1912-03-08

EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 115) to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.- Mr. Borden.
Mr. A. A. MONDOU (Yamaska).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to amend the Bill now before the House by the insertion, after section 5, of the following section:-
Nothing in the present Act shall affect prejudicially the school rights of the minority,

Roman Catholic or Protestant, which inhabit the territory now annexed to Manitoba.
And beg leave to withdraw the notice of motion in amendment which I have given on a previous occasion.
It is with great pleasure, Mr. Chairman, that I address this House for the first time in the language that is dear to me, and I have a special motive for doing so, considering that the English reporters, in the report of the remarks I made the other night to explain the stand 1 was taking on the amendment to the Bill, on the first reading, and to explain the reason -why I did not vote, have not given to my words the meaning I intended them to convey.
I consider that this report, owing no doubt to my imperfect knowledge of the English language, does not give the exact meaning of what I intended to say, when I first addressed the House in English.
At first I declined to vote on the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, and later on, I voted for the second reading of the Bill, but it was after the remarks of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) who had stated that when the Bill was drafted, the minority in the district of Keewatin had no vested rights safeguarded by the constitution.
My own opinion, after a fairly thorough study of the law, was not in accord with the one given by the hon. minister. Notwithstanding, since the hon. Minister of Public Works was stating positively that, under the constitution, the minority was not entitled , to claim school rights, I saw nothing in the way to prevent me from voting for the second reading of the Bill as it was.
There was nothing in it that I did not approve of; it rather sinned by omission. I considered the Bill to be incomplete; but if the intention of those who drafted the Bill was such that it did not admit of vested rights for the minority, there was nothing according to my views to prevent the addition of a saving clause on the lines of the one I am proposing by this amendment. If the minority, Catholic or Protestant, of Keewatin have no vested rights, the adoption of this amendment can do no wrong, but if the minority have rights, they will be put in a position by this amendment to claim those rights before the proper tribunal.
By voting this amendment parliament would be giving due regard to the minority who have a perfect right to be respected and are entitled to live.
For my part, Mr. Chairman, I do not conceal that the stand I am taking on this question is rather strong and resolute. For the last fifteen years, in the province of Quebec, this question has been causing a considerable amount of agitation. It is
probably for the last time in the political history of this country-certainly, for a great number of hon. gentlemen who are in this House to-night-that we are called upon to legislate on such matters.
I say again that the rights of the minority in Keewatin, be it Roman Catholic or Protestant, must be respected.
My intention is not to intensify the agitation that is going on on this question, nor do I wish to stand on narrow grounds. In all my business relations and in the discharge of my professional duties, I have given ample proof that I am free from prejudices, political, racial or religious. In submitting this amendment, I am moved by a sense of duty and loyalty; .my only *motive is to secure to the minorities the constitutional rights that are theirs.
In my. opinion, this question is not so intricate as it might be supposed to be in some quarters, and perhaps I will be allowed to give my personal view on the subject. I am possessed of more light today than I had at the beginning of this discussion. I have .been studying that question with great caution and with the sole aim of arriving at a practical result, and also with the object of discerning who are those in this House who are really seeking the welfare of the minorities. I want to have an expression of opinion, clear and straight, and I think that my amendment leaves no loophole on that score. What are we doing at this very moment? We are studying a deed-I am a practising public notary of the province of Quebec, and as such, I am fairly well acquainted with such matters-we are studying a deed between the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. I liken the situation to that of two private individuals who have decided, the one to sell and the other to buy a property. They both go to the notary, quite decided to close the bargain.
When the Bill -was first brought before the House, nobody objected to a deed between the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. For my part, I thought it my duty to ratify the principle of the Bill and to uphold the govex-nment in all that relates to financial and other arrangements in the Bill. Following my comparison, let us suppose that we are now in the notary's office and we are examining the clauses of the deed by which we are giving to the province of Manitoba a territory that is under our jurisdiction. We have the right to impose the conditions that we deem proper. Consequently, I ask that we put in the deed the clause that I have just moved. If the province of Manitoba . which is invited to submit to that condition declines to, accept it as too burdensome, the deed will be put aside and the whole thing will have to be started ' over again.

Negotiations on that boundary question have been going on for a long time between the two governments. Everybody seems to agree on the principle, but it is "not so when we come to the conditions of the deed. As a member of this House, I ask that the minority in the added territory be protected, and in doing so I am sincerely convinced that I am discharging a sacred duty devolving upon me. I came to the conclusion long ago that the majorities in this country don't want any protection, and that those who take an interest in the common wealth would be putting their time to better use in caring for the weak and those who are not in a position to uphold their rights and privileges. We are bound to champion all legitimate claims, to show spirit and energy; we are bound to stand erect and prove that our constitution is as immovable as a rock; that it is the foundation of our social life, if wre want to see harmony and goodwill between races and creeds in this country. * Under the circumstances), in accepting this amendment, we would be doing a commendable thing and would demonstrate that, true to its duty, the Canadian parliament is ready to extend its solicitude to all, without stopping to inquire if those who are seeking redress represent only a few individuals or a million of people; the number does not affect the principle. If vested rights do exist, they must be upheld by a guarantee.
Relying on that principle, I hope that my amendment will receive the endorsement of the majority of this House, or at least will induce the House to have the Bill stand until we have ascertained if the province of Manitoba absolutely rejects all arrangements upon those lines.
' Let us examine for a moment the stand taken by the other party to the deed. Has that party always abided by the constitution? In all transactions there must be honesty. Cannot that province be taxed with contempt of court?
Are they not still ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and even of the highest court of the empire, His Majesty's Privy Council? No effect is given to that decision because it runs against the will of a majority who refuse to accept it. So long as this situation will endure, the decision of the Privy Council will remain a dead letter. Even if my presence in this House should result in nothing else than giving me this opportunity of upholding the rights of the minorities and the respect of the constitution, I should feel that I have not been sent here for nothing, because we are not entitled! to be called legislators if we disregard the constitution; unless that by mutual consent, after thorough consideration and for very serious reasons- Mr. MONDOTJ.
that this parliament will have to discuss -the conclusion is reached that we have no constitutional right to modify the British North America Act. I raise all these objections because we have good reason to be on guard when dealing with Manitoba. The situation would be quite different if we had any guarantee that the Manitoba government would deal generously and fairly with the minorities. It is an admitted fact that the provinces in which the rights of minorities have been upheld, never had any trouble of that kind in the administration of their public affairs. Difficulties and troubles on that score are found to exist only in those provinces where the majority has been unfair towards the minority.
There is no doubt in my mind that vested rights exist in the territory of Keewatin, and I can find the proof of it in what has been said in this House during this debate. The Northwest Territory Act that is to be found in the Revised Statutes of 1906, ch. 62, is my authority for the stand I am taking. Section 10 of this Act relates to the minority and says:
The Commissioner in council if authorized to make ordinances respecting education, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect thereto; but in the laws or ordinances relating to education it shall always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and in such case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
I come from the province of Quebec, and I pray to God that I will never see the day when the rights of the Protestant minority will be in jeopardy, but if that day must come, I give my solemn word that I will be seen in the front ranks of those who will fight for those rights whoever may be the party on which we will have to rely to give fair play to that minority. I am free from all political faction. I stand on higher grounds and I say it is high time that all that agitation comes to an end. It is high time that those who wish to remove all causes for discord and bad feelings stand and raise their voice to affirm that the time has come for the recognizance of such rights as we deem dear and sacred.
It is said, Mr. Chairman, that the counsel to the commissioner of Keewafin has never been appointed and the responsibility

for that is put on the late government. I concede that the late administration has a great part of responsibility, but I do not admit that the present ministers of the Crown are justified in taking refuge behind the wrongdoings of their predecessors This tu quoque argument is played out.
' I hold the principles far above the maintenance of any government; we are in duty bound to stand! up and to unite to safeguard what we deem most sacred: individual, civil and religious liberty.
Can it be contended that because a Canadian government has not appointed a counsel to the commissioner of Keewatin, the parliament is to-day debarred from legislating on this question? In my opinion there is absolutely nothing in that contention, as can be seen by section 3 of the Imperial Act of 1871 amending the constitution of 1867:-
3. The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the Legislature of any province of the said Dominion increase, -diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may he agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any eueh increase or diminution elaboration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
I am well aware that if we were creating new provinces we would have the right to impose any school system we deemed proper; but the question is quite different. We are engaged at this moment in the discussion. as the Bill puts it, or ' such terais and conditions as may be agreed to by the the legislature,' and such terms and conditions as the parliament of Canada may exact.
This section 3 leaves no doubt in my mind as to the right of this parliament to exact the condition contained in the amendment I submitted to the committee. That right exists virtually if not in the. actuality; and if it does not exist in the actuality it is because certain proceedings have not been taken that can be taken. We have plenty of time yet to act; the parliament can order the Bill to stand for a time to allow the Governor-in-Council to pass the necessary ordinances. I say again that this right exists virtually if not in the actuality.
I am free to admit that for some years past. I have not given much time to the study of legal questions and it is my intention in future to devote more of my time to the law, and more especially to the study of constitutional law, but at the same time I submit the above remarks to the committee as my humble opinion upon this question. I will say further that if there is some doubt as to the existence of constitutional rights for the minority in
Keewatin, whait wrong can be done by having this amendment added to the Bill? 'If no rights exist, the clause will amount to nothing, but if rights do exist the minority will be protected. It goes without saying that the question is worth studying. The right hon. leader of the government himself expressed a doubt on this point when ho said in his speech of March 6, at page 4582 of the unrevised edition of the Debates: ' But whether I am right or wrong in believing that that 'is constitutionally impracticable."
Everybody knows that when it comes to 'the construction of the text of a law, we have very often conflicting opinions. :Every day judgments of the Superior Court are invalidated by the Court of Appeals, and after having gone through all the courts of the country, a case often goes to the Privy Council in England.
For my part, I hold that the deed with the province of Manitoba which the parliament is asked to confirm, cannot he accepted unless there is added to it the clause contained in the amendment that I have the honour to submit to the committee.
I do not propose to say anything more at this moment; I had no time to prepare a long speech, and I just gave expression to my sincere conviction. I hope that the House, after full consideration, will accept the amendment and will give ample justice to those who are entitled to it.
The position is thus: If this clause was inserted into the Bill it would prevent the government of Manitoba to do any injustice to the minority if it were so disposed.
Do not let us forget that the man who enters a house with the intention of appropriating to himself certain articles which are not to be found in that house, is committing nevertheless an act that in law is called robbery. This clause of mine puts a gate in front of the door of the house and this gate is needed all the more because those who are dwelling in that house are more than one thousand miles away from those from whom they can claim assistance.
I have voted for the Bill as a whole, I have accepted the financial arrangements, because I trust the present government, and that I have no doubt that in drafting this Bill they gave due weight and consideration to all its sections. When I was speaking on the address. I stated that I had confidence in the government, because it was composed of business men. Now I think it is the time to settle that question in a business-like way and not from the viewpoint of religious and racial prejudices. If the amendment is carried it will be up to Manitoba to conform the school system actually in force in that province to the school system of the added territory. The

other night, when speaking on this very question, I said that it was more than fifteen years old and that it was at the root of all the agitation that had been going on since, and those who are responsible for that situation are exactly the same people whom we are dealing with to-night. For any one who will study that question, not from the viewpoint of a political party -it is far above such considerations.- but from the loftier viewpoint of the union 'between the- different races and the different creed's, it is quite evident that the government of Manitoba could settle this question in an instant. The only thing to do is to give effect to the Manitoba Act of 1870, and if that is done nobodv will hear any more about the ' Manitoba school question.'
We all agree upon the necessity of having union and harmony between the different nationalities and creeds of this country, and if the Manitoba government would give effect to that Manitoba Act of 1870, it would go a long way in the direction of that ideal situation we are aiming at and We could then bend our energies toward the development of our resources in peace and harmony.
Every day members of this House are pressing upon parliament the claims of other people. That is exactly what I am doing at this moment, and I say that now '[DOT]is the time to act, because we are now discussing the very last sections of the 'Bill. It is the time, now or never, to take a strong and well defined stand.
' I listened the other day with great attention to the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition on that Bill. I have always professed a great admiration for his personality, but instead of taking example from the Duke of Wellington fighting the French at the gates of Lisbon and remaining within the lines of Torres Vedras, he should have taken example from Henry of Navarre saying to his men-as the hon. gentleman himself said to his friends during the last election in the province of Quebec-' Follow my white plume, it will lead you to victory.' It is true that Henry of Navarre came back victorious, while the right hon. gentleman has been completely routed.
In concluding I say that I feel the full responsibility of the stand I am taking and I am quite willing to assume it, Even if I had done nothing else in all my public career, I would still feel that it is sufficient to atone for all the political 'sins that I might have committed.
Mr. ,T. A. M. AIKINS (Brandon). I have the greatest respect for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mondou) who has moved this amendment, and I appreciate the sincerity and honesty which has actuated him in Mr. MONDOU.
presenting it to the committee, but I cannot agree with the propriety of the conclusions at which he has arrived. His amendment reads as handed to me by the clerk:
Nothing in this Act shall affect /prejudicially in any way the rights of the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, to separate schools, as they now exist in snch part of the territories, now annexed to Manitoba.
This amendment assumes that there are separate schools existing; it assumes that there may be a Protestant minority or a Roman Catholic minority which has a right in respect to separate schools. But, I submit that this parliament should not legislatively decide that there are existing now in the territory to be added to Manitoba any separate schools or separate school rights. It becomes a matter for consideration (having regard to the wording of the resolution) before we can intelligently vote upon it. What educational system does exist there? On the 15th of July, 1870 Rupert's Land, the Territories, including Keewatin, and the province of Manitoba, were added to confederation. By the Manitoba Aot there was created for Manitoba a constitution, and power was given to it to govern and legislate according to that constitution and subject to its limitations. That Act was confirmed by an Act of the Imperial parliament. The same Act provides for the union of the territories, as well as Manitoba, to the Canadian confederacy. It was also necessary to create for the territories a constitution, a government and a legislature to enact the necessary laws respecting those territories. This parliament passed, in 1871, an Act under which the Lieutenant Governor and a council to assist him were authorized to pass ordinances necessary for the government of these Territories. Keewatin was made a separate district from the Territories. The Lieutenant Governor of the province of Manitoba, under the instructions of the Governor in Council of the Dominion, governed the district of Keewatin, and continued to do so from that date until 1906, when it was added to the territories. In 1875 this parliament passed an enactment which empowered the government of the Northwest Territories to enact legislation respecting schools subject to limitations, but it was amended in 1880, and again in 1885; these provisions practically continued in the Northwest Territories till 1905. But, that legislation was not legislation creating school districts or creating school rights in this territory. It only enabled the government of the Northwest Territories to legislate in respect of separate schools, but with that enabling power there was a limitation. The section passed in 1875 reads:

When and so soon as any system of taxation shall he adopted in any district or portion'of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the council or Assembly as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education, but it shall therein be always provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any distriot or portion of the Northwest Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit and may make the necessary assessment and collection of rates theiefor. And further, that the minority of ratepayers therein, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, may establish separate scho ols therein, and that, in such latter case,' the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools, shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.	.	.	,	'*7*
As you see it was simpiy a clause enabling the government of the Northwest Territories to establish schools, should they pass any legislation respecting education. Therefore, as I have said this legislation did not create separate schools in the territories. It merely enabled or empowered the government of the territories to do so, but when that government did so it was to be subject to the limitations mentioned in the section I have read. That section was amended in 1885 by striking out the first words as follows:
When and so soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion cf the territory.
So that the government oi the territories were authorized and empowered to pass school legislation at any time, subject to certain conditions. The form of the government of the territories was changed from time to time until it stood in the position in which it was prior to the passing of the Act of 1905 creating Saskatchewan and Alberta and making new provision for the territories. Therefore until the Act was passed in 1905 creating Alberta and Saskatchewan and making a new government for the territories, no government was empowered to pass any school legislation for the Northwest Territories except the Governor in Council, or the Governor with the Territorial Assembly. The question then is, what legislation did they pass? They did pass legislation such as the Ordinance of 1901, but under the Ordinance of 1901 no separate schools were established in the portion to be added to Manitoba. The government that existed in the Northwest Territories did not act under their power to establish any separate schools or any other schools in the Northwest Territories. At that time the Northwest Territories, included a strip of land of about fifty or seventy-five miles in width immediately adjoining to the east the present
province of Saskatchewan. It did not include the district of Keewatin. Therefore, when on the 20th of July, 1905, the new Northwest Territories Act was passed, the only government authorized to legislate in respect of education was the government of the Northwest Territories and it did not make this legislation effective in that strip of land or area and no government had passed any effective legislation or created any school district or given any school lights in ^ that strip of land originally in the territories which is now proposed to be added to the province of Manitoba. Another point, for serious consideration, in this connection is that the district of Keewatin, under the old Keewatin Act, was governed by the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba under the instructions of the federal authority and there were no educational ordinances or law for the district of Keewatin, at all events until 1906. I am aware of the fact that the late administration, purporting to act under the Keewatin Act of 1876, did make a proclamation, lhat proclamation recited the Act of 1876 and recited that that legislation had authorized the government to detach amongst other things-but I had better read the words of the Act:
The Governor in Council may at any time when it appears to the public advantage to do so, detach any portion of the district of Keewatin therefrom and re-annex it to that part of the Northwest Territories of Canada included in the said district, and that nor-tion so detached shall then be subject to the same government and Jaws as that part of the Northwest Territories of Canada to which it is re-annexed.
It seems to me perfectly clear that the authority given to the Governor in Coun-was only to detach a portion and to add inat detached portion to other territory. -Now, it I understand anything aright, it is that the whole is greater than a part and therefore the interpretation that has to be put on that language of the sect tion is not that it is a power to take the whole of Keewatin and attach it to the Northwest Territories, but only to attach ' according to the words of the Act, that portion so ' detached ' from Keewatin. No reasonable interpretation of this section would, it seems to me, justify any attempt on the part of the federal government to attach the whole district of Keewatin to the Northwest Territories, and yet that is what the late Liberal government did. I submit that what was said by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) in that respect was correct, and that the proclamation made hy au authority which was simply authorized to ' detach ' a portion, did not enable them to ' attach ' the whole Therefore that action of the late government was unconstitutional and had no

authority in law. Consequently the laws of the Northwest Territories did not apply before the new Act passed in 1905 respecting the Northwest Territorities. In other words, the ordinances of the Northwest Territory that were passed by the Lieutenant Governor and the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories never applied to the district of Keewatin.
In 1906, however, the revised statutes declared that the Northwest Territories should include Keewatin. At that time there was no provisional government created by this parliament with the power to legislate with respect to education for Keewatin; consequently the limitation concerning education in the territories was not in force in Keewatin. We have to look to the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 27, of 1905, to see what the law was when the new government of the Northwest Territories was established. Remember, the government of the old territories had, by virtue of this Act, ceased to exist, and the new government and legislative power was established. That government was given power to legislate in respect to schools, but with the same limitation as was on the government of the Northwest Territories. That government might have passed school legislation, but it did not. Therefore, there never existed, and I submit does not now exist in Keewatin, any legislative enactment making school districts, or giving educational rights either to the minorities or the majorities, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. This resolution assumes that separate schools do exist, because it says:	'Nothing in this
Act shall affect or prejudice in any way the rights of the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, to separate schools.' In other words, it assumes that there are rights to separate schools. I submit, on a consideration of the law, that there are no separate schools existing in that territory; therefore, there can be no rights affected. If that be so, the amendment proposed is entirely inapplicable and inoperative, and it would be dangerous for this House to pass it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I should have translated it to read: ' school rights that the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, may have.' There is no mention of separate schools.


Mr. AIKINS.: I would like to have the proper translation. If the Chairman will give it to me in French, I can understand it.


Albéric Archie Mondou: ' School rights,' means either public schools or separate schools. The law with regard to the schools must remain as it is.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The translation reads now as follows:


James Albert Manning Aikins: Nothing in this Act shall affect prejudicially in any way the school rights of the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, as_ they may now exist, in such part of the territories now annexed to Manitoba,


James Albert Manning Aikins: The argument that I was making in respect of the translation that was given to me is applicable to about the same extent to that. This resolution would make the parliament assume that there do exist school rights of some nature. It would be dangerous, it seems to me, for the parliament to adopt such an amendment. As I have pointed out, the Northwest Territories Act simply enabled the Territorial government to pass enactments relating to education. The Dominion parliament never created by legislation private schools, or public schools, or separate schools, or denominational schools. All that the parliament did was to create a body, a government which might legislate in respect to education, but which did not act thereunder to create school rights in any part of the added territory. Another important point which' I wish to consider is that if this amendment could constitutionally pass, then the government of Manitoba, to which this territory is to be added, would not have power to pass any reasonable legislation with respect to schools, because there would be no legislation which would be passed in subsequent years by the province of Manitoba that would not in some manner affect somewhat school rights if any exist there. Could the province of Manitoba assess the property of the people for the support of schools of any class? That right does not exist now. The people might very well say: You cannot assess our property for schools, because we have a right to carry on our schools without any assessment, our right now is not to be assessed. It could not make any regulation in respect of schools, because the people educate by right there without regulation. The proposed amendment is intended to be such a limitation on the legislative power of the province of Manitoba in respect of this added territory, that it, could not possibly pass any enactment which would affect present school rights, which right is to teach as people please without taxation, or regulation, or teacher qualification. It is true, it says, * shall not prejudicially affect school rights.' Who is to decide whether those rights I have mentioned, are prejudicially affected or not? You pass an Act respecting schools, either public or private, giving the right to tax and the right to apply the money, and any person affected might say: That prejudicially affects me, because I have a right to be free from taxation, from regulation, and I can employ any teacher, qualified or unqualified, as I please.

Consequently such an amendment passed in such wording as that would certainly create contusion, because indefinite-and would lead to litigation. Now there is a constitutional point that has to be considered. As I have said the Northwest Territorial government was given the Northwest Territory to govern, including the westerly portion of the area that is to be added to Manitoba, to legislate under the instructions of the Governor in Council, in respect to education. But the power to legislate was subject to certain limitations. The parliament of Canada itself as I have said did not legislate to create school districts, did not pass any school law and apply it to that territory. It never purported to enact any law immediately applicable to school districts of the people in respect of education. It empowered the Commissioner in Council in the Northwest Territories under the Act of 1905 to do so, if empowered to do so by the Governor in Council, but the Governor in Council never gave them the authority to do so and the Commissioners in Council never purported to pass any *school law relating to education. Therefore, I submit that there does not exist now any legislative rights in respect of education in the Northwest Territories, except the one right that the peoiple there have to educaate their children as they please. But that does not create a public right at all, it is a private right, and they can carry on that education in any way they may; there is no system of school, separate or sectarian or general. Is it right or proper that we should say to the province of Manitoba: You have no right to interfere with the way in which education is now carried on in the area to be added; a go-as-you-please system. Of course the laws in force there will continue until altered by competent legislative authority. There [DOT] must be adopted some system of education such as is applicable in all the provinces, and the province of Manitoba should have the right to inaugurate that system subject to the limitations of its constitution. Remember one thing: That this Act is not creating a new government for the province of Manitoba. It is simply adding territory to come under that government and under the constitution of that province. It was quite different when the late government created the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. There they created governments and they put limitations on the governments, and on the power of legislation. But what right has this parliament to put limitations on the power of legislation or alter the constitution of a government already created and existing, the constitution and the government of the province of Manitoba? I submit that, as
was stated by the Prime Minister only the other night, this parliament has not the power to change the constitution of that government or to put limitations on the power it has in respect of education, other than those now existing. As was stated very clearly section 22 of the British North America Act gave to the Manitoba government the power of legislating in the matter of schools subject to limitations. Those limitations were practically the same as the limitations in the British North America Act. That was stated very clearly by the judgment in the Privy Council in these words:
In the case of Brophy vs Attorney General of Manitoba:
The second section of the Manitoba Act enacts that after the prescribed day the British North America Act shall

Here the judge read the section:
It cannot be questioned, therefore, that section 93 of the British North America Act (save such parts of it as are specially applicable to some only of the provinces of which the Dominion was in 1870 composed) is made applicable to the province of Manitoba except in so far as it is varied by the Manitoba Act. The 22nd section of that statute deals with the same subjeot-matter as section 93 of the British North America Act. The second subsection of this 'latter section may he discarded from consideration, as it is manifestly applicable only to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The remaining provisions closely correspond to section 22 of the Manitoba Act. The only diSerence between the introductory part and the first subseotion of the two sections is that in the Manitoba Act the words ' or practice ' are added after the word ' law ' in the first subsection. . . In view of this comparison, it appears to their lordships impossible to come to any other conclusion that that the 22nd section of the Manitoba Act was intended to be a substitute for the 93rd section of the British North America Act.
So that we have in the province of Manitoba the same limitations in respect of education, the same rights and privileges protected in respect to education, as in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The province of Manitoba, therefore, has this limited constitution in respect to education. That constitution was confirmed by an Imperial Act, and I submit that this parliament has not the power to change Manitoba's constitution as it would be affected if this parliament passed the section suggested by the hon. gentleman who has just moved his amendment. Section 3 of the British North America Act of 1871 says:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish, or Otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and

conditions as may be agreed to by tbe said legislature

Those terms and those conditions, must be terms and must be conditions within the competence of this parliament to pass and not otherwise. But has it the right to change the constitution of Manitoba ? Look a little further on at section 6:
Except as provided by the 3rd section of this Act, it shall not be competent for the parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said parliament in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba or of any other Act hereafter establishing new provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of the legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to 'time the provisions of any law respecting the qualifications of electors and members of the legislative assembly, and to make laws respecting elections in the said province.
I submit that the province of Manitoba has not the power to consent to the amendment of its constitution by the parliament of Canada. Would it not be necessary to go further, and obtain an Imperial Act in order to change that' constitution ? Further I submit, and think the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will admit the same fact, that those terms and conditions referred to in section 6 must be terms and conditions within the competence of this parliament, and relate only to the increase of its area, its finances, and not its constitution. That appears to me to have been the view of the right hon. the leader of the opposition and his administration, for in the Act which they proposed to pass for the purpose of adding to the province of Manitoba, there was no mention whatever of any such restriction or condition or term. That is the position as I understand it, and the leader of the opposition will correct me if the letter and the proposed Bill, which I am about to read, are not correct. On the 26th of February, 1909, the right hon. gentleman wrote as follows to Mr. Roblin, the Premier of Manitoba:
Dear Mr. Roblin,-I have the honour to inclose the draft Bill for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. This Bill is on the line of the resolutions adopted by the House of Commons at its last session. The amount of allowance to be paid to the province in lieu of lands has been left in blank. According to the aforesaid resolution of the House of Commons, this amount should be fixed by negotiation between the Dominion and the government of the province.
We will be happy to confer with you at any time that may be convenient to yourself and to your government.
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER,
The draft Act recites:


James Albert Manning Aikins: Whereas, a petition has been presented to the House of Commons on behalf of the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba, praying amongst other things for an extension of the boundaries of that province northward and eastward, and for an additional subsidy to the province in lieu of the ownership of the public lands in the territory to be added to the province by such extension, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of such petition to the extent and in the manner provided in the enactments hereinafter contained; therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons enacts as follows:-
Boundaries of the province.
1.	Upon the legislature of the province of Manitoba consenting thereto, the limits of the said province shall be increased so that the northern boundary of the province shall be the sixtieth parallel of north latitude; the western boundary shall be the present eastern boundary of tbe province of Saskatchewan; the eastern boundary shall he the present eastern boundary of the province to the northeast corner thereof, thence in a Straight line to the most easterly point of Island Lake, and thence in a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson Bay, thence following the said shore line to its intersection with the sixtieth parallel.
2.	And whereas in accordance with the provisions of the Act establishing the province of 'Manitoba tbe ungranted lands of the Crown in the territory so to he added to the said province will continue to be administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of Canada and the Province will not have such lands as a source of revenue, it is further enacted that there shall be paid by Canada to the Province an increased allowance by money payment to an amount of. . .
3.	This Act shall come into force upon a date to he fixed by proclamation of the- Governor in Council.
Now, that was the /proposed Act by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his government. There is no provision in that Act respecting education such as has been suggested by the hon. gentleman in the proposed amendment. I submit that there must have been some good reason why the right hon. gentleman and his administration did not put such a clause in their proposed Act; that reason is, I presume, the very same reason that governs that action of the present government, namely that they do not wish to change the constitution of the province of Manitoba, in which constitution the rights of the minority and of the majority in respect of schools, are protected just in the same way and to the same extent as the British North America Act, -section 93, guards, the rights of minorities in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I presume there wras no such addition1 in that proposed Act because it was assumed that this parliament had no right to amend the con-

stitution of the province of Manitoba. Moreover if this parliament had it would be a rather singular thing that Manitoba should have one constitution for one part of its territory and a different constitution for another part of its territory. Such a thing, I submit, was never contemplated by this parliament nor by the Imperial parliament when they framed the Manitoba Act. Therefore, the reason for adding this territory to the province of Manitoba without such suggested limitations was that the present constitution of the province sufficiently guards the rights intended perhaps to be guarded though indefinitely by the hon. gentleman who moved this amendment. Assuming any school rights do exist those rights will be protected under section 22 of the Manitoba Act which, in effect is section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867. If such rights exist, they will continue to exist, I submit, as was demonstrated by the lion. the Minister of Public Works the other evening, that under the general law in a territory coming under a new government the laws in force remain in force until changed by competent legislative authority. In view of this and in view of the ambiguity of the amendment itself I submit the amendment should not be entertained by this House.
Amendment, Mr. Mondou, negatived.


Mr. OLIVER.: I desire to move an
amendment to section 5


Albéric Archie Mondou: Mr. Chairman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The amendment is lost.


Frank Oliver: I desire to move, in
amendment to section 5, as follows:-
Inasmuch as under the provisions of this Act the province will not have the public lands as a source of revenue, there shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter set out, be paid by the government to the province, by half-yearly payments in advance, on the first day of January and July in each year, an annual sum based upon the population of the territory proposed to he added to the province as from time to time ascertained by the quinquennial census thereof, as follows-
The sum payable until the population of such territory reaches 100,000, shall he $200,000.
Thereafter, until such population reaches 150,000 the sum payable shall he $250,000.
After such population reaches 200,000 the sum payable shall he $300,000.
I move this amendmeut as embodying the views of the late government in regard to subsidy in respect of land in connection with the increase of the area of the province of Manitoba. The late government in negotiating with the province made the proposal set out in this amendment. It carries with it no return by the province of any of the land or the property which now belongs to the province. I wish to lay some stress upon reasons why the offer of financial terms to the province of Manitoba in connection with the extension of its area was framed in accordance with this amendment and why there was not taken into consideration the question of any return of the property of the province, or the prospective property of the province, to the Dominion. It was absolutely necessary, in considering the resources which would be accorded to the province under the new arrangement to consider what the province was receiving directly and indirectly from the Dominion government, especially in consideration of the fact that it was to some degree desirable that there should be parallel arrangements in the matter of financial assistance-measurably parallel, at any rate-as between Manitoba and the western provinces. But, more important than the question of actual financial arrangement, more important than the value that might be attached to the property which had been handed over by the Dominion to the province, was the effect that this retention by the province would have upon the development and progress of the province as compared with that which would take place if that property) were handed back to the Dominion. For good reasons-undoubtedly for good reasons-in 1885, when the adjustment of the subsidy was made with the province of Manitoba, in addition to the cash subsidy to be paid, it was provided that all swamp lands within the province should become the property of the province. The reason why this was done was not so much because of the cash value of those lands, because at that time these lands had no cash value. In 1885, good agricultural land in the province of Manitoba and in the other two western provinces was not worth $3 an acre-it was not worth $2 an acre.
The Canadian Pacific railway, sometime between 1882 and 1885, sold to the Dominion government six million acres of land at $1.50 an acre. This was selected land, selected agricultural land, fairly fit for farming; and if first class agricultural land fairly fit for farming was worth at that time only $1.50 an acre, the swamp lands of Manitoba had practically no value at all.
The reason why the swamp lands were left in the hands of the province of Manitoba was in order that they might be reclaimed, developed and made productive- that they might be drained. It was thought that the province itself was the proper authority, and had the most suitable means to do that work, and consequently they -were left in the hands of the province, it was thought right and proper to leave

them in the hands of the province which
was expected to make the expenditure to reclaim those lands and make them valuable The proposition was not to give revenue to the province of Manitoba in place of a cash subsidy, it was an arrangement whereby this large area of land could be reclaimed, could be made productive That arrangement, I am sorry to say, did not work out as was expected. When money is readily available, and when the prices of land are high, when it is possible, as it was not possible during previous years, to raise money on the security of the lands to be drained, the government of Manitoba might well have entered upon a policy of effective drainage of these low lands, a policy of effective reclamation of the four, five, six, or seven million acres that are to-day classed as swamp lands. The provincial governments have not entered upon such a policy. It is perhaps not in place here to criticise the drainage policy of the Manitoba government, but there may be no. harm in mentioning it. It is a policy whereby certain areas are set apart as drainage districts, bonds are issued on the security of the land's in those districts, and purchasers of the lands not only pay the price of the lands to the provincial government, but carry the debt that has been laid upon them for the purpose of drainage. That may be a good policy in a limited way, but it cannot be a policy under which this vast area of land can be properly reclaimed. This area, as I said the other night, is two-thirds as great as the total area under cultivation to-day in the three prairie provinces, that cultivation which has mad'e the Dominion rich and great. That is the area which is waiting to be reclaimed, developed, and made productive under an active, energetic and progressive provincial government such as we hope to see in that province in the not distant future. That land is to be handed back to the Dominion government, a government which has not the proper authority or jurisdiction, and which is not responsible for the drainage or reclamation of those lands. Is it possible, as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins), said the other day, that these lands are only being temporarily handed back to the Dominion, to be again returned to the province? Possibly, that is the case.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Does the hon. gentleman say that the member for Brandon said that?


Frank Oliver: I understood him to say it.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. BRADBURY.: Why should it not?


Frank Oliver: Because it has not the jurisdiction over the question that the provincial government has.


George Henry Bradbury: Do you not think that the good roads policy of the present government will have the effect of draining a lot of these lands?


Frank Oliver: I do not think it will. If the conditions in Manitoba were not as extreme as they are no doubt the building of roads would have some effect-no doubt it will have some effect-but, in so far as actual swamp lands are concerned, it is. absolutely necessary for the government to consider a provincial drainage policy which will involve large expenditures in order to secure the reclamation of those lands. Everybody knows that it is in the provincial government that the authority rests to deal with matters of civil rights; and for the Dominion government, without jurisdiction, to go into the province of Manitoba and undertake to carry on a drainage policy would certainly bring on complications, as between the provincial and Dominion governments, 149
that I do not think this present Dominion government has the faintest idea of. The settlers who were hoping and waiting in March, 1910, on the authority of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, are going to he left to hope and wait indefinitely because of his action in the fall of 1911.
What is the consideration for this radical change in policy, admittedly to the detriment of the province of Manitoba and particularly, on the authority of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, to the detriment of the people who are now settled in the vicinity of these swamp lands and whose prosperity and welfare depend upon the drainage of these lands? The consideration, as set down in the Bill before the committee, is a cash payment in excess of the amount now received from the Dominion treasury as to land of $313,000 a year. In consideration of the receipt from the federal treasury of some $313,000 a year, more than it is now receiving on land account, the province foregoes its policy, hands back the land to the Dominion and the settlers who are now without drainage simply sit and wait for it to come. I quite appreciate the possibility that the province of Manitoba, like many a settler in the country, is hard up for money. Many a settler, as soon as he gets his patent, mortgages his homestead worth from $5,000 to $10,000, for a few hundred dollars. I can appreciate that the province of Manitoba, under the administration of its present government, is probably in that veT.y position and is so far behind in its ability to meet its present requirements that $313,000 of extra cash a year is more important to it to-day than the carrying out of the policy of reclamation by drainage which is the proper policy for any government of that province. It is a pity if that is the condition, but it is not the fault of this government if it is the condition. A payment of $313,000 in cash per year for the abandonment of the policy of draining and reclaiming 7,000,000 acres of swamp land in Manitoba, is, to all intents and purposes, no consideration at all. It is not a consideration, it is an insult to the province.
Let us step aside now from the question of the policy of drainage and its results to the progress and prosperity of the province and let us consider this matter simply as a cash transaction. Let us consider the swamp land as simply having a certain value and let us see whether the arrangement contained in section 5 'is a good arrangement for the province of Manitoba or not, put on the lowest possible ground, on the ground of cash received on the one hand and the value of the cash given on the other. There have been several estimates of the value of this swamp land at $3 an acre. The average price of the swamp land which has



been passed over to the province and, by the province, sold to private individuals, something over 800,000 acres, has been placed at $3 per acre. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury-) assured the House that it was the choice land that had already been sold and that what remained to be sold would not bring nearly so much money. But, in looking through the records again, I noticed that on this same 4th March, and in connection with the same debate in the Manitoba legislature, that the Minister of the Interior gave some information to the legislature as to the value of these lands sold. I find that he told the House at that time that in the district of Makinaek-that would be in the constituency of Dauphin-in township 2115, certain swamp lands were sold at $8 per acre; in township 22-15, $6.50 per acre; in township 26-15, $10 per acre; in township 26-15 W. $0, $15 and $30 per acre.


Mr. STAPLES.: Will the horn. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) tell the House what was the average price per acre of the St. Peter's reserve land sold by himself.


Frank Oliver: I would if I had time, but the House on former occasions has heard a great deal about the price of the land of the St. Peter's reserve. The government of which the Minister of the Interior was a member, saw fit to issue a Royal Commission to investigate that claim, and it will be for the Minister of the Interior to tell the hon. member (Mr. Staples) everything in connection with it when the opportunity occurs.


William D. Staples: The hon. member (Mr. Oliver) sold the lands for less than $5 an acre and it is -only twelve miles from Winnipeg.


Frank Oliver: The land on the St. Peter's reserve was sold by auction and it. brought- all it was worth at the time.


William D. Staples: And it was not swamp land either.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Was it all sold by auction?


Frank Oliver: All the land that the government sold was sold by auction.


George Henry Bradbury: You gave the Indians
21,000	acres to give away.


Frank Oliver: We gave the Indians certain lands that were adjudged to be theirs and they sold them as they had the right to do. My hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) discussed this matter in the House frequently and a Royal Commission was issued by the government of Manitoba and that Commission has reported, and when that report is laid on the table of this House we will discuss it at the proper time.


Frank Oliver: 


George Henry Bradbury: That commission reported that my contentions as brought before this House with regard to St. Peter's reserve were correct and that the contentions which the hon. member (Mr. Oliver), is responsible for were not correct.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend can wait until the records are laid upon the table and then we will know whether his statement is correct or not. I am bound to say that my reading of the record, so far as I have seen it, is absolutely to the contrary of what the hon. member (Mr. Bradbury) has stated.
I was going to say that in township 26, range 15, two sections of swamp lands-were sold at eight dollars an acre, and in township 24, range 16, certain swamp lands were sold a't six dollars per acre. I have, I think, established very thoroughly that so far from three dollars per acre being the maximum average price it must in the nature of things have been very much below the average price of these swamp lands. As a matter of fact in the budget speech made by the provincial treasurer of Manitoba to the legislature in February, 1910, he stated that the average value of the swamp lands sold in the year with which he was dealing was $5.48 per acre. Now, I am not going to value this land at $5.48 per acre; I am not going to value it at six dollars, eight dollars or ten dollars, which the Minister of the Interior boasted in the House the land brought, but I do-say that the evidence that was placed before the Manitoba legislature by the present Minister of the Interior and by the provincial treasurer on that occasion, is ample proof that when the general valuation of three dollars per acre is placed upon the swamp lands of Manitoba, it is below the actual cash value at the present time. Taking then the value at three dollars an acre, we find that in the statement made by the Hon. Mr. Armstrong, provincial treasurer, on the 22nd of February, 1910, that the province held at that time-not that they were going to hold, but did actually hold-1,425,712 acres of land, valued at $4,277,136. This statement goes on to say that there were to be turned over by the Dominion government to the province, 4,000,000 acres of land, which in his budget speech he valued at $3 an acre or a total of $12,000,000. That represents four and a quarter millions for land owned by the province that was unsold, and $12,000,000 for lands to be turned over to the province and to be sold bv the province, or a total of over $16,000,000 which the provincial treasurer of Manitoba, delivering his budget speech to the legislature declared to be the actual value of the swamp lands of that province. Now, Mr. Chairman, it does not take very

much figuring to show that $16,000,000 at 5 per cent interest yields $800,000 a year. On the one hand, by this bargain the province of Manitoba gets in cash $315,000 increase in regard to land, and it gives away property which at the valuation placed upon it by the treasurer of the province is worth $800,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how our friends hope to justify this feature of this Bill to the people of Manitoba. They have made merry in the House because it has been argued that the terms were too generous to the province of Manitoba, and at the same time that they were not generous enough. This is not generosity; it is a question of policy looking to the development of the province. But if you bring it down to the basis of a cash transaction, the province is a loser (in the face of the statement made by the provincial treasurer of Manitoba on his responsibility as provincial treasurer to the legislature of the province); the province is a loser by the difference between $315,000 and $800,000 a year.
But, it may he said, that the province is getting an increase on its debt account, and is getting a bulk sum as arrearages. and it does not make any difference whether it gets it on land account or debt account or any other account, the transaction is better for the province in money than the offer made by the Liberal government less than a year ago. Let us ^ee how that works out. Under this pre-, sent arrangement the province gets an increase of $202,000 on debt account; it gets an increase of $315,270 on land account; and if the arrearages and building allowances are capitalized and interest is allowed at 5 per cent, which I claim is a fair calculation, the province gains $119,013 per annum on arrearages account.
That is, the province makes a total gain over the present subsidy of $634,283. But if that is compared with the offer made by the Liberal government, $200,000 must be deducted from it. So that the account stands thus:	The province is better off
by the Bill now before the House to the amount of $434,514 in cash than it would have been if the government of Manitoba had accepted the offer of the Liberal government made last spring, and it is something over $800,000 worse off in cash value as the result of this present offer-$400,000 to the good on the one hand, and $800,000 to the bad on the other hand.


Mr. BLAIN.: How does my hon. friend explain that the Manitoba government are perfectly satisfied with it?


Frank Oliver: I explained that in the beginning of my remarks. I said that many a homesteader who has secured his pa.tent, has mortgaged a farm worth 1491
$10,000 for a few hundred dollars; and the government of Manitoba is in exactly that position. Having gone behind in their provincial finances, they need the money, and when this government offers them $434,000 in cash per year, their financial position is such that they are compelled to take it rather than realize on the property, according to the figures of their own Provincial Treasurer delivered only two years ago. There is no way of escaping from the results of these figures, which are the figures given by the government of Manitoba itself. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I desire to move the amendment which I have placed in your hands.


Mr. ROGERS.: The hon. member for Edmonton has sought to convey a wrong impression of certain conditions of this Bill. He has said that this arrangement will be detrimental to the Dominion in view of the fact that the province of Manitoba undertook to drain the swamp lands belonging either to the Dominion or to the province. I want to tell my hon. friend that such has never been the case. We have in the province of Manitoba a Drainage Act under which it is possible for any individual who owns a certain tract of land which he considers to be swamp land and desires to have drained, to file a petition with the government of the province for that purpose. Then the government issues bonds or debentures to the amount fixed by the engineer, who makes an estimate of the necessary cost of carrying on the work. The government simply acts as trustee for the people who own the land or control it, and never has undertaken to do any drainage work on the lands which the province of Manitoba owns as swamp lands. M.y hon. friend moves an amendment which is simply a copy of the proposition which was made by the late government to the province of Manitoba on the 7th of March of last year. In case the House is not aware of the fact, I would like to state that when that offer was made to Manitoba, the legislature of the province unanimously rejected it. The resolution rejecting the offer was moved by Mr. Roblin, the Premier of the province, and was seconded by Mr. Winkler, the chief whip of the Liberal party, and was supported by every member of the legislature. It was as follows :
And whereas it appears, by a minute of Council, approved of by His Excellency in Council on the seventeenth day of March, 1911, that, after frequent urgings, a proposal is made by the federal authorities that the limits of the province be extended eastward and northward to the Hudson bay, to comprise an area of 106,304.000 acres, and that there shall be paid to the province annually, in

lieu of public lands, mines, minerals and royalties in the said territory, the sum of $200,000 until the population thereof reaches 100,000, the sum of $250,000 until the population, reaches 150,000, and thereafter the sum of $300,000;	_ _	.
And whereas it is the opinion of this House, after due and careful deliberation, that the said proposal does not recognize the principle of equality as aforesaid;
Therefore, be it resolved, that this House firmly but most respectfully declines to accept the proposed addition of territory upon the terms offered in the minute of Council of His Excellency in Council, as hereinbefore set forth, and reiterates and reaffirms the request of the province, as a constituent portion of the confederation of Canada, for equality of treatment with either the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick or the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, that is to say;-
(a)	The control of all the public lands,
mines and minerals in the said proposed territory, or	_	_
(b)	Financial and other considerations of a character similar to those given or to be given to the said provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta.
Either of which propositions this legislature is willing to favourably consider.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to accept the amendment of my hon. friend would mean the renewal of the refusal on the part of a unanimous legislature in the province of Manitoba. It would be idle for this House to undertake to adopt that amendment, and make a proposition such as my hon. friend has suggested, knowing full well that the same could not, and would not be accepted by that province. I am sure that my hon. friend understands very well the conditions in Manitoba province, and he is well aware that it would not accept this proposition.
I would like to correct my hon. friend in another statement which he has made in respect to this arrangement being necessary because of Manitoba's financial conditions. I would be sorry -and I am sure my hon. friend did not intend to throw out such an idea-if the statement were to go broadcast, that the province of Manitoba was in any sense in financial difficulties. I want to tell my hon. friend that there is no province in Canada whose credit stands higher to-day than does that of Manitoba. Sir, that is true notwithstanding the fact that we have suffered in respect to this matter of swamp lands as a result of the administration of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) opposite. The hon. gentleman makes a calculation of the amount of swamp lands that we got, and that we were entitled to, like my hon. friend, I think from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who last night made the statement that Manitoba had been in possession of 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 acres of swamp lands for some years Mr. ROGERS.
and that the province was now wishing_ to return them. I want to draw attention to the fact that one of the grounds of complaint registered by Manitoba time and time again was in respect to this very matter of swamp lands. It is true that the Liberals were not in power in Manitoba in the year 1900. A Conservative government was then elected in that province, and we came to Ottawa at that time and presented our claims in connection with the swamp lands. Although we pressed these claims as strongly as we possibly could, we were only able to secure in the first part of the year 160,000 acres, and in the latter half of the year 33,000 acres more. The following year we were not able to obtain a single acre, but the next year again we got 160,000 acres in the first half of the year, and in the second half 20,000 acres more. Let me tell the ex-Minister of the Interior, as he knows well, that from September, 1909, down to the day he left office he did not hand over to Manitoba a single solitary acre of swamp lands. That was the treatment of which we complained.


Frank Oliver: Did my hon. friend make an allusion to myself?


Robert Rogers: The allusion was to the department over which my hon. friend presided, and from 1909 down to the time he left office


Frank Oliver: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that there was not a single acre handed over to the province of Manitoba?	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: Not an acre.
Mr.	OLIVER.	During that time?Mr.	ROGERS.	From September,	1909,
down to the time my hon. iriend left office. I have the return here and will send it over to my hon. friend.
Mr.	OLIVER.	How much land	was
handed over before that?
Mr.	ROGERS.	The total amount	of
lands that we received was 2,500,000 acres. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything more on this subject. I merely wished to make one or two corrections in respect to the statements made by the hon. gentleman. I think the committee will not accept the amendment which he has moved because it is only intended as a piece of factious opposition on his part, and in order that Manitoba might again refuse, as they did very properly and unanimously refuse a similar proposition on a previous occasion.


Mr. ROBERT CRUISE (Dauphin).: As a representative of the constituency of Dauphin, province of Manitoba, I feel that it is my duty to offer a few remarks on the question of the extension of the boundaries

of that province, more particularly as Manitoba is probably more concerned in the matter than any other province in the Dominion. The object of the Bill is to enlarge the boundaries of Manitoba, and as to that I have no objection; the territory given to the province is perfectly satisfactory in my judgment; but I strongly oppose the handing back to Ontario of a single foot of land belonging to Manitoba.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Cruise: This Bill gives to Ontario a strip of land five miles wide and 150 miles long for the purpose of building a railroad, and it also proposes to grant to Ontario a strip of land one-half mile wide and ten miles long, down the Nelson river to use as it pleases. The province of Ontario has also the privilege of taking 200 feet from Fort Nelson to Fort Churchill for the further construction of a railroad, and if they avail themselves of it, it practically gives them all the water front that is of any value on Hudson bay. For these reasons I strongly object to handing over to Ontario these valuable concessions. The strip of land to be granted to Ontario has been referred to here as the red line, but I would prefer to mark it on the map as the black line, because the fact that this territory should be given to Ontario so that it can go as it pleases through a sister province, is a black eye to Manitoba. I would want to say further that Ontario has no more right to such a grant, or to a port at Port Nelson than Manitoba has to a strip of land five miles in width to Fort William or to Port Arthur. In this respect I take the -same stand to-day that I took years ago. We were told in the province of Manitoba some years ago by the hon. Minister of the Interior, a mail for whom I have the greatest respect, and also by the Hon. Mr. Roblin, that Ontario had no right whatever to one foot of land in the territory belonging to Manitoba. On October 17th, 1905, Mr. Rogers, speaking at a party gathering in the Maw block, Winnipeg, made the following statement:
I want to say, as representing the province of Manitoba, that the province of Ontario has no more claim, as far as I understand the law and the faots as shown by the public records, than the province of British Columbia. The mere fact that Ontario lies to our east does not give her any claim either in equity or law.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Cruise: Mr. Rogers cited the Privy Council judgment and the subsequent legislation by the Dominion House, and then said:
The government of Sir John Macdonald never changed a line or letter of that statement as drafted by Ontario, and yet Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, in order to further hamper, punish and discipline the province of Manitoba, undertakes to drag in the province of Ontario, which settled the boundary for itself on its own terms.
Now, Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been accused of dragging Ontario into the settlement of the boundary question. Who is guilty of dragging Ontario into the settlement of the boundary question at the present time? I say that it is not a square deal to Manitoba to make these concessions to Ontario which properly belong to Manitoba, and therefore I object to these provisions in the present Bill.
Now a word in connection with the_ swamp lands. I strongly object to handing over the swamp lands of the province of Manitoba to the Dominion. For years our local government had been demanding more swamp lands from the Dominion which was perfectly right; and now they have in the neighbourhood of seven or eight millions of acres -of these lands. These they propose now to hand back to the Dominion. I contend that as a business proposition (that is not favourable to the province of Manitoba. It is the local government's business to drain these swamp lands and bring them into condition to be cultivated, but if these lands are handed over to the Dominion, I do not believe this work will be done. We have been told by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), that he has a great immigration policy, an immigration policy that knows neither east nor west. I hope that this is true, for we want immigrants in the Dauphin district. But I would ask the minister this: when these swamp lands are handed back to the Dominion *and the work of draining them ceases, what is he going to do for his immigrants to Manitoba? It is most important to the province that these lands should be drained and settlers brought in to cultivate them. A great deal has been said about the value of swamp lands, some putting it at $3 an acre and some putting it at a higher figure. I know something about these swamp lands, and I know that when drained they are the most productive lands we have. That has been proven beyond a doubt, especially in my district where we have a considerable area of these swamp lands. For these reasons, I object to these lands being handed back to the Dominion. We are told that the government will hand these lands back again to Manitoba at some future day. That may be true or it may not be true. We were told by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) when he appeared in the western country that if he were returned to power he would net give the people of Canada reciprocity. He was admired by the western people
(COMMONS
for his courage in making that statement. But he went further and stated that if returned to power he would carry out the Farmers' Bill of rights to the letter and would give them government ownership and control of elevators. Where do we find him to-day? The people took him at his word, but he has not delivered the goods and given us government ownership and control of . elevators. How do we know, then, that he will hand back these lands to Manitoba?. It seems to me that this is nothing better than a hold-up. The lands, we are told, will be handed back to the province at a future date. But when? At the next general election? In that case, what will be the argument? It will be: If you vote for the Conservative party you will get your lands back? That is not a square deal. And for that reason I object to it. I support the interests of the province of Manitoba, where I lived for many years and hope to live for a good many yet. These are my reasons for objecting to certain clauses in this Boundary Bill.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: I desire to speak on the general question, but more particularly with respect to the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr Oliver). I have no objection to the boundaries of [DOT]Manitoba being extended. There has been a general desire on the part of the people of Manitoba for a number of years for an extension of the boundaries of their province. But there has also been a general desire on the part of the people of Saskatchewan for an extension of the boundaries of their province toward Hudson bay. As to that, I hope to speak more directly before I conclude, but, in the meantime I wish to offer a few observations with regard to the financial terms under this Bill. Hon. members who take the trouble to go back to the debate of 1905 and read the speeches of men who were then in opposition, and are now on the treasury benches, will be apt to wonder how these gentlemen who opposed the financial terms given to Saskatchewan and Alberta can to-day support the terms being given to Manitoba, particularly as the government say that the object of the Bill is to place Manitoba on the same footing, financially and otherwise, as these other provinces. One of these speeches was by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster). He criticised the late government for the financial terms that were being given to Saskatchewan and Alberta, and said practically that these provinces were getting too much.


William D. Staples: No, he did not.


William Melville Martin: He said to the government: This measure wall bring down upon the government every province of the Mr. CRUISE.
Dominion; already I hear the rumbling of discontent among the western provinces; and he went on to say that he hoped the Minister of Finance, before he pressed the Bill forward, would revise the financial considerations about to be given to the new provinces. And now we are told by the leader of the government (Mr. Borden) that Manitoba is being placed on exactly the same footing as Saskatchewan and Alberta. How can the Minister of Trade and commerce (Mr. Poster), in view of his statement then with regard to Alberta and Saskatchewan, support to-day the terms being given to Manitoba under this Bill ?


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: It makes the provinces equal.


William Melville Martin: But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) said that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were being given too much; today he says the province of Manitoba is being given just enough; and yet, according to the Prime Minister and other hon. gentlemen opposite, the province of Manitoba is being given exactly what these other provinces were given. I do not say that the treatment of the provinces is equal. I had here beside me a copy of volume 2 of ' Hansard ' of 1905 containing a speech by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk). I am'sorry that it has been taken away, for it deprives me of the opportunity to quote the hon. gentleman's exact words. But it was practically the same line of argument. He said there was no reason why Quebec should be called upon to assist in paying these immense subsidies to Alberta and Saskatchewan. But, to-day he is prepared to support the same terms when given to Manitoba. I do not wish to be understood as finding fault with Manitoba getting a square deal. If the Manitoba members are satisfied with this Bill, all right. If I were a member from Manitoba, I should not be satisfied with it. But there are certain features of this Bill which show discrimination in favour of Manitoba against Saskatchewan and Alberta. One of these was well stated by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). According to the Bill, Manitoba obtains a debt allowance on a population of 250,000, the same, I believe, as the debt allowance that was given to Saskatchewan and Alberta.
To-day in the province of Saskatchewan we have a population of something like 495,000, while the province of Manitoba has 455,000; we have 40,000 more than Manitoba. Therefore, in order to place Saskatchewan on the same footing as Manitoba we should have in Saskatchewan an increased debt allowance based on our
40,000	additional population, which would mean a debt allowance of

$1,280,000. That is one of the discriminations in favour of Manitoba against Saskatchewan and Alberta. There is another point. The population in Manitoba is confined to a comparatively small area. If .you draw a line diagonally from the southeast corner of Manitoba to the northwest [DOT]and take the country south of that, you will find an area of 40,000 square miles of inhabited country. In the province of Saskatchewan only the southern half is well populated, covering an area of about
125.000	square miles. It is not so expensive to administer the province of Manitoba as it is to administer the province of Saskatchewan. In Manitoba to-day roads, bridges and schools must be provided for over an area of about 40,000 square miles, while in Saskatchewan roads, bridges and schools must be provided for over an area of 125,000 square miles. It is therefore less expensive to administer the province of Manitoba than the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. So this constitutes another discrimination in favour of Manitoba.
There is another matter. The province of Manitoba secured 150,000 acres of selected lands for university purposes. Saskatchewan never secured any land for such a purpose neither has Alberta. The 150,000 acres of university lands selected in Manitoba are being written off, according to this measure, at $2 per acre. I would like, as a representative from Saskatchewan, to he allowed to select 150,000 acres of land in that province for university purposes at $2 per acre. I say that this government, in [DOT]order to place Saskatchewan and Alberta on an equal footing with Manitoba in this Tespect, must give us the right to select
150.000	acres of land for university purposes in each one of those provinces.
Now the. question of arrearages has been referred to. I do not profess to be able to throw any new light on the subject, and will only present it to you as it appears to me. as a representative of Saskatchewan. After looking over the speeches that have been delivered by the Prime Minister and other hon. gentlemen of the opposition dealing with the payment of arrearages io the province of Manitoba, I confess that I have not been able to find any justification for it. What do they say? That as early as 1905, when Manitoba wanted to have her boundaries increased and her territories extended to Hudson Bay, the Prime Minister says he could not admit her contention that they should date back to 1009. When the resolution was passed by the late government extending the boundaries to Hudson bay, it appears, if I am correctly informed, that the Manitoba government never accepted those boundaries until the month of March, 1911, and never formally notified the government of Canada of their acceptance until the month of March 1911. To my mind the Manitoba
government have not got a solitary leg to stand upon in respect to the pavment of arrearages. I do not wish to cast any reflections upon the present government of Manitoba. The Minister of the Interior a few days ago ventured to say that_ the finances of the province of Manitoba were in the best position, in as good a position as those of any other province in Canada. I do not know anything about the position of the finances of the province of Manitoba; I do know', however, that on their telephone transaction, when they purchased the telephones throughout the province and operated them as a government concern for the past three or four years, they are something like $450,000 behind at the present time in the operation of that system. I also know that they have lost money in the operation of their government-owned elevators. I do not need to go outside the province of Manitoba to get information of her finances. About six weeks ago when I was in Winnipeg, I was told many times that the government	of Manitoba	were	financiallyin a very bad position. I can only say	that it is my	belief	that	thissum	of	$2,178,000 to	be handed	overto Manitoba in payment of arrearages	is	merely being	given	as a	sop
to that province, and as a rope to pull her out of a hole. I do believe that were it not for the financial assistance which the Manitoba government expects to get out of this payment of arrearages, they would not have a ghost of a chance in the next election.
Because the old legislature of the North-w'est Territories, as far as they are covered the province of Saskatchewan, passed a resolution to the effect that the time had come when a province should be formed, we might just as well argue, that the payments under the autonomy legislation of 1905 should date back to 1902 as hon. gentlemen can argue that Manitoba's arrearages should date back to 1908 as provided in this Bill. Let me further point out to emphasize my argument that pursuant to the resolution passed in the territorial legislature in 1902 Mr. Haultain drew up a draft Bill which he submitted to the late government as a basis on which the two provinces should be caivect out of the Northwest Territories. With just as good reason, therefore, you might argue that Alberta and Saskatchewan should receive financial consideration back to 1902, as you can argue that Manitoba should be paid arrearages amounting to $2,178,000 dating back to 1908. In my opinion this is an outrage to the rest of the people of Canada, and a further discrimination in favour of Manitoba as against the other two provinces.
There is another matter that occurs to me in connection with this Bill, and that

is the question of our natural resources. Ever since the year 1905, in -western Canada, every Conservative candidate always promised, not only in Manitoba but in Saskatchewan and Alberta, that immediately the Conservative party came into power it would restore our natural resources to those three provinces. Now here is an opportunity for the present Conservative government to fulfil their promises and show their good faith. Here is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to fulfil the promises which he made when he was touring western Canada last summer, when he toid them he was in favour of restoring the natural resources to those provinces. No further legislation is required, here is an opportunity for him to do it. Let me refer to one or two statements that were made by the present Prime Minister in the west last year. First of all, let me read the statement that was made by the right hon. gentleman at Halifax on August 21, 1907-I believe it has already been quoted in this House. The hon. gentleman said:
In 1905 the Conservatives took the position that under our constitution the public domain within each province ought to he committed to the management and administration of the people of that province through their provincial governments. That was the basis of arrangement between the four provinces originally constituting the Dominion. At the present time every province in Canada controls and administers its public lands except 'the three provinces of Manitoba Saskatchewan and Alberta.
He concluded as follows:
We have not receded from the policy which we announced two years ago, and therefore we are prepared to restore their public lands to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan upon fair terms.
The platform of the Conservative party circulated in western Canada during the recent election contained this paragraph about handing over their natural resources to the prairie provinces. That was the main argument of the Conservative party in my constituency, [DOT] granting the natural resources to the prairie provinces. Then at Winnipeg, in 1911, when the right hon. gentleman was dealing with this question, he said:
Before discussing a subject of great publio interest now under the consideration of parliament, I desire to touch upon certain questions of paramount importance to the people of the west. To-day in Canada six provinces enjoy the right to control and administer the public lands, mines, minerals and other natural resources within their boundaries. That right is not enjoyed by the three prairie provinces. The Liberal-Conservative party since 1902 has firmly asserted and maintained the rights of these three provinces to their public domain. We stand for that right to-day and we will maintain it. The public lands, and


William Melville Martin: natural resources are vested in the Crown, to be administered for the benefit of the people. In six provinces the Crown, in dealing with the public domain acts upon the advice of the provincial ministers and under laws enacted by the provincial legislatures. In the three prairie provinces the Crown in dealing with such lands acts upon the advice of the federal ministers and under laws enacted by the federal parliament. Why should there he any such discrimination against the people of these three provinces? The day is not far distant when Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will receive from a Liberal-Conservative government at Ottawa the just recognition of their undoubted right to their public lands and natural resources.
There is a Liberal-Conservative government at Ottawa at the present time; why does not that Liberal-Conservative government implement its promise, particularly to the province of Manitoba, and give these natural resources to that province? That was a speech made by the right hon. gentleman at Winnipeg. But I have here an extract from a speech made by the Prime Minister at Brandon in the month of July, 1911. He said:
In 1902, dn 1905, in 1907, and again in 1910, we have stood for the right of the western provinces to own and control their public domain. It is the right of the people of th ose provinces to have their public lands and natural resources administered by their own governments under the control of their own legislatures. They say that they are free men and being free men in a free country have as good a right to control through their owu 'local legislatures, and by their own provincial executives, the administration of their publio lands and natural resources as have the people of any of the eastern provinces who enjoy and have enjoyed that right. The Liberal-Conservative party supports that claim and will enforce dt at the first opportunity.
As far as the province of Manitoba is concerned here is an opportunity; yet, the promise which was made at Winnipeg and Brandon during last summer has not been implemented. Not only have we the promise of the right hon. Prime Minister, but other members of the present administration have expressed themselves very strongly with respect to the control of the natural resources of the prairie provinces.
I have to go no farther than to the hon. Secretary-of State (Mr. Roche) who discussed this subject in the House of Commons in 1906, and, if I remember correctly, he made similar remarks in speaking at Regina, when I had the pleasure of hearing him. I may tell the Secretary of State that he did not do me very much harm when he was in Regina. Speaking on the question of the coal strike in 1906, on a resolution moved by the then member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) the hon. Secretary of State said:

The hon. member for Qu'Appolle (Mr. Lake) lias spoken about the humiliating position in which our country has been placed. In the first place I claim it was a humiliating position in which to place those new provinces to withold from their hands .the control of their own public lands. Had the rights of the people of those provinces been fought for as they should have been fought for by hon. gentlemen supporting the government, the provinces would have control over their lands to-day, and the provinces would have been able to grapple with their own coal strike without calling on the federal government for relief.
If that was a humiliating position for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta to be placed in then, I submit it is a much more humiliating position for the province of Manitoba to be placed in to-day in view of the assurances that were given not only by the right hon. the Prime Minister, but by other ministers and by every Conservative candidate throughout the west during many years past. Hon. members from Manitoba told us in 1905 that Alberta and Saskatchewan were being placed in a most humiliating position. Why do they not rise to the occasion now and help us to keep Manitoba from being placed in such a humiliating position and from being deprived of the management of her natural resources and lands?
Then, there is this question of the swamp lands to which I want to allude for a minute. There have been various estimates made of the value of these swamp lands which were handed over to Manitoba under the Act which was passed in 1885. I believe that it is estimated that something like 8,000,000 acres of swamp lands still belong to Manitoba. The estimate made by the provincial treasurer of Manitoba, Mr. Armstrong, was that these lands were worth something like $16,000,000. My hon. friend from Edmonton has stated that this sum, capitalized at 5 per cent, would produce $800,000 per annum and, according to the calculation of my hon. friend from Edmonton, Manitoba would be in a far better financial position to keep these lands, even provided they produced only $3 per acre, and get $800,000 per annum than to accept the terms proposed by the Bill now before the committee. I submit that $3 per acre is not a sufficient value for these swamp lands. If the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), who used to wax eloquent in connection with St. Peter's Indian reserve, were in the House, I would call him as a witness. He used to estimate that these reserve swamp lands were worth from $25 to $30 per acre.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. membei from Selkirk is in the House. I would like to correct the hon. gentleman.


William Melville Martin: Just as soon &f I get through the hon. gentleman may follow me.


George Henry Bradbury: What the hon. gentleman has stated is absolutely incorrect.


William Melville Martin: I have not any doubt at all that 'Hansard' will prove that what I have stated is absolutely correct, that the hon. member for Selkirk did estimate the lands of St. Peter's Indian reserve to be worth from $25 to $30 per acre.


George Henry Bradbury: I beg to say that the hon. gentleman is .absolutely incorrect. There are not more than 8,000 acres of swamp land out of the whole 40,000 acres contained within St. Peter's Indian reserve


William Melville Martin: I am forced to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. However, it is a matter of small import in any event. I submit that $3 per acre for the swamp lands in Manitoba is a very small valuation. I believe that these lands are worth at least $10 per acre. Take 8,000,000 acres at $10 per acre and you have $80,000,000 and therefore the argument presented by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that the terms offered bv the recent administration, according to which Manitoba was to retain her swamp lands and get a grant of $200,000 per annum in lieu of the balance of land not granted, was a better proposition for Manitoba than the terms submitted by the present government, is quite correct.
Then, before I conclude my remarks, I wish to direct the attention of the commitee to a matter which is of great importance to the province of Saskatchewan and to refer to the rights of that province to have some consideration in connection with a port on Hudson Bay. If you go back to the question of what territory is involved in the territory that is being added to Manitoba you will find that it is made up of parts of the original territories of Saskatchewan and Athabasca, Keewatin and the territory which lies between Ontario and Hudson Bay. There are only three provinces which can possibly be interested in that territory and they are Ontario, to the east, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan, as early as the year 1906 or 1907, put forward a claim for an extension of her boundaries to a port on the bay. I submit that in deciding the question you must of necessity go into the history of these territories, and that, in as far as that portion of Athabasca and of the old district of Saskatchewan which is being added to Manitoba are concerned, the province which has the paramount and absolute interest is Saskatchewan. When the province of Saskatchewan was formed there were parts of the old district of Athabasca and the old district of Saskatchewan that were not included.
Those districts and those parts of those districts which are now being put into Manitoba, were formerly part of the old

Northwest Territories and were administered by the government of the old Northwest Territories. The school law of the old Northwest Territories which was in force until 1905 was in force in those parts of Athabasca and Saskatchewan district which are now being added to the province of Manitoba. Those parts of those districts, as a matter of fact, were represented in the old territorial legislature of the Northwest Territories, now represented by the legislature of Saskatchewan and the legislature of Alberta. The -old government of the Northwest Territories was responsible for the construction of roads and bridges, and schools in those territories, and, as I have said, those parts of Athabasca and Saskatchewan were represented in the legislature by Mr. Samuel McLeod. Formerly, I believe, they constituted part of what was known as the district of Cumberland, and latterly the district of East Prince Albert. As a matter of fact these portions of territory were represented in this House of Commons in the old district of Mackenzie by a gentleman who still occupies a seat in this House. This territory which is being added to the province of Manitoba, was just as much a part of the old Northwest Territorities as the city of Regina, or the town of Indian Head, or any other municipality located in the central part of that province. In addition to the fact that the province of Saskatchewan has a paramount and absolute interest beyond any other province, in the part of this territory which has been referred to-the part that lies north of the Nelson river and between the Nelson river and Hudson bay-in addition to that I submit that in apportioning the territories among the three provinces, it is generally admitted that each of these provinces was entitled to have access to Hudson bay. If you will look at the map I think every one will agree that the province of Saskatchewan, beyond any other province in the Dominion, is entitled to access to a port on Hudson bay. Our province is the most vitally interested in the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. I submit that it is beyond dispute that the province of Saskatchewan will use that Hudson Bay railway for transportation facilities far more than will any of the other provinces of the Dominion. I believe than any railroad that is constructed out of Saskatchewan or Manitoba towards Hudson ' bay, will be used by Saskatchewan more than it will be used by Manitoba. The products of Saskatchewan are to-day greater in volume than are the products of Manitoba, and there will be greater disparity between the two provinces in this respect in years to come, so that of necessity any railway that is constructed towards Hudson bay will be more used1 by the people of Saskatchewan than by the people of Manitoba or of Mr. MARTIN (Regina).
Ontario. I submit that Saskatchewan would only be getting a square deal if it were given access to Hudson bay, and given the same consideration at least as the province of Ontario is getting.
There are further facts to consider in connection with this matter. As far as any evidence I have been able to find goes, the inhabitants of the territory which is being annexed have never themselves evinced any desire to be annexed to Manitoba, but, on the contrary, they have evinced a desire to be annexed' to Saskatchewan. I find in volume 1 of the Sessional Papers of 1906-07, (hat when the legislation of 1905 was under consideration in this House, the people of that part of Athabasca and Saskatchewan petitioned to be included in Saskatchewan, and I shall read a short extract from a petition which the people of these territories forwarded to the Prime Minister at that time:
We, the undersigned electors of Mackenzie district, Northwest Territories, and residing at or near the Pas, Saskatchewan, having learned but recently that an effort is being made by the government of Manitoba to have that portion of the territories, lying north of Manitoba, joined to and inoluded in the province of Manitoba, and such annexation being repugnant to us, and as we believe detrimental to the best interests of this portion of the country, we therefore humbly petition that our political affiliation may be with the territories and not with Manitoba, and in case of provincial autonomy being granted the territories, our destiny may be in and with that portion of the territories of which we form an integral part and for such, as in duty hound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Therefore, we have the inhabitants of this territory petitioning not to be annexed to Manitoba, and so far as I have learned, there is not on record any petition to the contrary.
. The territory which I submit Saskatchewan is entitled to, is as follows:
The territory bounded on the south by the province of Manitoba; on the west by the province of Saskatchewan; on the north by the thirty-second correction line of the Dominion lands townships system of survey, which is very nearly the sixtieth parallel of north latitude; on the east by a line commencing at the point where the 100th meridian of west longitude intersects the thirty-second correction line aforesaid, thence following the said 100th meridian south to the eighteenth correction line in the said system of survey, than'-e in an easterly direction along the said eighteenth correction line to a point where the said correction line intersects the Nelson river, thence southerly along the Nelson river to Lake Winnipeg, thence along the northern and western shores of Lake Winnipeg in a southerly direction to the point where it intersects the northern boundary of the province of Manitoba.
I presume that in view of the position taken by the government, and in view of
469/

the fact that the Bill is submitted to us, there is very little use of my urging that the province of Saskatchewan should be given that territory. I present this view, however, as the view taken by the vast majority of the people of the province of Saskatchewan. However, I do submit that if the government desire to render Saskatchewan justice, or if it wants to render Saskatchewan as much justice as it is rendering to the province of Ontario, it should at least do for Saskatchewan that which it proposes to do for Ontario. I will read, so that it may be on record, a telegram which Avas recently sent by the Acting Premier of Saskatchewan to the Rt. Hon. R. L. Borden, Prime Minister:
Regina, March 6.


To Rt. Hon. R. L.: Borden,
Premier of Canada. Ottawa, Ont
The government of Saskatchewan understands that legislation now before parliament contains provision whereby the province of Ontario will have the rights to secure access to Ports Nelson and Churchill on Hudson bay. Ou behalf of the people of Saskatchewan we deem it our duty to again call your attention to the claims of this province as set forth in the memorial now in your hands. We desire to protest in the strongest manner possible against the provision of the Bill now before parliament which ignores the just claims of Saskatchewan for access to the bay. We wish further to point out that if there is a [DOT]single valid reason why the province of Ontario should be given access to the ports mentioned, there are many reasons which are made apparent in the memorial referred to why Saskatchewan should have its claims recognized.
In view of the fact that you did not grant the request of the government of Saskatchewan to be represented at the conferences held with the governments of Manitoba and Ontario we *desire to take this means, the only course open to us at present, to notify the government of Canada on behalf of our people that if the legislation now before parliament regarding an extension of the boundaries of Manitoba and Ontario become law without proper provision being made therein for a recognition, not of the claims, but of the rights of this province, the citizens of Saskatchewan for all time to come will have just cause to complain of the treatment received by them. In dealing with the matter referred to, our people have the right to hope and expect that your government will be guided by principles of justice and equality, thereby ensuring that the various provinces in the confederation of -Canada will have no cause to complain of unfair treatment.


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend read *the reply to that?


William Melville Martin: I will do so. The position taken by the Saskatchewan government is mainly that that province is entitled to the territory outlined in the record which I have read from the sessional papers of 1907. But they also claim as au alternative that if the government of Canada do not see their way to give Saskatchewan any portion of that territory, with a port on Hudson Bay, that province should have at least the same consideration as has been given to the province of Ontario in the order in council recently passed. In asking for this, we are not asking for very much; for 1 think the present government, to use a common expression, has. handed the province of Ontario a lemon. They have given it what is of no use to it. It does not own the land; it gets a simple right of way through the territory of Manitoba. This is simply handed out to the province of Ontario to hoodwink the people of that province. So that in giving the same kind of consideration to the people of Saskatchewan, I do cot think the Dominion government would be giving us much. I think they should give us a great deal more to meet the need of the province for an outlet to Hudson Bay. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) asked me to read the reply which has been .sent by the right hon. the Prime Minister to the government of Saskatchewan. That reply is as follows:-
I beg to acknowledge your telegram of yesterday. The legislation now before parliament does not contain the provision alluded to. The province of Ontario considers it desirable to extend its state-owned railway to a port on Hudson bay.
At this point I would say that the present government has no guarantee from the government of Ontario that they are going to extend that railway to Hudson bay. All that the order in council says is that it might be desirable in the interest of the province to extend the railway to Hudson bay. I can say exactly the same on behalf of the province of Saskatchewan. Although we have no state-owned railway, it might be desirable in the interest of the province to have a state-owned railway running to Hudson bay. This is just as much assurance as the government has xe-ceived from the - government of Ontario. There is no agreement on the part of the province of Ontario to extend the railway. As I am not through, Mr. Chairman, will you call it six o'clock.


Mr. BORDEN.: I understood that the discussion was to be concluded by six o'clock; at least that was the intimation
conveyed to me.


Wilfrid Laurier: There was no agreement, but it was said that we would not interpose any obstacle to having it concluded by six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 30) respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Co.-Mr. White (Renfrew).
On section 1-time for construction extended,
Frank Oliver: This Bill has been the subject of considerable criticism, and perhaps the hon. gentleman in charge of it would inform the committee what is the present position of affairs.


Mr. LENNOX.: The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Bill was partly considered in committee, and then referred to a subcommittee. The subcommittee met the representatives of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and discussed the measure, and amended it to some extent. It was reprinted as amended by the subcommittee, and then came back to the Standing Committee on Railways. It was considered by them as reprinted, and it was adopted without any further objection. The main features that were in discussion were to have it defined clearly who should be the directors. It was proposed that the survivors of those that were originally directors should be the directors of the company. Now it is held that certain persons shall be the directors. The other proposition which gave rise to the most difficulty was, as to the right to take property belonging to the provinces without the provinces having anything to say in regard to that. It is now provided that, except for the purposes of the canal construction, the company shall not take any land without the consent of the province of Quebec, or the province of Ontario, as the case may be. Then I think there was a provision changed submitting to the jurisdiction of the Railway Board, and they have the Bill before them. I think those were the changes that were made.


Frank Oliver: I am not very familiar with the case, but I have seen some criticism of this Bill based, I think, on the ground that it may be used as a foundation of claim against the government of Canada, in case it was decided to go on with the construction of the Georgian Bay canal as a government work. If the railway company and the House at large are satisfied with that position I am not going to raise any objection, only I would like to have that point brought out so


Wilfrid Laurier: that it might be seen that we are not passing the Bill absolutely in the dark.


Haughton Lennox: I think I can satisfy the House and the hon. member as to that point. The hon. gentleman will probably recollect that two or three sessions ago, probably, when the power given by this Bill was last renewed, a provision was inserted safeguarding the rights of the country in case the government should at any time determine to take over this work. It was pointed out that although we had the sovereign right to take over if we saw fit at any time, the plea might be set up that these men had vested rights, and they could get a very considerable advance on the actual outlay as a going concern, and so on. It was pointed out that we should not take over this work without paying the company for their franchise, and a provision was then inserted which provides that the government should not be called upon to pay more than the actual outlay that had been made by the company. It appeared to the committee the other day that, without making any special provision referring again to the enactment of two or three years ago, the probability was that it would be continued and enforced; but in order that there should be no question about the point, it is provided again by reference, that that clause is continued in force by the extension of time we now-grant to the company. So that the point which my hon. friend referred to has, I think, been carefully safeguarded.


Mr. WHITE (Renfrew).: I would like the hon. gentleman to look at clause 7 which states as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall affect or impair the rights of the government of Canada under or by virtue of the provisions of the section substituted .by section 5 of chapter 12S of. the Statutes of 1906 for section 43 of chapter 103 of the Statutes of 1894.
Then section 5 of chapter 128 of the Act of 1906 reads as follows:
His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, may at any time assume the possession of, and the property in, the said canals and works, and of and in all the rights, privileges and advantages of the company on giving to the company one week's notice of intention to do so, and thereupon all property in the said canals, works, rights, privileges and advantages shall become, and thence forward shall be, vested in His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors; and by way of compensation His Majesty shall pay to the company the value of the work actually done by the company up to the time of -the giving of such notice in surveying and in -the making of plans, and otherwise upon the ground, together with the value of all tangible property of the company of which possession may be so taken,-such values to be fixed by

three valuators, or the majority of them, one valuator to he chosen by His Majesty, another by the company, an<l the third by the two chosen.
Bill reported, read a third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No 39) respecting the Canadian Northern Montreal Tunnel and Terminal Company, Limited.-Mr. Guilbault.
Bill (No. 109) for the relief of Herbert Horsfall.-Mr. McKay.
Bill (No. 110) for the relief of Kenneth Molson.-Mr. Rhodes.
Bill (No. 112) for the relief of James Denny.-Mr. Aikins.
Bill (No. 117) to change the name of Ezra Butler Eddy Bessey.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 121) respecting the Rainy River Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Bill (No. 122) for the relief of William Holloway Adams.-Mr. McNutt

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration in committee of Bill (No. 115), to provide for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba.
William Melville Martin: When the committee rose at six o'clock, I was endeavouring to deal with the reply which was sent by the Prime Minister to the request received by this government from the government of the province of Saskatchewan for increased territory, or for at least similar treatment to that accorded the province of Ontario. For the purpose of placing the telegram completely before the House, I will read it:
I beg to acknowledge your telegram of yesterday. The legislation now before parliament does not contain the provision alluded to. The province of Ontario considers it desirable to extend its state-owned railway to a port on Hudson bay. For this purpose the Governor in Council has passed an order granting to that province a strip of land five miles in width from the western boundary of Ontario to the mouth of the Nelson river. This grant is made by virtue of the federal ownership of the land within the extended boundaries of Manitoba. In ease the pr ov-ince of Saskatchewan should undertake the construction and operation of a state owned railway to the shores of Hudson bay, this government will be glad to give the proposal the most careful and earnest c onsideration. May I point out, however, that apart from this the claim of Saskatchewan was disposed of by the late administration on the 13th July, 1908; Sir Wilfrid Laurier expressed the decision of his government in the following
words; ' After giving due consideration to this olaim on the part of the province of Saskatchewan, it seemed to us that, as between the claim of the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Manitoba, to have the new territory which lies north of Manitoba and east of Saskatchewan alloted either one way or the other the weight of argument was certainly in favour of Manitoba, and we could not grant the prayer of Saskatchewan. We therefore had to ignore it.
There are two or three points in this reply to which I wish to call attention. The first one I mentioned before six o'clock, the words ' the province of Ontario thinks it desirable to extend its state-owned railway to a port in Hudson bay.' Now, I submit that that statement is not borne out by the order in council passed by the government giving certain rights to Ontario in the shape of a strip of land to a port on the Hudson bay. All the order in council says is as follows:
The government of the province of Ontario considers that it would or might be desirable in the interest of the province to extend the provincial railway known as the Timiskaming and Northern railway

All that the order in council says is that it ' would or might be desirable '. The telegram says that the government of the province of Ontario considers it desirable. We have no evidence, and the government has no evidence and I do not believe that this road is going to be extended by the province of Ontario. I submit that in order to carry out the effect of that telegram word for word there should be some agreement between the government of the province of Ontario whereby it undertakes to build that railroad from Hudson bay, otherwise the whole contention of the right hon. gentleman in this telegram falls to the gronnd. Furtherfore, what does he say to the province of Saskatchewan;
In case the province of Saskatchewan should undertake the construction and operation

The right hon. gentleman did not ask from the province of Ontario an undertaking to construct that Timiskaming road to Hudson bay, but he is asking from the province of Saskatchewan, before we can get similar consideration an actual undertaking to build a state-owned road from some point in that province to Hudson bay. But he does not say in the telegram that we will get the same treatment as the province of Ontario, even if we undertake to construct a road, but he simply says if such be the case this government will be glad to give the proposals the most careful and earnest consideration. The most the province of Saskatchewan can expect if she does undertake to build a state-owned railway from some point in that province to Hudson bay, is ' careful and earnest consideration '. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to compare that treatment accorded to us with

the treatment accorded to Ontario. The province of Ontario was never asked for any undertaking, they got this consideration without any undertaking whatever.
Some hon. gentlemen will say that the late government disposed of this whole question. It is true the late government disposed of the question so far as the territory was concerned. But I point out that the late government did not concede the demands of the province of Ontario, and the present government has re-opened the whole question by giving to Ontario a certain strip of land and a certain right to a port on the Hudson bay. The late government did not concede that, therefore the present government have re-opened, the whole question, and I say that in all fairness we are entitled to equal consideration with the province of Ontario. Hon. gentlemen opposite are very glad, and very anxious, to shelter themselves behind the decisions of the late government, and I do not blame them for it. The decisions of the late government were usually correct. But in this case the present government are sheltering themselves behind the decision of the late government in regard to Saskatchewan, but they do not shelter themselves behind the decision of the late government in regard to Ontario. Now I fancy that not many men sitting here from the province of Ontario believe that the Ontario government is going to construct the Timiskaming railway to Hudson bay. It does not seem to me to be reasonable that the Ontario government is going to extend that Timiskaming railway to Hudson bay, or from Cochrane to Hudson bay. It appears to me more reasonable that they might extend it to the city of Quebec, and especially in view of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite to keep the trade of this country running east and west. The distance from Cochrane to the city of Quebec is 475 miles, the distance from Cochrane to Ste. Margaret's bay, the nearest point on the Hudson bay, is 625 miles. The distance from Cochrane to Port Nelson terminus on Hudson bay is 700 miles. Now the common sense view of the matter appears to me to be that this Timiskaming railway from Cochrane will in all probability be extended to the city of Quebec.
I said before the committee rose at six o clock that the province of Saskatchewan had more interest in transportation to Hudson bay than any other province in the Dominion of Canada. I do not require to elaborate that statement. But let me give you one or two figures to indicate that we are really more interested, because of our nearness to ports on the Hudson bay, in the traffic that may be conducted with any port, or through any railroad connected with that bay, than Mr. MARTIN (Regina*
even the province of Manitoba. Take the distance from the centre of these provinces. The centre of Manitoba is very much closer to Fort William than the-centre of Saskatchewan. From the centre of Manitoba to Fort William is a distance of about 500 miles. From the centre of Saskatchewan. to Fort William is a distance of 800 miles. But from the centre of Saskatchewan to Churchill is a distance of 500 to 550 miles; whereas, the distance from the centre of Manitoba to Fort Churchill is some 750 to 800 miles by the nearest route. The centre of Saskatchewan is far nearer than the centre of Manitoba to either one of these ports on the bay. Therefore, I say we are more interested in transportation to Hudson bay than the province of Manitoba can be. Let me conclude my remark by giving a brief resume of the reasons I have given for the contention that we are entitled to added territory, but in any event we are entitled to equal consideration with the province of Ontario:
1.	Those parts of old districts of Saskatchewan and Athabaska not included in the province of Saskatchewan were for 20 years, and should continue to be, united with the area forming that province.
2.	The province of Saskatchewan and the province of Manitoba are both entitled to have their boundaries extended to Hudson bay.
3.	By granting to the province of Saskatchewan those portions of the old districts of Saskatchewan and Athabaska, the Nelson river forms a natural boundary, and I submit, a reasonable boundary between that province and Manitoba.
4.	The territory north of the Nelson river is tributary to the province of Saskatchewan rather than to Manitoba.
5.	The province of Saskatchewan has a much greater interest in a transportation route via Hudson bay to the European market than has either Manitoba or Ontario.
6.	If the territory north of Wilson river were given to Saskatchewan, no great injustice would be done to Manitoba because there would still be left 208,000 square miles of equally good territory with several hundred miles of coast line, which is amply sufficient to satisfy all reasonable claims both of Manitoba and Ontario.
I submit that in order to do even scant justice to the province of Saskatchewan we must be accorded like treatment with the province of Ontario. That statement cannot be successfully refuted. I have only this to say to the present government, that if they do not give the province of Saskatchewan access to a port on the Hudson bay in the same way as they do to the province of Ontario, the people of Saskatchewan will have a just cause for com-

plaint, and a just grievance against this government for all time to come.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say one or two words in reply to the observations of my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin). He will pardon me if I do not advert to the major portion of his speech, because it simply contains arguments that have been made a great many times in the discussion of this measure, and which 1 think have been answered a great many times. But with reference to the alleged discrimination Detween Ontario and Saskatchewan, I want to point out that the word ' undertaking ' was not used in the telegram in the sense which he attributes to it. It was used in the sense of embarking upon the project of building a railroad to Hudson bay, it was not used in the sense of requiring any undertaking from the province of Saskatchewan, and I regret that my hon. friend took that meaning from it. I may be permitted to say that inasmuch as he regards the arrangement with Ontario as either a lemon or a gold brick, I am not sure which, I am surprised that he should be exercised so greatly in order to get a similar lemon or gold brick for the province of Saskatchewan. He is of course entitled to his own opinion as to the character of the particular arrangement that has been made. If he still should be anxious for this alleged lemon or gold brick, as the hon. member has called it, for the province of Saskatchewan, I have already said in the telegram that the government would be desirous of giving its most earnest and careful consideration to any proposal that the province of Saskatchewan might make in that regard.
In so far as the desire of the province of Ontario is concerned, I do not recollect at the moment the exact words that were used in the order in council, but I do know that the government of Ontario, in so far as I can gather the intentions of that government, has it in most serious contemplation to extend the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway to a port on Hudson bay. My hon. friend is a little astray, I think, in one regard. In so far as the boundaries are concerned, they are left exactly as they were defined in 1908. The arrangement made with the province of Ontario is not a part of this legislation. If legislation is hereafter to be placed before this House for the purpose of carrying out that arrangement made with Ontario, my hon. friend's observations will be very much more' to the'point than they have been this afternoon and evening, although I concede, of course, that he is at perfect liberty and quite within his rights in making the comments upon the arrangement that he has seen fit to make.
I do not think that my hon. friend was a member of this House in 1908 when the resolutions were moved on the 13th of July, and therefore 1 cannot ask him why he kept silent on that occasion because he was not here to say anything for the province of Saskatchewan. Perhaps I am mistaken in that.


An hon. MEMBER.: He was here.


William Melville Martin: I was not here in 1908.


Robert Laird Borden: That is my recollection. But, I would like to say to him that Saskatchewan was represented by capable and zealous men at that time, and I do not remember-I am speaking from recollection-that any member from Saskatchewan then found fault with the attitude of the late administration on that occasion. My hon. friend suggests that the present administration is desirous of hiding itself behind the late administration. We are not so desirous. The (present government thought that the boundaries which were defined by this House in 1908 ought to be adhered to and, consistently with that, we thought it no more than right to give some effective consideration to the desire and claim of the province of Ontario to extend its state-owned railway to the shore of Hudson bay. In doing that we have not departed at all from the boundaries. We have simply, by the exercise of the rights appertaining to the government of this country in virtue of the federal ownership of these lands within the extended boundaries, given this strip of land to the province of Ontario in order that it may have an opportunity of extending that railway to the shore of Hudson bay. If the province of Saskatchewan should desire to enter into the project of owning and operating railways, and should desire to extend its railways to the shore of Hudson bay, I can only repeat to my hon. friend what I have already said to the government of Saskatchewan in the telegram which has been brought up, that this government will be prepared to give the most earnest and sympathetic consideration to any suggestions or proposals that the government of Saskatchewan may have to make in regard to the matter.'
. Mr. MARTIN (Regina). Could that be done in any way at all after this Bill extending the boundaries of Manitoba has passed?
Mr. BORDEN, I am afraid that I have not made myself clear to my hon. friend. I trust that I have made myself clearer to most hon. gentlemen in this House than I seem to have succeeded in doing in so far as he is concerned. The boundaries are

adhered to exactly as they were before, but inasmuch as the Crown, in the right of the government of Canada, owns the greater part of the land within the extended boundaries, the government of Canada could make a grant for railway purposes to a 'Corporation, or an individual, or to any one else. This is not strictly connected with the extension of the boundaries. If the boundaries of Manitoba had not been extended at all it would' have been equally competent for the government of Canada to have made a grant to that province for the purpose referred to. The two things are not directly connected with each other, except in so far as they are connected in this way: Ontario made a claim that it was entitled to have a port on the shores of Hudson bay, but the boundaries having been defined by parliament in 1908, it seemed that the best course open to us for the purpose, was to make a grant of this strip five miles in width in order that it might be competent for the province of Ontario to extend that railway through the province of Manitoba just as it could have extended that railway through these territories before they formed a part of the province of Manitoba. I am putting aside for the moment, the alleged constitutional difficulties which have been raised by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House and to which I do not attach a great deal of importance. But, that is all that has been done. If the boundaries had not been extended the same thing might have been done, or if the boundaries of Manitoba were extended to-day and Ontario, three years from now, had come to the conclusion that it desired to extend its railway to the shores of Hudson bay, it would have been competent for this government at that time, to have done exactly the same thing. It is only in the way i have suggested, that the two proposals are connected with each other.
Amendment i(Mr. Oliver) negatived on division.


Robert Laird Borden: Before clause 5 is adopted, there are just one or two amendments of a clerical nature that I would like to make. At the end of the 44th line, in subsection of section 5, it reads:
Thereafter until such population reaches one [DOT] million one hundred thousand, the sum payable shall be seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
My hon. friends on the other side of the House did not happen to observe, and I only observed myself a short time ago, that we aTe really discriminating against Saskatchewan by the use of the word 'one/ It should be ' two '; one million two hundred thousand, instead of one million one hundred thousand. Therefore, I beg to move that the first section of subsection 5 be Mr. BORDEN.
amended by striking out the word ' one ' at the end of the 44th line, and substituting the word ' two ' therefor.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: In clause 3 the provin-mcial boundaries are described as being
along the international boundary line to a certain monument thereon, at or near the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods Should not that monument be definitely described in some way, or otherwise there may be disputes in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: This description has been gone over very carefully by the geographer and by the astronomer as well, and it was supposed to be absolutely accurate and definite in every way.


William Pugsley: They have no legal training, and they may think that because they know where the boundary is, it is all right.


Robert Laird Borden: There does seem to be force in the hon. gentleman's suggestion. We may report the Bill, and before the third reading I will refer the matter to these gentlemen, who are more responsible than I am for the description, because I left it almost entirely to them.


Frank Oliver: The peculiarity about the boundary at that particular point is that the international boundary line which runs east and west, up to a certain point, runs north for a short distance, and the monument spoken of is at the north end of this northerly turn to the boundary line.


William Pugsley: The description does not say so. '


Frank Oliver: It does not, and it is rather important that the monument should be definitely defined.


Mr. MACDONALD.: When the boundaries of Manitoba were definitely settled in 1908, the same resolution dealt with the boundaries of Ontario and Quebec, whereas in the present case, the government is dealing with the boundaries of each of these provinces by a separate Bill. In 1908 a resolution was moved by the hon. member for Colchester to the following effect:
Be it resolved 'that the extension of the boundaries provided for by this resolution shall he accompanied by such conditions as will prevent such extension prejudicially affecting the representation of any province in parliament.
An amendment was moved to that resolution. which was adopted, I think, by consent, as follows:
That in any legislation to he introduced to give effect to the foregoing resolution, nothing shall be contained or provided to impair the representation of any province in this House.

In view of this, I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the effect of the extension of provincial boundaries upon the representation of the provinces in parliament. The Prime Minister, coming from the maritime provinces, is aware of the interest which has developed in that portion of the Dominion in regard to this question of representation. In the organ of his party in the Island of Cape Breton, it was urged that the members of this House, irrespective of party, should, in connection with this Bill, take up this question of representation, and have it settled. During the discussion in 1908, the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler), and the then member from St. John county (Dr. Daniel), dealt at great length with that question, and the effect which the extension of these boundaries would have upon the question of representation. I do not propose to move an amendment, but I want to say a word or two to the right hon. gentleman in regard to this matter. 1 need not urge on the Prime Minister the desirability of keeping in view the working out of some arrangement so that the representation of the maritime pi'ovinces should not be reduced. There are two ways in which this could be dealt with. It could be provided in the Quebec Bill that the population of the additional territory which ,is given to that province,' should not be taken into consideration in the computation which is made in order to ascertain the electoral unit. An amendment could be made in this Bill providing that the population in the added territory should not toe taken into the computation of the population of the provinces when you come to make up the number which has to be taken into consideration when you make a comparison between the population at one census and the population at the previous census. But, of course, legislation of that kind would not in any way remedy the difficulty which exists. If no amendment providing for the safeguards is made to these Bills we would be left to the remedy suggested by the Minister of Marine, whereby, as a result of a conference to be held between the Premiers of the provinces of the Dominion, an agreement might be made under which you would have an irreducible minimum fixed for each one of the maritime provinces, or, what would be better, a minimum fixed for all of the original provinces which entered into confederation with the addition of Prince Edward Island.
I apprehend, from the statement made by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that a conference of the provinces is to be held at which that question is to be discussed. But supposing that conference is to be held, the Premier should move, and move speedily, in order to obtain effectual results from it, by asking this 150
parliament to adopt an address to the imperial parliament, so that we would have imperial legislature in force and effect when we came to pass a redistribution Bill, and would be empowered to deal with it on that basis. The whole question of redistribution is inextricably mixed up with this problem, and it is important to have the opinion of such a conference brought to a head at an early day. My hon. friend has also told us that at some time he proposes to call the maritime provinces to council for the purpose of considering how they are to be affected by the granting of lands to the other provinces of the Dominion. When the boundaries of all the provinces are fixed as a result of these various resolutions, we shall have shut the door for ever on the possibility of any of the maritime provinces having any share in the present territory of the Dominion beyond what they have now, or on the possibility of their having any increased representation through the addition of territory, as will be the case with all the other provinces, as a result of the legislation we are now passing or may pass in the future. This problem is a very serious one. I am quite sure the Premier is sympathetic; but as a result oi this legislation, without providing in any way for our representation being unimpaired, the door is being closed against any remedy being ever obtained in that way. As far as I am concerned, I am not moving any amendment to this measure, on the faith of what I assume the Premier will do, believing that we can count on him taking such steps as are in his power to gratify the reasonable wishes of the various provinces, particularly the maritime provinces, in regard to representation. The proposition is one which ought to be taken up with regard to all the original provinces of confederation, together with Prince Edward Island. The language of section 51 with regard to this matter is well worth recalling:
On the completion of the census in the year 1871, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted toy such authority, in such a manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides-
Subject to certain rules. Although we
have the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Privy Council based on a strictly legal interpretation of the terms of this document, it is quite evident to any hon. gentleman who has looked at the record of what occurred at the time the fathers of confederation assembled together to settle these matters, that they had in view a readjustment to be made by a comparison every ten years of the populations of the different provinces with that



of Canada consisting of the four original provinces. That that should be preserved as the basis of confederation is a proposition which is not an unreasonable one; and, realizing that though some guards could be obtained by the insertion of amendments in this Bill, but apprehending at the same time that they would be ineffectual, I ask the Premier, in connection with the various questions germane to this, which will of necessity come up in this and succeeding years, to see if he cannot work out the problem so that the representation of the various provinces will be maintained.


Robert Laird Borden: I realize the very great importance of the matter which the hon. gentleman has just mentioned. The maritime provinces lost a certain number of members under the census of 1901. If I remember correctly, they stand to lose five members by the census of 1911-two in New Brunswick, two in Nova Scotia, one in Prince Edward Island. The people of those provinces naturally take a deep interest in having their representation in this parliament maintained. I recall very well the debate in 1908, when those resolutions were introduced by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition. The principal portion of the debate turned upon the matter which has just been mentioned by my hon. friend from Pictou. The maritime provinces, as I understand, depended on subsection 4 of section 51 as a safeguard to prevent the reduction of their representation. Subsection 4 is as follows:
On such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the provinces is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.
This worked out in connection with the other portions of section 51 in this way. In the first place, you ascertained the unit of representation by dividing the population of Quebec by 65, the constant number of members to which that province is entitled. Having obtained the unit of representation in that way, it was necessary to ascertain something more before you could reduce the representation of any province. You had to ascertain whether or not the proportion which the population of the province bore to the population of all Canada, as determined at the previous census, bad been diminished by the results of that census to the extent of one-twentieth. If it had not been diminished to the extent of one-twentieth, the province would not lose any part of its representation. The difficulty which has arisen is this. Section 51 as it originally existed in the British Mr. MACDONALD.
North America Act had clearly related to the four provinces of Canada which constituted the confederation-the old provinces of Canada divided into Ontario and Quebec, the province of New Brunswick and the province of Nova Scotia. In 1904 or 1905, when this question was referred by the late administration to the Supreme Court of Canada, afterwards going on appeal to the Privy Council, it was determined by the Privy Council that the word ' Canada ' in its application to the census of 1901, meant not Canada as originally constituted, but all the provinces of Canada, including Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, which were brought into the confederation in 1871 and 1873, and also the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which were constituted afterwards.
At least I think the judgment of the Privy Council went that far. My hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), argued the case, and he will correct me if I am not stating it accurately.


William Pugsley: They did not state whether it included the territories or not, but it included all the provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: They did decide that it included Manitoba?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, the same reasoning would lead to the conclusion that it included Alberta and Saskatchewan, after they were constituted into provinces.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: All the provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: Just one further circumstance may be mentioned in that connection, because it seems to me a very important one. I do not know on what the judgment proceeded in the Privy Council. If I remember correctly the Privy Council did not give any reasons for the judgment.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Did they give reasons?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I had forgotten that, but at all events in the Supreme Court of Canada, some of the judges laid stress upon the contention that the British North America Act of 1871, and the British North America Act of 1886, had an important bearing upon this question, by reason of the fact that in the British North America Act of 1886 if is declared that the Act of 1867, the Act of 1871, and the Act of 1886 shall all be construed together as if they were one Act, although doubtless there are other reasons why they were constrained to come to the conclusion which I have just mentioned. Now, I would like to say in that TegaTd, that neither the Act of 1871, nor the Act of 1886, was passed for any such purpose


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: And if the effect of those Acts is to prevent this safeguarding section from having the operation which it was intended to have in the first instance, then it would seem to me that there is a pretty fair argument to be made, that the compact between the provinces of Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, which was effected by the British North America Act of 1867, has been inadvertently departed from.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I can assure my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and the hon. member from St. John <,Mr. Pugs-ley), who take a great interest in this .question that all of us from the maritime provinces are just as deeply interested in it as they are, and I can assure my hon. friend from Pictou that it will have the earnest and careful consideration of the government. Various suggestions have been made as to how the representation of the maritime provinces might be maintained, but I need not go into them to-night. I will be glad to discuss them at any time with any hon. gentleman in this House, who takes an interest in this question. I think, however, it must be apparent to every one of ns who has given consideration to this question, and I have given a great deal of consideration to it, that no one of the methods suggested is free from difficulty. Doubtless some of these suggestions would be attended with less difficulty than others. One suggestion that has been made is, that a minimum representation should be established for the maritime provinces. Another suggestion is that the British North America Act should be amended, to the effect that in estimating the one-twentieth diminution which is required under the provisions of subsection 4 of section 51, only the four original provinces should be taken into consideration, so far as any diminution of the representation of those provinces is concerned. If I am right in the view that some of the judges went upon the grounds which I mentioned a moment ago, it would seem to me that perhaps that suggestion would afford the most reasonable basis for an amendment to the British North America Act.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: But I would not like to be understood as giving a final opinion in that regard1, because the importance of this question demands very much more consideration than I have been able to give it during the past four or five months, as my hon. friends in the House will understand. I can only repeat in conclusion, that my hon. friend from Pictou can rest assured 150J
that this matter will engage the very earnest and careful attention of the government.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Subsidies service between Baddeck, Grand Narrows and Iona-$5,825.
['There are two third readings, the Grain Bill, and the Bill to amend the Civil Service Act. The Bill for the Aid and Encouragement of Agriculture stands for second reading, and also the Civil Service Bill relating to the post office. These two Bills will be taken up as well. After that probably estimates.']
Mr. McKENZIE.: Has the contract for the ensuing year been signed between the government and the company?


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any proposition for a change in the terms?


George Eulas Foster: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For the last few years boats used to call at a place called Camp Head, but I am not sure that they did last year. I am particularly anxious that that call should continue.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, that call is required. That is after they pass Mackay's point.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Last year, I believe, it was obligatory upon the company to call there only while the steamer ' Marion ' was making her regular trips. It is very desirable that a steamer should call there during the whole of open navigation en route to Iona. I hope the minister will have that inserted in the contract.


George Eulas Foster: I shall be very glad to look into that.
Steam service between Canada and Australia or New Zealand or both, on the Pacific Ocean, $185,509.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: What was
the extent of the carrying trade last year of the line thus subsidized?


George Eulas Foster: Last year twelve voyages were made.	The total
number of passengers was 6,016; freight, 53,680 tons; mail, 10,012 bags, and 937 sacks.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: They are not paid extra for carrying the mail?


George Eulas Foster: No, the mail carriage is provided for in the subsidy.
Steam service between Canadian Atlantic ports and Australia and New Zealand, $120,-
000.
Mr. SINCLAIR How does it come that we have two services to New Zealand?


George Eulas Foster: One is on the Pacific and the other by the Atlantic ports. These vessels on the Atlantic side make a sailing once a month, on the 15th.

In the summer the service is from Montreal to Auckland, Wellington, Lyttleton and Dunedin, in New Zealand, and Melbourne and Sydney in Australia. In the winter months, they sail from St. John and Halifax and make the same terminal ports in New Zealand and Australia.


John Howard Sinclair: How much did they carry last year?


George Eulas Foster: The total distance is nearly 13,000 miles. The freight carried was 12,304 tons by weight and 73,640 tons by measurement. There is little or no passenger traffic and no mails.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the tonnage of the ships in the service?


George Eulas Foster: It runs from 7,503 to 9,964 tons, there being four vessels. The speed is from 10 knots to 12 knots.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are any of these steamship subventions new, and if any are new, will the minister please indicate that as we come to them?


George Eulas Foster: These are all old votes, most of the services having been established for a long series of years.
Ocean and mail service between Canada and Great Britain, $600,000.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What is the minister doing in regard to that?


George Eulas Foster: The contracts end on the 1st May, 1912. The government has had under consideration, for several years, as my hon. friend knows, various plans for the improvement of the service across the Atlantic. I find records of these plans on the files as I look them over. Some of them are pretty ambitious, and all of them anticipate a large amount of money in the shape of subsidies. We are paying now for Atlantic steanieTS somewhere in the region of $700,000 or $800,000, for what we call the distinctive mail service. Many of the smaller subsidies are for freight ships, passengers constituting a very small part. The present government has had no opportunity, no time, to take up these matters and give them the consideration they merit. These projects involve two things, first a large increase in the amount of money and also contracts for a considerable period of time, because a large enterprise like this will not begin on the basis of a year-to-year arrangement. Hon. gentlemen will quite see that it has 'been impossible for us to sit down and give any real attention to the subject. After the House of Commons has ended its session and left us, we hope to be able Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
to get down to that question in the course of the recess and give it real consideration. There is another proposition on foot, which is to enlarge the number of vessels at present coming into our ports as beneficiaries of the subsidy granted on a tonnage basis. I have looked into that somewhat in connection with the Post Office Department, but I have not looked into it sufficiently to make up my mind in reference to it. The committee will see from the tenor of my remarks that what is likely to take place is that the present service will be continued temporarily and that during the recess the whole matter will be taken up and the consideration given to it which it deserves.
I cannot, myself, see any better way than that. 1 do not care to make long contracts under present conditions; I would not like to make a contract under the new conditions involving, as I said, much more money and for a long term, without time for consideration. In the meantime, although we may not have all that we ought to have, we have a very creditable mail service. The style of boats, the capacity of boats, the speed of boats having constantly increased since many years ago when we commenced to talk about a fast Atlantic service. Our speed now comes up to 17 and 18 knots, and the quality, the accommodation and the outfittings of our best boats are much to be commended. But the lines which are at present running those boats are not satisfied with the development. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is now building two very fine boats for the Pacific service, and if my information is correct, those boats will be put upon the Pacific service inside of probably twelve months. That will relieve the present boats on the Pacific line for service elsewhere. There are also being built by steamship companies, improved boats, some of which will carry upon the Atlantic line. Last year, I think it was, the ' Laurentic ' and the ' Megantic ' of the Dominion-White Star line came to the river St. Lawrence and the port of Montreal. I think these vessels will also come this season, and it is not impossible that one or two other vessels of that line may make voyages to our ports.
There is one thing in connection with the St. Lawrence route which is not satisfactory, and that is that we have not so far been able to take out from Montreal the amount of freight that is offered at Montreal, and that might go via Montreal provided we had the tonnage. We have some 22 regular vessels coming into port there, large vessels, but they carry large numbers of passengers and large quantities of parcel freight, and they take a minimum of grain, according as their space is filled or is not filled. These boats, both

passenger and mail boats, are not able to take away the grain that offers at the port of Montreal, and last year, as in previous years, and as will occur no doubt next year, to a certain extent, grain will seek its way out through the port of Montreal and will not find in that class of ship tonnage sufficient to carry it. The difficulty is, coming down to the point, that the insurance rates are so high that any other than a regular steamer does not find it convenient or profitable, and maybe does not find it possible, to compete for grain from the port of Montreal. If you take the zone below us to the Atlantic ports of the United States, and compare the insurance rates with ours, our insurance rates are very much higher, and the difference in rates is sufficient to keep the tramp steamers from visiting the Montreal ports. There ought, to be some method of solution by which lower insurance charges should be given to the irregular vessels coming into our more northern harbours. We have spent an immense amount of money on the St. Lawrence route and on the gulf, in lighting, and in all the conveniences for the warning of ships. We have a route there that we might well be proud of, which has been the interest of all governments since Canada had a government, and which can claim from both parties and all governments, and has received, fair and generous consideration. There has been a progressive diminution of casualties, consequent upon the increase of lights and appliances for warning vessels. Now it does seem as though the great insurance companies, and Lloyds is of course the greatest, ought to have some regard to that progressive feature in our marine history, and ought to come a little nearer to accommodating itself in the way of insurance rates to the wants and necessities of the St. Lawrence route and the Canadian ports.


Mr. NESBITT.: Does the minister know how much higher they are now?


George Eulas Foster: I have not the figures by me, but they are considerably higher.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They have been very materially reduced in the last five years.


George Eulas Foster: They have been reduced if you take a period of some length of time; but in the last two or three years, if my memory serves me right, the reductions have not been large. I may say that that matter is not escaping the attention of the government, my own department is taking that matter up, and I hope that in some way or other we may turn over a new leaf with reference to that matter, and that we may get for our ports and our trade a better insurance rate, which would enable us to remove from
ourselves the reproach of allowing the grain that offers itself to our ports to go to other .ports, owing to our lack of tonnage accommodation.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What is the speed of the new Canadian Pacific Railway boats that are going on the Atlantic?


George Eulas Foster: The new boats will have a speed of not less than 22 knots.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: We are to understand that, pending a review of the whole subject and a final arrangement, the contracts as they stand now will run during this year?


George Eulas Foster: I am not saying that certainly, but that is the conclusion towards which the remarks I have made trend. Something might happen that would make it different, but I do not know of anything at present.


William Pugsley: I was going to suggest to my hon. friend that he let one of these items stand over, as there are some gentlemen who are not here who would like to speak upon them.


George Eulas Foster: We will leave the last item over, with the understanding that they may all be discussed.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend mentioned the grain business. My judgment is that one of the most immediate needs of solving the difficulty about the grain business is to have more elevator accommodation at the St. Lawrence and Atlantic ports. We have not one-tenth part of the storage accommodation for grain which is needed east of the lakes. At Buffalo they have storage capacity for fifty million bushels of grain, and the result is that Buffalo has become a favourite place for the storage of grain, and when it is stored there at the proper time, and the market is satisfactory and freights are satisfactory, and tonnage is available, grain goes forward from that port to the markets of the old world. Our elevator accommodation east of the lakes is very limited in character. I am satisfied that the railway companies feel it. I have talked with the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they know that they Tealize that the elevator accommodation is not what it ought to be, but, of course, the railway companies usually move along under the pressure of business. It seems to me that the government ought to consider whether, at, certain important points, a large amount of storage for grain should not be provided. I am satisfied that it would go a long way towards relieving the difficulty caused by congestion, and that the grain would go forward as tonnage was available and as the market suited


John Howard Sinclair: I am glad to see that the minister is taking an interest in the question of insurance in the river and gulf of St. Lawrence. There is a certain amount of prejudice among the underwriters in England against the St. Lawrence route. They, of course, make their calculations, upon the losses that they make from year to year during a given period of years and they will give you that as a reason why the rates are so much higher. I am certain that the situation is not well understood by the brokers in London. They close down very early in the season on insurance in the St. Lawrence; I think it is in October


George Eulas Foster: They raise their rates.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, they raise their rates in October just at the time when the grain is being moved and at a time when the season is the busiest. There is no real reason in the condition of our climate why the rates should be raised so early in the season, because October and November are just as safe for navigation in the St. Lawrence as any other month. They raise their rates from Quebec away down to the Baie de Chaleur, Miramichi bay and northern coast of New Brunswick which affects the timber trade to some extent. It is quite true that tramp vessels do not find their way very much to the St. Lawrence largely on that account. Not only is the insurance all the year around too high, but it is very much heavier at the time of the year when the large bulk of the work is being done. I do not know whether anything can be done, but I think it would be a very good thing if the minister should get in touch with Lloyds people in London and give them the charts of the St. Lawrence and all the information that is available in the department in order to show them that navigation in these waters is quite safe in these early months of winter. If he does perhaps some of this prejudice, which I feel certain exists there, can be removed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to intimate to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that some time before the close of the session I wish to discuss the matter of a fast Atlantic steamship service. I will not do it to-night but I will give him notice at some later date.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I would like to ask the minister with respect 10 the service between Moncton and Bay of Fundy ports. I cannot see that provision has been made for it this year. It was for a steamer plying between Moncton and ports in the county of Cumberland, Nova Scotia, and in the county of Albert, New Brunswick. I think the amount paid last year was $2,000.


William Pugsley: 


George Eulas Foster: I think my hon. friend will find an item before^ we get through in reference to that. I just want to say in connection with the point mentioned by the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair), that we have been making representations in two ways. We have been making representations by way of spreading information as to what has been done in improving, lighting and other conveniences in Canada and we have also been making representations, and we are at the present time making representations, to the insurance companies themselves and endeavouring not only to put all the information which we possess before them but to put it before them in such a way that we are getting them to canvass it and to talk over it with us. If anything can be done in that way during the present year to make everything as plain as it can be made, I propose that my department shall have that done. I do not think there will be any lack in that respect. In reference to the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that the solution of this matter would be the building of elevators, I do not want it to be understood here that the government propose to take over the duty and the work that belongs to the railway companies whose business it is to equip their roads with these terminal conveniences. Wherever the government has railways and termini and grain offers and those conveniences are necessary, I think the government will not be backward in providing them. As far as the great railway companies are concerned, I think they must themselves provide terminal conveniences. It is their duty to do it and I see no reason Why we should not impress that duty upon them.


Mr. BENNETT (Simcoe).: In connection with this question of grain elevators, I think that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) perhaps does not bear in mind the fact that a very large proportion of the wheat that comes from the northwest is distributed in Ontario and the other provinces. The object of the elevator companies is not simply to make what they can in the way of charges for holding the grain over for the winter but it is the money made in the elevating of the grain and, in turn, discharging it into cars that is important to them. We have several places in Ontario to-day where large milling companies have erected grain elevators. There is a great deal of the spirit of gambling in connection with grain and while to-day the miller aims at buying grain when it is low, in order to accommodate the grain that he owns himself, he must have an elevator of his own. I have in mind two or three flour-milling companies in Ontario who have large elevator accommodation. I think it is hardly fair to expect the rail-

way companies, as a business enterprise, to build huge elevators, have them filled up with grain in the fall of the year and simply derive the charge from handling or storing it during the winter. This is a matter that, in my judgment, in so far as Ontario is concerned, will correct itself inasmuch as the flour milling companies will construct and maintain elevators of their own and thus relieve the congestion of grain at the eastern lake ports.
Steam service between Canada and Cuba, $25,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What business did this line do last year?


George Eulas Foster: The Canada and Cuba line did not do much of a business, and as far as I am concerned it will not go on the same another year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is from St. John, is it not?


George Eulas Foster: Well, it was. They made nine passages, they carried no passengers, they carried out 35,325 tons by measurement, and they brought back not a single ounce of cargo. When the service was first projected, it was with the idea that these steamers should carry things to Cuba, and carry things back from Cuba to Canada. What it has resulted in is that they carry out a certain large amount of produce from Canada, but after reaching Cuba they load up for foreign ports. Hereafter the service may touch at Cuba and do good work in carrying produce out of Cuba, but it has got to be so connected as to bring back something for Canada or else they will not get a subsidy.


William Pugsley: That matter is worthy of further consideration by the minister. The important thing for Canada is to get a foreign market for Canadian products, and why should we 'be so anxious to buy goods in Cuba and spend Canadian money there? The minister tells us that the line to Australia and New Zealand has carried out forty thousand odd tons; does that mean the same measurement as he gave for the Cuba line?


George Eulas Foster: That means tons weight.


William Pugsley: Let us suppose that at least half the quantity of Canadian products is sent to Cuba for this small subsidy of $25,000 as is sent to Australia and New Zealand for the large subsidy of $180,000, and the showing is not so bad after all. This subsidy was given for the purpose of developing the trade in potatoes, particularly between the maritime province ports and Cuba and it has been very effective in that respect. As to passengers, of course it is natural to expect
that passengers would go to New York and take a passenger steamer there rather than travel by a freight boat. It has been explained to me by those in the enterprise that really there is not much return cargo from Cuba to Canada.


George Eulas Foster: I think that is so.


William Pugsley: We continued the subsidy as an encouragement for the export of Canadian products, and to give our people a foreign market, and in doing that we were accomplishing the most important object to be gained by this small subsidy. I have no doubt that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will look into the matter carefully before he takes any action.


Mr. EDWARDS.: The position taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley), is very interesting when we contrast it with the position he took last year in regard to this matter. When these subsidies were up last year I called attention to the fact that so far as the trade between Canada and Australia and New Zealand was concerned the outgoing trade from Canada consisted almost entirely of manufactured articles, principally agricultural implements, and that the export of Canadian agricultural products to these countries was a mere bagatelle. The incoming trade from Australia and New Zealand to Canada consisted mainly of agricultural products which were coming in here and competing with the products of our own farmers. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley), now says that we should look mainly at these subsidies from the standpoint of getting outside markets, for our products, but last year.he was willing to subsidize steamship lines to convey our manufactured articles to Australia and New Zealand, and to bring back to Canada agricultural products to compete with the products raised by our own farmers.


William Pugsley: That was-getting a foreign market for our manufactures.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, but the hon. gentleman and his political friends represented themselves as the friends of the agriculturists, when in that respect they were showing themselves the friends of the .manufacturers, and the foes of the agriculturists, because they were subsidizing steamship lines to bring back agricultural products which they proposed to let into the country free, to compete with our own agricultural products, while the outgoing agricultural exports from Canada did not amount to a bagatelle. It seems to me that this whole matter of steamship subsidies could be very well looked1 into with a great deal of care. I have never been able to understand on what basis these subsidies have been granted;

whether the steamers were supposed to be paid so much a trip or whether the subsidy was paid on the amount of tonnage carried inwards and outwards. It does seem to me that the volume of trade with some of these countries to which we subsidize steamship lines does not warrant the amount of the subsidy granted. The Auditor General's report for the year ending 31st March, 1911, shows that a subsidy was granted between Canada and Mexico of $125,000 which I suppose includes the service on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and of that amount $11,458.34 was not used. Then, $50,000 was granted for the Canada-New Zealand1 service, and none of it was used. Between the Canadian Atlantic ports and Australia and New Zealand there was a subsidy of $120,000 granted which I believe is to be voted again this year, and $20,000 of that was not used. I notice that in several of these items here the full amount voted was not used. That is why I ask on what basis these grants are voted. I would also like some, explanation as to why they have not all been used'.


George Eulas Foster: The grants have not all been used because the money has not all been earned according to contract. There is a gross sum put in the estimates, which forms the maximum of the contract for a certain number of trips. The vessels are paid generously so much per trip. If they do not make the full number of trips, they do not get the full amount of the subsidy. A contract is entered into for each of these services. There are certain general features common to all the contracts; then there are special features which fit the individual case.


William Cameron Edwards: In arriving at the amount you are going to pay, do you take into account the value of the goods they carry out of Canada and the value of the goods they bring back ?


George Eulas Foster: I do not think that is taken as a basis. There arp some services which are called services of necessity; there are others which are experimental. You do not get as much trade as you would like to get. You are working up a trade. If there were a full trade, there would be no necessity for the subsidy at all. The arrangement is for each individual service, and there is the usual bargaining between the steamship company and the government. If a lump sum is arranged for a certain number of voyages, for each complete round trip, the company gets_ its proportion of the whole subsidy. If it does not make the number of trips stipulated for, as a maximum, the payment falls short in that proportion. It would be almost impossible, in such ser-Mr. EDWARDS.
vices, to pay according to the amount of exports and imports, from the fact that you start a service, not because there is a plethora of freight offering to and fro, but because you want to work up to a larger and larger commercial intercourse. You will help the vessel at the first, and in course of time, some of these become paying and do not need subsidies.


William Cameron Edwards: I would assume that in asking for a subsidy they would advance some argument to show why a subsidy should be granted.


George Eulas Foster: There is no doubt they advance arguments.


William Cameron Edwards: It seems to me they ought to have something more tangible in the way of an argument than simply that they want the money. I would suppose that they would present arguments to show that such a trade could be worked up.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think my hon. friend is ingenious enough to invent any argument that has not already been used by the companies as a reason why they should get a subsidy. But I will teli my hon. friend what I am doing. He will find in a report which is now in the printer's hands, and will soon be in the hands of the House, a statement with reference to every one of these subsidies. The salient terms of the contract are given, the capacity of the vessel, its speed, tonnage, etc. Then, there is the gross amount of what it carries in passengers, mails and freight. Next year this report will contain not only the gross amount of freight carried each way, but an analysis of the principal grades carried, so that there will be an opportunity t of judging not only whether or not we are carrying a certain amount of dead weight, but what is the quality of the merchandise that is going and coming-whether it is all timber all agricultural produce, all manufactured goods, or, if not, what proportion and quantity of each. I have also come to the conclusion to insert in all the contracts that are made this year a clause asking the company to present a full account of its expenses and of its receipts, so that we shall be able to find out just about what is the outgo and the income; and when we arrive at a certain point, we shall be able to say to the company: Your passenger traffic has increased and your freight traffic has increased, your expenses have been so much, and your receipts have been so much, you have been able to pay a certain dividend, or you have not. In that way I think we shall get down to a better basis upon which we can adjust the subsidy to each case in hand. There will alwavs be cases where there will be a necessity for communication hut where

there is no possibility, within a short period at least, of a paying trade.


John Howard Sinclair: Will that statement be a solemn declaration or one made on oath?


George Eulas Foster: I think we may assume that we shall get at the rights of the case. If we find that the accounts are not given properly, we will take measures to get them, because that is a condition of these companies getting subsidies. But I prefer to go on the assumption that the steamship companies with which we make these contracts will give us a fair statement of their returns.
Steam service or services between Canada and Newfoundland, $18,000.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Before Christmas I mentioned to the hon. minister a proposal which had been made for a daily service. I understand that the new boat for this line has come out, and that the trade between Canada and Newfoundland is rapidly increasing. I hope the minister has given favourable consideration to the proposition to assist in extending this service so as to secure a daily service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques.


William Cameron Edwards: How frequent is it now?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Three times a week. A short time ago I was informed that the freight at North Sydney accumulates to such an extent that the Intercolonial Railway has been compelled to refuse freight for shipment at certain seasons of the year because of the impossibility of moving it fast enough by the present tri-weekly service.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) There is a continual growth in the trade. Last year there were carried 6,765 first-class passengers, 11,178 second-class passengers, 15,538 tons of freight, and 1,635 head of stock, with a very large quantity of mail, and if you take that trade in conjunction with the previous three years there is a gratifying increase. The company had the misfortune to lose their vessel. They have their new boat out now, I think, but I am not sure if she is on the service. However, the supplementary estimates are yet to come down, and before that takes place the matter will be considered. I may say that so far as I am concerned, I am very sympathetic with that trade and that route, and I think we ought not to be over parsimonious in forwarding the interests of that line of communication all that we possibly can.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very glad indeed that the hon. member for Pictou has directed the attention of the minister to this service. I am particularly concerned
in the matter because this service haS its terminus on the Canadian side in my own town. I am pleased to be able to tell the minister that the ' New Bruce,' as she is called, left the other side a few weeks ago and has made her trip direct into the port of North Sydney. There are several pleasing features about this service. We are glad to get a very excellent boat on this route. It is now making regular trips backward and forward between Port aux Basques and North Sydney. Another thing that has been proven is, that this boat has been able at the hardest period of the winter, about the last of February, to make her way through the ice from Newfoundland to North Sydney. Thus we have the certainty of another outlet from Canada to Newfoundland, and from Newfoundland across to this side. In this connection I would like to ask the minister how much was paid for this service last year.


George Eulas Foster: Last year about $9,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice that the minister has $18,000 in the estimates this year. Is it the intention to give that amount to the company provided they put on another boat ?


George Eulas Foster: The $18,000 is available for a daily service. The present tri-weekly service, if I am not mistaken, is to be made a daily service. In Newfoundland there is to be a daily service by train, so that a very great improvement is looked for both by Newfoundland and by ourselves in the communications this year.
Steam service between Canada and South Africa, $146,000.


George Eulas Foster: I may say with reference to this item, that the development of trade between Canada and South Africa has been very satisfactory. For a long service it probably has been the most satisfactory we have had, and the trade shows signs of constant improvement.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Where do the vessels sail from ?


George Eulas Foster: The contract requires sailings from Montreal, calling at Quebec and at any other Canadian ports during the summer, and from St. John and Halifax in the winter. Last year there were twelve voyages. The number of passengers carried is not many by that route. There were carried 26 passengers, 31,385 tons of freight and 37,800 tons in measurement. There were carried besides, a considerable quantity of live stock, and I will say for the Elder-Dempster people that they show a very commendable ac-

tivity in. canvassing freight throughout Canada for that service. They issue a weekly letter, and send their men out, and they are actively at work getting freight.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the character of the goods carried?


George Eulas Foster: That I cannot tell exactly, except from having simply seen some oi the invoices. However, the character of the goods is very varied. Quite a large quantity of flour is taken, also implements and largely general manufactures. In another year I hope to have a thorough tabulation of these goods.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Have you only one commercial agent in South Africa?


George Eulas Foster: We have only one agent there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At Durban?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, he is at Durban. It appears from the statistics that Durban is by far the largest port.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The finest too.


George Eulas Foster: It is by far the largest port, and it strikes more at the centre of the country as well.
Steam service between Halifax and Newfoundland via Cape Breton ports, $4,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At what ports in Cape Breton did this boat call last year?


George Eulas Foster: A lot of ports. The vessel starts from Halifax and goes to the west coast o.f Newfoundland. It calls at St. Peters, Grand Narrows, Baddeck, North Sydney, South Sydney, Ingonish, Neil's Harbour, and Aspey bay in Cape Breton; and also St. Paul's Island, Bay St. George, Codroy, Bay of Islands and Bonne bay.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The vessel makes a round trip calling at the same ports each way?


George Eulas Foster: The same ports each way.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How frequent is the service?
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto.) The vessel made fifteen round trips last year, and carried 180 passengers, 8,558 tons of freight, and some mail.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The passenger list may not be very large, hut I may say in support of the service that it is a very useful one in the interests of the fishermen at these different ports of call.


William Cameron Edwards: I understood the member for Pictou to say that the only ser-Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
vice between Cape Breton and Newfoundland was a tri-weekly one. It seems to me that there are other services which would appear to be independent of the one to which he refers.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The service from Canada to Newfoundland runs between the Dominion and the colony from the nearest possible points. It is a passenger line of communication. The service between Halifax and Newfoundland, via Cape Breton ports, starts from Halifax and runs through, I think, the Bras d'Or lakes and round the coast of Cape Breton.


George Eulas Foster: Through the Bras d'Or lakes.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The service goes to some of the outports of Newfoundland.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On the west coast.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The service covering Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland and Liverpool, I think, is a service run in conjunction with the Newfoundland government, and affords communication between the other side and Newfoundland.
Steam service between Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland, and Liverpool, $20,000,


John Howard Sinclair: I am informed that that is simply a freight service carrying no passengers, but chiefly deals, competing in this trade with the tramp _ ships. I never could understand why a line should be subsidized to carry deals to the west coast of England, for that is a commodity that is in the market all the time and should be left to open competition. That subsidy has been on the list for many years, and I have never been able to get a satisfactory explanation of it.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know that I can give my hon. friend much more information than he has. The contract is with the Furness-Withy Company. The subsidy is an old stager-I remember it away back. I see one good thing about it-they have to carry trade commissioners over and back free. Last year they made twenty-five round trips; not many passengers-16 in, 48 out, total 64; freight 114,357 tons weight.


Mr. HAZEN.: Is it shown how much of that is deals?


George Eulas Foster: No; I
was explaining before my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) came in that we will have a tabulation of the different kinds of freight so that we may know what business is doing.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: They made a lot of money carrying apples.


John Howard Sinclair: They have been charging very high rates, I understand. I think the minister should look into that and see i! he could not reduce the rates on apples from Nova Scotia to England. I am told that the rates ruling last autumn were something like 90 cents from the Annapolis valley to Liverpool or London. That is a very lucrative business for a ship. I know very many ship owners who would like to have the carrying of these apples at 50 cents a barrel. A small part of the rate charged, I understand, goes to the railway. There may have been changes in that rate on account of the Canadian Pacific railway coming in. If we are going to subsidize a vessel to carry apples, I think we should have some control over the rates.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the apple growers would like to have the rates as low as possible, but what they are more troubled about is that the apples do not get there in a sufficiently short space of time-the rate of going is not quick enough to take the apples to market in the best condition. A delegation of the apple growers came to see me, and we had a talk over the matter. I am going to try, if possible, to get a little quicker transit.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: How long do they take to go across?


George Eulas Foster: They run at 11 knots-perhaps not quite that. I think the growers want to get the apples there in about six days.


William Pugsley: Do not these contracts provide that the government shall have control over the rates?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, most of these large contracts. But there are difficulties in that which have always been faced, but never met. It is a orettv difficult thing for the minister sitting in his office to say what the freight rates should be. The freight rates go up and they go down. I think it would be an advantage to have some board or authority on freight rates to assist the minister to come to a conclusion as to what are really equitable rates. In some of the contracts it is provided that they shall not charge more than is charged by vessels from New York to the ports to which they trade. That forms a basis of comparison that is apparent. But when a complaint comes to the minister that they are charging too much on apples or on cheese, the knowledge or the arts of the steamship company generally get away with the minister, and he feels that he is not quite big enough to pass judgment on the point. There has been a large increase in freight rates recently. Charters have gone up and vessels are in great demand. All freight carrying steamers have increased1 their rates.
We have had protests against that from shippers. But when you go to the steamship companies showing an increase m rates all over, it makes it difficult to say that there shall not be an increase in rates even by a subsidized steamer. The argument on the other side is that a subsidy is given for the purpose of making the rates a little lower than would be the case by an unsubsidized vessel and there is a good deal in that argument. But in order to find a solution of the difficulty I hope to get some authoritative adviser who will make it his business to look after these things, and who, will be able to advise the department as to what is right, and I hope to have that in the course of the next year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister has stated that this is a very old service and I am sure it would be the desire of the minister to make this service as useful as possible. Conditions in eastern Nova Scotia have changed a good deal since the commencement of this service. The minister knows that now, in eastern Nova Scotia, we have a large population who have come over from the other side of the water within the last nine or ten years. There is a large passenger traffic now to and from the old country and eastern Nova Scotia which was entirely unknown fifteen or twenty years ago. There would also be some freight traffic such as the exportation of canned lobsters dried fish and that sort of thing, which would go direct to the old country if there was opportunity. I think the minister could easily make this boat call at the terminus of the Intercolonial at North Sydney, or some other point on Sydney harbour, and give the large number of people at that place who go across to the old country and return, and people who may wish to come directly to the steel and coal works at North Sydney, an opportunity of reaching that point directly by this service. At present these people have to come up via Montreal, and sometimes from New York, at a much larger expense and more inconvenience. I hope the minister will give this matter some consideration.


George Eulas Foster: I will look into it.
Steam service from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1912 between the mainland and the Magdalen Islands, $15,000.


George Eulas Foster: The contract ends in 1913. The service starts from the town of Pictou.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I received a letter from the Halifax Board of Trade which unfortunately I have not before me. I have no doubt that the minister has seen a copy of the letter. It urges that this service should start from the port of Hali-

fax. It seems to me that Halifax would be the proper port from which to make this service start. A great deal of the business done with the Magdalen Islands originates at the port of Halifax, and it merely means starting from Halifax and calling at Pictou.


George Eulas Foster: The matter has already been taken into consideration so far as the contract having been awarded is now running and I do not propose to break the contract. If my hon. friend will take the map and will look at the Magdalen Islands, he will conclude that there is no better point than Pictou from which to start this communication. It is on the line of the Intercolonial railway, and it is the nearest possible point to the Magdalen Islands from anything like a large port.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the frequency of the service demands a shorter distance between the point of departure and the Magdalen Islands, there would be some force in the statement of the minister. But what is the service?


George Eulas Foster: It does not run in the winter time. But in the summer season it made 61 trips, carrying 1,416 passengers, 6,173 tons of freight and 1,269 head of live stock, hops, sheep, cattle, etc., and mail bags galore. So far as I know, it is a well conducted service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no doubt about that. But I say that inasmuch as the service is but twice a week, there seems to be no reason why the steamer should not start from the port of Halifax^ because that is the port that does the business with the Magdalen Islands. I do not understand the Halifax Board of Trade to urge that the steamer should not call at Pictou; I can quite understand that that would create some prejudice in that old historic port. But I say that this service might well start from Halifax and serve the Magdalen Islands two trips per week. It would riot hurt, in.the slightest degree, the port of Pictou or any other port. Of course, it might be _ that the steamer would require some additional subsidy.
' Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto). I was wondering while my hon. friend was speaking, what would have happened to-night in the last five minutes if the fortunes of war had kept my hon. friend at Lunenburg instead of sending him to Halifax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am looking after the interests of my constituents.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P. E. I.) It would be simply impossible for this boat to make two trips a week between Halifax and the Magdalen Islands. The whole six days of the week are taken up now in mak-Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
ing the two trips from Pictou. The steamer has to call at several places on the way to the Magdalen Islands, and I think it takes her five days and a half to make the two trips. The suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is simply impossible.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I am afraid my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has not been properly briefed. His information on the subject is very scanty and entirely inaccurate.


George Eulas Foster: He is new to his constituency as yet.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: My hon. friend from Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) has very effectually disposed of the suggestion he has made. I could summon as a witness my hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General, who represented the Magdalen Islands for a number of years, and who can testify as to the excellent service and the splendid character of the boat, and the fact that under the existing contract a better service is being rendered than has been rendered for the last 40 years. There has never been any suggestion from the Magdalen Islands that this service should start from Halifax. Whether it is that because the constituency is represented by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) and by my very able friend here (Mr. MacleanV Halifax has got so ambitious that it wants to get all the steamship subsidies, I do not know, but there does not appear to be any other possible reason why they should have asked for this.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The desire of the inhabitants of the islands is that the service should be between Pictou, Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands twice a week, but probably the islanders would like to have the service with Halifax because there are several months in the year when the service is closed. The service between Pictou and the Magdalen Islands is in operation only during the summer months, the fall and the spring. But, it is quite possible, during the winter, to send one or two government steamers or ice-breakers, from Halifax.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Or Sydney.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From Halifax or Sydney to the Magdalen Islands.


John Douglas Hazen: We did that this year.
Mr. LKM1KUA. Yes. 1 congratulate my hon. friend upon having done that.


John Douglas Hazen: A most successful voyage.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I congratulate my hon. friend upon that. I tried during several years to have that done, but we were always told by the captains that they could not reach,the islands in the winter time.


George Eulas Foster: There is a different government in power.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By what steamer was the service performed?


John Douglas Hazen: My recollection is that the ' Stanley ' made one trip and that it was a most successful trip. We are going to have another voyage before the season closes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In that case I would ask the hon. gentleman to suppress that political marconigram which is sent every week now that, through the good offices of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, communication has been established.


George Eulas Foster: Now that you have the marconigram you might take away the other service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I prefer the service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to give the minister notice that before the next estimates are prepared I shall be better informed as to the claims of the port of Halifax and if provision is not asked for in connection with this service I shall ask for a new one altogether.
Steam service between Makone bay and Taneook island, $1,000.


Mr. KYTE.: I would like to call the attention of the minister to a petition that I forwarded to him a few days ago asking for a small subsidy for a steamship service between the ports of Arichat and Canso. These ports were served some years ago by one steamship company. The service was from Canso to Arichat and Port Mulgrave. But a few years ago the service was separated and one boat was put on between Canso and Mulgrave and another between Arichat and Mulgrave. In that way the service between these two important ports became disconnected. I would be very glad if the minister would give his attention to this matter before preparing the supplementary estimates and I would hope that he would see his way clear to putting $1,000 in the estimates this year for this service. Another request has been forwarded to the department in connection with the steamship service between Halifax, Petit de Grat, d'Escouse: and River Bourgeois, all ports on the island of Cape Breton. These are important places, they have no communication by railway, they have no means of shipping the products of their industry to Halifax or elsewhere. I would urge that the minister would be good enough to also give attention to that request and endeavour, if possible, to provide a small subsidy of $2,000 for this service during the coming year.


George Eulas Foster: I will be very glad to give these matters attention.


John Howard Sinclair: I have been asked by the people of Canso to press that matter upon the minister's attention and I would like him to give his best consideration to this proposed service between Arichat and Canso.
Steamship service from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1912, between Port Mulgrave, St. Peter's, Irish Cove and Marble Mountain and other ports on the Bras d'Or lakes, $6,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The steamship performing this service is giving a good service to that part of the country. I think this service should be confined entirely to ports in the Bras d'Or lakes. It is a sea run of about seventy miles from the canal to the head of navigation in East bay, and the boat will have all she can do without going to Mulgrave at all. I submit to the minister that it is not desirable to be giving subsidies to steamships where they are in competition with railways. There is a railway from the canal at St. Peter's connecting with the Intercolonial railway at Point Tupper and any passengers or freight or anything else that the steamer ' Richmond ' would bring to St. Peter's could be put on the railway there and carried to their destination. This boat is running from the canal to Mulgrave in competition with the Intercolonial railway and Cape Breton railway from Point Tupper to St. Peter's and in that way giving a service to a section of country which, I am sure, does not really require it, whereas such ports as Big Pond, the head of East bay and several other places in the Bras d'Or lakes, are in need of this service. Passengers and goods could be carried from these ports to meet the railway at the Grand Narrows. The boat should be kept here altogether without going up to Alulgrave, where there is no real necessity for it. I wish to direct the attention of the minister to this matter because I want him to apply the subsidy where he will get the best work done and where he will not be in competition with railways.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto.) There is a large family of children here., that I find under my care. Some of them cropped up a good while ago and I know their faces, while there are others that are entirely new to me. This one deserves some consideration. This boat made 204 round trips and she carried on an average nine passengers per trip and two and a quarter tons of freight. The $6,000 subsidy, if we calculated it on the basis of the freight that was carried, would put us in the

position of paying $12 for every ton of freight that was moved. She has either to go somewhere else and get some more freight or else we are paying, seemingly, a very large amount for a service that does not appear to have very much in it. If it were growing it would not be so bad, but it does not seem to be growing. I think there is something' in what my hon. friend says that we are trying to run against a couple of railways and we are getting the bad end of it.


George William Kyte: The service of the steamer ' Richmond * outside of the Bras d'Or lake is for the accommodation largely of the important communities of Marble mountain and West bay in the Bras d'Or lake, and d'Escouse, Poulamond and Lennox in the Lennox passage.
At Marble Mountain the Dominion Coal Company have extensive works, and from that point they ship dolamite which is used in the manufacture of iron and steel. The railway between Point Tupper and St. Peter's is unfortunately owned by a private corporation. Now, a car of flour, ordered by a merchant at Marble Mountain, passes over the Intercolonial to Mulgrave, is. shipped on the Cape Breton railway to St. Peter's and from St. Peter's it has to be transported by steamer to Marble Mountain. That would mean that three rates would have to be paid by the merchant at Marble Mountain on a carload of flour from Ontario. The service has been maintained two days a week from Bras D'Or lake to Port Mulgrave for the purpose of taking passengers from these points not touched by a railway and also for carrying freight which is shipped by the Intercolonial railway to Mulgrave. This service enables the people there to get a very much cheaper rate than if they were obliged to pay the Intercolonial railway, the Cape Breton railway, and then the freight rate on the boat.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness).: I corroborate what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) with regard to this service. Marble Mountain is sixteen miles from the railway, and this is actually the only service the people there have. If this boat does not connect with Port Mulgrave, the people of Marble Mountain will not be able to get to the railway unless they drive rifteen or sixteen miles over a mountain. West Bay is in the same position except that it is closer to the Intercolonial railway than Marble Mountain. I would be very sorry, indeed, if the service were changed because these people living there would be set back to the condition they were in fifty years ago.


George Eulas Foster: I did not say I was going to change the service this year, but I said it would bear looking into. I think that in some of these services there Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
is a duplication and in some cases a triplication, and while I do no<t propose to disturb them very much this year, it is worth keeping tab bn them to see whether a redisposition could not be made which would give a better service and perhaps not cost us as much.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Cape Breton Railway Company which runs thirty miles of a road from Point Tupper to St. Peter were worth its salt, it would run its line down to the waters of the Bras D'Or lake on the canal, which is only about a quarter of a mile from the end of its line now. Then the traffic from North Mountain and all these points would simply be run down to the end of the line, and thus all this duplication would be done away with. As the railway is located now it is a little piece from the water, and the freight has to be carried from the head of the canal to the terminus of this railway. It shows a tremendous lack of enterprise on the part of that company that they do not connect with the Bras D'Or lakes, and put themselves into a condition to receive the freight. Then an arrangement could be made with the Intercolonial railway and the freight would run right into the ports on the Bras D'Or lakes, and thus avoid the difficulty we now have to contend with.


George William Kyte: I would remind the minister that the difficulty which my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) seems to have with respect to the connection there, will be altogether avoided the moment the present government carries out the policy of acquiring the branch line railways. Then, I will be willing that the service outside the Bras D'Or lakes shall be discontinued.
Steam service from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1912, between Pictou and Chetieamp, $2,000.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: Could the minister give us some information with regard to this service?


George Eulas Foster: This steamship line carried 227 passengers, making twenty-six and a half round trips; 1,173 tons of freight by weight, and 310 tons by measurement.	.


William Chisholm: Is it the intention that this boat will call at the ports of Arisaig, Georgeville, Ballantyne's Cove and Morristown, during the coming season. These ports intervene between Pictou and Chetieamp, and I understand that the steamer ' Electra ' which gave the service, only called occasionally at those ports, or whenever it suited the captain. The people along that shore had a grievance inasmuch as the service was very irregular and when they remonstrated they were told that the boat was receiving no

subsidy for calling at points in Antigonish
county and therefore they could not expect any improvement in that respect. Last year, an arrangement was made that the boat should call at these points and be paid an extra subsidy. In some way or other which is not necessary to explain just now the amount was not provided for in the estimates, and the arrangement was made with the captain that if he undertook to perform the service, as soon as the money could be obtained he would be paid. A service was then given which was fairly satisfactory. I had communication with the minister on the matter last year. I wish to ask the present Minister of Trade and Commerce if it is the intention to carry on that service next year. The points on the route that I have mentioned are distant from the railway on an average of twenty miles. Arisaig is about eighteen miles from the Intercolonial railway, Ballantyne's Cove twenty-five miles, and Morristown seventeen miles from the Intercolonial railway. In the spring and fall, when the roads are in bad condition, the people get their supplies in from Pictou by this steamer, and the service is the only convenience they have in that respect. I hope the minister will look into that matter.


George Eulas Foster: The service _ will be continued between the two terminal points, and all the accommodation that can be given will be given. I have not been able to go into the matter thoroughly yet.


William Chisholm: I wish to know whether the extra subsidy was paid last year.


George Eulas Foster: It was not paid; there was no contract.


William Chisholm: Was there not an offer on the part of the department that if the service were performed it would be paid for?


George Eulas Foster: If the department although I was not the minister, made a bona fide offer that they would be paid in so far as they carried out the service, they will be paid. I do not intend to go back on the arrangement if I find that it was bona fide made by the minister.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is it the intention of the department to continue the service this year as usual between Mul-grave and Cheticamp P


George Eulas Foster: I am not prepared to say that it will be continued just as usual. The service will be continued, but this is one of the cases in which I am looking to see whether it is not pos-1
sible to avoid a triplication of services, and get just as good or perhaps a better service. Anyway, it will not be any worse.


Alexander William Chisholm: This is a very important item to my constituency, particularly to the north end of the county, where we have not any railways as yet, though we hope to have one in a short time. If a change is going to be made in the line, as I am told is the intention, I am afraid the service will not be improved. I think it is the intention to have one boat do the service from Pictou to Mulgrave and from Mulgrave to Cheticamp, calling at certain ports on the way, and going back to Mulgrave, making the trip twice a week. This to my mind is impossible, if we are to have a satisfactory service.	I hope the minister will look
into this matter carefully. If he makes a contract with some company that pretends to be able to do this, and is not able, it will be a serious thing for our people, who depend on this service as their only means of communication. I admit that there has been some duplication of the service, but I confess that I do not know of any other solution than the continuation of the service as it is. If a better or even as good a service can be had, I shall be satisfied, but I would be sorry if our people suffered from not having as good a service.


George Eulas Foster: We will try to avoid that.
Steam service between Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton and Newfoundland, $12,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: Last summer or the summer before last, an application was made by the-people of North Inverness to have this boat call at Cheticamp in order to help along the cattle trade. The government or the company sent down an officer to determine whether there was water enough in the eastern harbour to permit the boat to call, and I think the report was that there was a scarcity of water. I understand that some dredging is to be done there quite early in the coming summer, so that it will then be possible for this boat to call. I think the company were willing that the boat should call if there was enough water.
Steam service between Quebeo and Gaspd Basin, touching at intermediate ports, $8,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to relieve the anxiety of the contractors for this service, who are Quebec gentlemen, Bouchard brothers. They have spent a considerable amount in getting the proper vessel to ply between these various ports, and they have been very good to the public. When I was the member for the county, they used to send me 25 or 30 passes for poor people.

Therefore I want to retaliate in their favour and ask the hon. gentleman to renew the contract with them. They are a little afraid that the new memJber for Gaspe might influence the hon. gentleman against them; but I hope he is too good-hearted to listen to such advice.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend took good care to tie the matter up before he went out, because the contract runs to 1913.
Steam service between St. John and Halifax,


Mr. JAMESON.: I would like to direct the attention of the minister to the fact, that it is very desirable to have the steamship operated in connection with this service, call at Westport and Freeport, en route for St. John. This wall not take the vessel out of her way, and as the^ subsidy paid, is a very substantial one, it seems to me, there should be a call made at these ports. There is now a service between Westport and St. John, but it is maintained by a comparatively small boat. The trade of the communities at which this boat calls, has increased of late years, and the service now is not sufficient to meet their demands. I was approached, when in Halifax, recently, by some gentlemen who were interested in the operation of this service, and told that they could call at these ports, if they received an increase of $1,000 in the subsidy. I am not prepared to say that any such increase would be warranted, but I do not think it would take the vessel out of its way to call there. I trust that the minister in making any contract with these gentlemen will see his way clear to provide that such a call be made. The business of Westport and Freeport is suffering somewhat for lack of sufficient service. They are altogether out of touch with railways, and the only means of communication is by steamship. I had a letter the other day from a gentleman who is carrying on a very extensive fishing business, and he told me that because of the insufficient steamship service, the business of his firm had been prejudiced. The people of Westport and Freepoit are very anxious indeed that this boat should call, and I cannot urge this matter too strongly upon the minister.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I doubt very
much whether it would be fair to ask the persons who now have the contract, to extend the service without some compensation being granted. I doubt, in fact, if they would be allowed, even with extra payment, to call at Freeport and Westport, because I do not think they could properly perform the service they are now under contract for, namely a weekly service between St. John and Halifax, and call at so many intermediate points.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


George Eulas Foster: As a
matter of fact, the contractors are not performing a weekly service. The contract was for 52 trips, but I found that the contract was given them for 40 trips. I do not quite know why that was done. It may have been done from the representation that they found it impossible, from their point of view, to make 52 trips for the subsidy that was offered, and that a compromise was effected, by giving them the contract for 40 trips by the same route. I have not sufficient information on the point, and I do not know quite whether I ought to fix this contract on the same basis as last year or not. I have not looked into the matter sufficiently to tell. However, we can come back to this vote, as we are allowing one item to stand, and I would look into the subject a little more. With reference to the call at Freeport, looking at the map, one would think it was on a direct course, but you cannot always tell that by a mere reference to the map. If it were not to take the vessel off its course -that is, make her voyage longer-it would seem to me, that the contractors might take up the idea of calling at that port, as I am informed, there is good water and good landing. I will say to my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) that I will take the matter up with the contractors and see whether or not this can be done.
Steamship service between St. John and Halifax or either, and the West Indies and South America, $79,500.


William Pugsley: Is there anything new in regard to the West Indies?


George Eulas Foster: No, there is nothing new. To be frank with the committee, the position of matters is just aibout this


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose you will discuss the matter with the delegates from the West Indies?


George Eulas Foster: Yes. They will be here about the last of the month, and we will take up with them the steamship service, as well as other matters. At present I would not like to make any change either by dropping the vote or otherwise.
Steam service between Sydney and Wycoco-magli, $3,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister will find from various petitions and other communications on file in his department, that for many years I have been struggling to have this subsidy increased. The stretch of water from Sydney to Wycocomagh, with which, perhaps, the minister is acquainted, is served entirely by this boat, the steamer ' Marion.' There is no railroad touching places at all on either side of

the lake, and this boat moves on a very zig-zag route, crossing from side to side, and serving the people highly satisfactory in so far as any one boat can do it. The subsidy she receives, I think the minister will hind, is small in proportion to the service she renders that very large tract of country which contains a very large population. I was trying ibefore the present minister assumed charge of the department, to obtain a subsidy of $4,000 a year for this service. Petitions and communications on file would show that, and I really hope that upon ascertaining the service which this vessel has been rendering, the minister will see his way clear to give that necessary and desirable increase.


George Eulas Foster: When
did my hon. friend enter the House?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My first coming here was in 1904.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend says he has been struggling and has not accomplished anything.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not very much.


George Eulas Foster: I see that in 1907, eighty round trips were made and a subsidy of $1,000 was paid. In 1909, 85 trips were made, and the subsidy paid was $2,000. That is 100 per cent increase in the subsidy. In 1911, 78 trips were made and $3,000 was paid in subsidy. Now my hon. friend has been exerting himself and yet did not know that he had accomplished so much in raising the subsidy.


William Pugsley: The minister ought to go one better.


George Eulas Foster: I think there is this to be taken into account- that a steamship company ought to consider it a privilege to carry on operations in such a beautiful part of the country. This vessel has had a substantial business in freight and passengers, and I find that business has been all the time increasing in both respects, which is very satisfactory. Last year the vessel carried 6,051 passengers, 1,690 tons of freight, and 4,738 head of live stock, which was a very good increase over preceding years. I am tenderhearted in a way and I will look into the matter and see what can be done.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A subsidy of $1,000 was hardly worth mentioning' in connection with such a service, and the goal of our ambition was that we should get the subsidy for /that very excellent service* increased to $4,000, when we intended to stop worrying the department any further.
I hope that $4,000 will be given.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend makes a threat of worrying too much he may get the $4,000.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister will permit me I would like to return to the item for the service between Guysborough and Mulgrave. This is a daily service starting from the town of Guysborough every morning and connecting * with the train at Mulgrave. In the summer time this vessel carries the mails.
In the winter the mails are carried by coach. This boat calls at Queensport on the way to Mulgrave every morning. But on the return trip, it takes her out of her course a few miles to call at Queensport, and she has been accustomed to make the trip direct. Queensport is the centre for a number of small places. Passengers for Queensport or any of these places are now taken to Guysborough, and remain there all night, going back to Queensport the following morning. Objection is taken by the town of Guysborough, because they want a direct trip from Mulgrave to Guysborough. I took the view that where there were passengers from Mulgrave to Queensport or any place reached from Queensport, the steamer should go the few miles out of her way necessary to land these passengers. Last year instructions to that effect were given to the captain, I believe. It was represented there were not passengers every day, and the compromise I suggested was that when there were passengers, the ship should1 call at Queensport; if not she should make her direct course to Guysborough. I would like the minister to look into that matter, and see if this can be arranged.


George Eulas Foster: I have some complaint from Guysborough.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to give notice that when we go into Supply on some
occasion when the minister can listen to me, I intend to discuss the question of the Canada-France steamship line, and our trade relations with France.


George Eulas Foster: I hope my hon. friend keeps Easter in view. Condense it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. Always keeping Easter in view, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to press some of his colleagues to lay on the table the returns that were asked1 for long ago. I refer especially to the Postmaster General.


George Eulas Foster: Will that make Easter come quicker?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto), moved the adjournment of the House.


William Pugsley: What business will be taken up on Monday?


George Eulas Foster: The third reading of the Grain Bill, and other government Bills.


William Pugsley: Which Bills?


George Eulas Foster: There are two third readings, the Grain Bill, and the Bill to amend the Civil Service Act. The Bill for the Aid and Encouragement of Agriculture stands for second reading, and also the Civil Service Bill relating to the post office. These two Bills will be taken up as well. After that probably estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 11, 1918.