and thirteen miles;
The Cape Breton railway, extending from Point Tupper to St. Peters, a distance of about thirty miles;
The Temiscouata railway, extending from Riviere du Loup to Connors, a distance of about one hundred and thirteen miles;
The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway, extending from Sackville Junction to Cape Tormentine, a distance of about thirty miles;
The Elgin and Havelock railway, extending from Elgin to Havelock, a distance of about twenty-eight miles;
The Kent Northern railway, extending from Kent Junction to Richibucto, a distance of about twenty-seven miles;
Including the company's rolling stock in each case.
Upon terms and conditions to be approved of by the government railways managing board, provided, however, that the rental to be paid for each such line of railway shall in no case exceed an amount to be determined in the following manner, that is to say, the value of the railway proposed to be leased shall be fixed and determined by the judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, upon the report of the chief engineer of the government railways, based upon the examination of the railway by, and the report of the engineer appointed by the Department of Railways and Canals to inspect such railway during con-' straction, such value also to include interest during construction, the cost of equipping the railway, the cost of terminals and of right of way of the railway now in use in the operation of the said railway in any city or incorporated town, (the amount of such interest during construction, the cost of equipping the railway, the cost of terminals and of right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town to be fixed by such judge upon proper and sufficient evidence) and deducting therefrom any aid received from, the government of Canada towards the construction of such railway, and also deducting such amount, if any, as may, in the opinion of the said chief engineer, be necessary to put any such line of railway in a safe and efficient condition.
Except that in the case of railways which have, since their construction, either through sale, foreclosure proceedings, transfer of shares of stock or securities, become either wholly or substantially the property of other companies or persons, at a cost less than the original cost thereof with the deductions aforesaid, then the value of such last mentioned railways shall, for rental purposes hereunder, be determined by such judge upon evidence of, and shall be based upon, the amounts actually paid by the present owners for such line of railway, shares and securities, respectively. Such judge shall, in the case of the railways last above mentioned, make a report showing the amounts paid for such railways and their rolling stock, shares and securities, respectively, and the owners thereof, as of date of Anril 1, 1911. After receiving the report and finding of such judge, the Minister of Railways may, with the approval of the
Governor in Council, lease any of said lines of railway and pay therefor, for the first five years of the term of the lease, an amount as rental not exceeding three per cent per annum on such value so fixed by such judge; for the next five years of the term of the lease an amount not exceeding three and one-half per cent per annum on such value; and thereafter during the term of the lease an amount not exceeding four per cent per annum on such value; such rental to be paid half-yearly.
Nothing herein shall be deemed to require the taking over of any of the said railways if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, having regard to the convenience of the pub lie or the interests of the Intercolonial railway, the terms and conditions proposed by the company are not fair and reasonable.
Any such line so leased shall become and be operated as part of the government railways.
Mr. TURGEON.: I desire to extend to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) my heartiest congratulations on every word he has said. I appreciate what he said on the question of expropriation. That course will avoid all possible obstruction in the future, and I hope that during the recess the minister iwill so amend the resolution as to provide for that means of acquiring these roads. I have on other occasions expressed my sentiments in reference to the 'absorption of branch lines 'by the Intercolonial. It is a project which has been much discussed in the maritime provinces, particularly during the last few years, and it is a proposition to which the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) has devoted great aittention for many years. I certainly congratulate him upon the fact that he has been able to Ibring to his view of the question both the members of the government and of ithe House in the years, during which he has been advocating the transfer of these branch lines to the Intercolonial railway, and I hope that when this House meets again after recess, every member will have seen the advisability of accepting ithat policy and also of introducing an expropriation Act with reference to each of these branches.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are all these lines now built and in operation?


George Perry Graham: They are all built and in operation except a portion of one line which I described a few moments ago, on which operation has ceased recently.
, Mr. SPROULE. Must they be up to a certain standard before being taken over iby the government or may they be in a dilapidated condition which will involve heavy preliminary expenditures?


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact it would be impossible ito take them over under a condition that they were all to be repaired up to a certain standard.

There is a provision in the resolution which says that the amount required to put them into good working order shall be taken into account in taking them over under lease, that it will be taken from the amount on which interest will be paid. That is one class. The conditions are so peculiar that after studying them it was found that the Act passed last year included provisions which made it impossible to take over some of these lines.
On motion of Mr. Graham the debate was adjourned.


ROYAL ASSENT.
[Stage Direction]
A message was received from His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, by the gentleman usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of your honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And having returned.
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have the honour to inform the House that when this House did attend in the Senate Chamber the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the fob lowing Bills:
An Act respecting the Mather Bridge and Power Company.
An Act to incorporate the British Columbia and Dawson Railway Company.
An Act respecting International Railway Company and International Traction Railways.
An Act to incorporate the Simcoe, Grey and Bruce Railway Company.
An Air respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Saskatoon and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Buffalo, Niagara and Toronto Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Canadian Surety Company.
An Act to incorporate the Sterling Trusts Corporation.
An Act respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Pacific and Peace Railway Company.
An Act respecting the People's Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company, and to change its name to 'T!ie Algoma Eastern Railway Company.'


George Perry Graham: An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Canada Medical Act.
An Act respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.
An Act respecting a patent of the Goldschmidt Thermet Company.
An Act to incorporate the Restigouche Riparian Association.
An Act foT the relief of Mary Jane Beatty.
An Act for the relief of Robert William Logan.
An Act respecting a patent of Conduits Company, Limited.
An Act to incorporate the Hudson Bay Mortgage Corporation.
An Act to incorporate the Imperial Steamship Company.
An Act to incorporate the Canadian Baptist Foreign Mission Board.
An Act respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Alsek and Yukon Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate The Pacific and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Western Central Railway Company.
An Act to prohibit the improper use of Opium and other Drugs.
An Act respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.
An Act respecting the Hamilton Provident and Loan Society.
An Act to incorporate the Ontario-Miohigan Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the British Columbia and White River Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Songhees Indian Reserve.
An Act to amend the Post Office Act.
An Act to correct certain clerical errors in the French Version of the Inland Revenue Act.
An Act for the relief of Walter Harvey Kirkland.
An Act for the relief of Mary Kathleen Grit-' tenden.
An Act for the relief of Pauline Winslow Saunderson.
An Act for the relief of Nellie Bridgland Morrison.
An Act for the relief of Frances Whittington Truesdell.
An Act to incorporate The Canada West Loan Corporation.
An Act to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to the Harbour of Toronto.
An Act to incorporate the Imperial Traction Company.
An Act respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Department of Railways and Canals Act.
An Act respecting the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.
An Act respecting a Patent of The Boiler Flue Cleaner and Supply Company, Limited.
An Act to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of Trussed Concrete Steel Company, of Canada, Limited.
An Act for the relief of Violet Jane Dakin.
An Act; for the relief of Hugh Samuel Bell.

An Act to provide for increasing the capital stook of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company.
An Act for the relief of Fanny Mary Healy.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Mary Grantham.
An Act respecting the Canada National Fire Insurance Company.
An Act respecting certain Patents of Mun-derlolx and Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Inspection and Sale of Seeds.
An Act respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.
An Act to amend the Fisheries Act.
An Act to amend the Indian Act.
An Act to incorporate the Alberta Electric Railway Company.	,
An Act to incorporate the Hudsafc Bay, Peace River and Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate The Ontario and Abitibi Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate The Casualty Company of Canada.
An Act respecting La Sauvegarde Life Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate The Western Canal Company.
An Act to incorporate The Continental Fire Insurance Company.
An Act respecting The Cariboo, Barkerville and Willow River Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Chatham, Wallace-burg and Lake Erie Railway Company.
An Act relating to Steamship Subsidies.
An Act to amend the Bank Act.
An Act to amend the Penny Bank Act.
An Act to incorporate The Albert and Moncton Railway Company.
An Act to authorize the government of Canada to acquire, by lease, a certain line of railway in the province of New Brunswick.
An Act to incorporate the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.
An Act to amend an Act of the present session intituled, 'An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.'
An Act respecting aid towards the construction of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway.
An Act relating to the establishment and expenses of the International Joint Commission under the Waterways Treaty of January the eleventh, nineteen hundred and nine.
An Act to amend the Water Carriage of Goods Act.
An Act to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An Act respecting Duties of Customs on Importations from Japan.
An Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec.
i An Act respecting Forest Reserves and Parks.
An Act for the relief of William Fraser Currie.
An Act to amend the Post Office Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years ending, respectively, March SI, 1911, and March 31, 1912.
On motion of Mr. Fielding House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.

Tuesday, July 18, 1911.