1912-03-04

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 119) respecting certain patents of the Continental Can Company.-Mr. Fripp.

Bill (No. 120) for the relief of Ethel May Stewart.-Mr. Clark (Red Deer).

Mr. KNOWLES.: 
Hon. L. P. PELLETIER.: I wi'll see to it.



PRIVATE BILLS-QUEEN'S COLLEGE KINGSTON.

[Stage Direction]
Upon the orders being called for further consideration in committee of Bill (No. 68) respecting the Queen's College at Kingston -Mr. Niekle; and Bill (No. 69) to incorporate Queen's Theological College.-Mr. Niekle.
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: 
Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.



HOUSE IN COMMITTEE-THIRD 'READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee-Third Readings.
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada,-Mr. Baker.
Bill (No. 46) respecting the Dominion Trust Company, and to change its name to British Empire Trust Company.-Mr. Cromwell.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 80) respecting the Dominion Trust Company, Limited, and to change its name to the Dominion Trust Company.-Mr. Macdonell.
On section IV-
Mr. MACDONELL.: I move that the word ' committees ' be substituted for ' boards ' in this section. The word ' boards ' was left in the Bill by oversight in the committee. The change is desired because the word ' 'committee ' is that which is used in the by-laws of the company and throughout its 'literature, and so it is the one that will best correspond with the requirements of the company.


Mr. NESBITT.: How will it read then?


Angus Claude Macdonell: It will read:
The head office of the company shall be in the city of Vancouver and the directors may establish branch offices and local advisory committees at such' other places in Canada and elsewhere as they may determine.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is not the word 'boards' generally used in Bills of this kind ?


Angus Claude Macdonell: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRIPP moved the second reading of Bill (No. 117) to change the name of Ezra Butler Eddy Bessey.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), if he has considered this Bill. It is a proposition to change the name of a person born in the province of Quebec, and does the Minister of Justice think that such a Bill comes within the jurisdiction of this parliament? I am of opinion that such a Bill would fall within the jurisdiction of the province in which the register of the birth of the gentleman is kept, and the registers are carefully kept in the province of Quebec.


Mr. HENDERSON.: In looking over this Bill I was under the impression that it came more properly within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature as a matter of property and civil rights. However, I do not wish to raise any objection to the Bill going through, as I am aware that the young man will be a gainer by about three quarters of a million -dollars if he gets his name changed within two years after he becomes of age. i knew his father and grandfather very well, and I have no desire to see any objection raised to the Bill. I had not thought of the point raised by the right hon. gentleman the leader of the opposition; there may be something in it. It is quite possible the young man was born in Hull, of that I have no knowledge. But as his parents resided in Hull at one time, I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman may be

quite correct. I fail to see, however, that that is a material point.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would be sorry to do anything that would injure the prospects of this young gentleman. I also knew his family and grandfather very well. I have no desire whatever to interpose between him and the rights which he is to obtain under the will of his grandfather. But the very suggestion my hon. friend now makes is one which is in the interest of the young gentleman himself, because, if we pass an Act here that we have no power to pass, we might seriously interfere with his prospects.


David Henderson: One moment Mr. Speaker


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is nothing before the House.


David Henderson: I thought the second reading of the Bill was before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, it was passed and referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


Mr. DOHERTY.: Perhaps I may still be allowed to say one word on the point raised by the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition. It does seem to me there is a great deal to be said in support of his suggestion that the jurisdiction in a matter of this kind belongs to the legislature. But so far as precedents go, I think I am correct in saying that there is a precedent for passing Bills of this kind by this House. There is one case where, if my memory is not at fault, we changed the name of a gentleman to Mr. Amor De Cosmos, however, this is a private matter, and the gentleman himself who is promoting the Bill will have to incur the consequences, if it is found that we have not jurisdiction.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I think there is a concrete case as a precedent. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), I think is aware of a Bill passed by the local legislature some years ago. I do not know of any similar Bill passed by the federal House.



QUESTIONS. '

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

Mr. LAMARCHE.: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago you ruled that my former question was out of OTder, according to the rules of the House. Since then I have amended it, and now beg to submit it again.


Mr. HENDERSON.: 1.	Does the government intend to give an opportunity to the members of the House of Commons to discuss the resolution of Mr. Sevigny, which stands as No. 25 on the orders of the day as a notice of motion?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to gave an opportunity to the House to declare itself on, the merits of the said resolution?


Robert Laird Borden: A great many applications have been made to the government to give an opportunity of calling up resolutions and Bills under the head of Public Bills and Orders-. It is thought undesirable in any of these cases to give such an opportunity as is here asked for, as it would result in seriously delaying the work of the House.


COAL COMBINE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the government received from the provincial government of British Columbia a request to investigate whether or not a combine or understanding exists among the coal producers and dealers of British Columbia to establish and maintain the prices charged for coal?
2.	If so, will the government order such inquiry, and when?
3 Has any answer been sent to the government of British. Columbia? If so, what?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	The Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia on the 3rd of May, 1909, transmitted to the then Secretary of State copy of a minute covering a resolution of the legislative assembly of British Columbia which reaffirmed a request that the Dominion government should cause inquiry to be made with a view to ascertain the cause of the alleged excessive price charged to consumers of coal in that province. This communication from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia was acknowledged by the Under Secretary of State on the 14th of May, 1909.
2.	The present government has not had an opportunity up to tjie present of considering the request which was first brought to its attention by the inquiry of the hon. member.
3.	It does not appear that any reply has ever been sent to the government of British Columbia except the acknowledgment * by the Under Secretary of State on the 14th of May, 1909, above alluded to.
SEPARATE SCHOOLS IN KEEiWATIN.


Mr. BARETTE:: 
Mr. LAVALLEE:: 1.	Did the government receive a petition from Messrs. Larose, Poinier and Smith, of Le Pas, Keewatin, asking that a school district be established by the commissioner of the northwest territories in council?
2.	If so, does the government intend to have the councillors appointed in accordance with section 6, chapter 62, of the Tevised statutes of Canada, 1906, and the authority required by section 10 of the same statute, for the stablishment of the school district, before submitting to the House the whole Bill enacting the annexation of Keewatin to the province of Manitoba, in accordance with the resolution now in the Orders of the Day. dated 19th February, 1912, by the hon. Mr. Borden?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The petition alluded to was received on the first of December, 1911, more than three years after the House of Commons had unanimously declared by resolution passed on the 13th day of July, 1908, that the territory therein mentioned should be added to the province of Manitoba. The Revised Statutes came into force on the 31st day of January, 1907, and no action has since been taken by either the preceding or the present administration under section 6 or section 10 of chapter 62. In view of these circumstances such action seems unnecessary at the present time.


MR. FRED. P. ROBINSON.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has one Fred. P. Robinson of Fredericton, New Brunswick, been appointed preventive officer for the whole or any port of New Brunswick? If so, for what portion?
2.	What are his duties and what salary does he receive?
3.	By whom was he recommended for the position, and what is the date of his appointment ?


Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	Mr. Fred. P. Robinson, of Fredericton, has been appointed an acting preventive officer of customs for service wherever required in New Brunswick.
2.	His duties are to endeavour to detect and to prevent frauds on the customs revenue. Salary $1,200 a year.
3.	His employment was authorized 1st February, 1912, on the recommendation of the Minister of Customs.


NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. MONDOU:: 1 Does the government intend to propose the repeal of the Naval Service Act?
2.	If so, does the government intend, in case of such repeal, to propose another Act containing the policy of the government in matter?
3	If such other Act is proposed, is it the intention of the government to submit the same for the approval of the people before being put into force?


Mr. HAZEN:: The answer to each of these three questions is-' Yes.' After such consideration and inquiry as may be necessary, the government will present its naval policy to parliament and to the people. That policy will undoubtedly require legislation which will involve the repeal of the present Naval Service Act. In the meantime that Act will remain on the statute-book for purposes in connection with the Fishery Protection Service and otherwise. Before any permanent naval policy is put into force, the people will be given an opportunity to pronounce upon it.	#


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-INVESTIGATION BY MESSRS. GUTELIUS AND STAUNTON.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What amounts by way of salary or other remuneration are F. P. Gutelius and G. Lynch Staunton to receive each year while they are engaged in investigating the affairs of the National Transcontinental Railway?
2.	What salary did F. P. Gutelius receive from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the year immediately preceding his appointment by the government?
3.	Was the said F. P. Gutelins employed on the Heinze Railroad in British Columbia ? If so, in what capacity?
i.	Did the said F. P. Gutelius enter the employment of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at the time of the sale of the Heinze Railroad to the latter company?
5.	How long was the said F. P. Gutelius employed by the Canadian Pacific Railway at North Bay and Montreal, and what were his duties at eaoh place?
6.	What experience has the said F. P. Gutelius had, respectively, in the operation, management and construction of railroads?
7.	What connection, if any, is the said F. P. Gutelius to have with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company while ho is employed by the government?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$65 a day, and reasonable expenses.
2.	The department has no information.
3.	The department has no information.
4.	The department has no information.
5.	The department has no information.
6.	Received the degree of civil engineer from Lafayette college, class of '87.

1887-	Engineer in charge of surveys, plans and construction of municipal separate sewerage system, Englewood, New Jersey. Contract work.
1888-	Engineer in cftarge of surveys and construction of a 1,000 foot tunnel on the Cleveland and Pittsburg railway, near Mineral Point, Ohio. Contract work.
1889-	Engineer in charge of the -construction of some 20 bridges on the river division of the Cleveland and Pittsburg railway, together with the construction of two stations, all of which was contract work.
1890-	Engineer in charge of surveys, plans and construction of Whisky Island and Cleveland Shop-Yards, Cleveland and Pittsburg railway. Contract work.
1891-	Engineer in charge of surveys and plans for various water-powers in Montana, and engineer in charge of the -construction of Flint Creek-Hydro-Electric plant, near Georgetown, Montana
1892-	Engineer in charge of surveys and construction for the Butte City WaterWorks Company, involving the construction of some 20 miles of 24-inch wood pipe supply main. Contract work.
1893-	Contractor for the extension of Butte City Electric railway from city to cemetery including Montana street bridge over Silver Bow creek.
1894-	Engineer in charge of plans and construction of highway bridge at Chalk Bluffs over the Big Hole river, Silver Bow county, Montana. Contract work.
1895-	Architect and engineer in charge of Construction of nine dwellings and business blocks, Butte, Montana. Contract work.
1896-	General superintendent in charge of engineering and construction of the Trail Crbek tramway from Trail to Rossland, British Columbia. Contract work.
1897-	General superintendent in charge of engineering and construction of the Columbia and Western railway from Trail to Penticton, the construction extending from Trail to West Robson. Contract work.
1898-	Superintendent, Canadian. Pacific railway, in charge of surveys, plans and construction of the standardization and curvature and grade revision of the Columbia and Western railway from Trail to Ross-land.
1899 to 1900-Resident engineer in charge of surveys, plans and construction in the revision of grades and alignment on the Columbia and Kootenay railway which consisted of rebuilding the greater part of this railway in which some thirty bridges were eliminated and others made permanent.
1901	to 1902-Inspecting engineer for the Canadian Pacific railway reporting direct to the general manager on maintenance and construction work for the entire Canadian Pacific railway system.
1902	to 1904-Engineer, maintenance of way, in charge of the preparation of standard plans, specification's and contracts for


Mr. COCHRANE.: the guidance of construction and maintenance engineers for new lines, extensions, additions and betterments for the Canadian Pacific railway from coast to coast.
1904 to 1906-Engineer, maintenance of way, in charge -of the preparation of standard plans, specifications and contracts for the guidance of construction and maintenance engineers for new lines, extensions, additions and betterments for the Canadian Pacific railway for lines east of Fort William.
1906 to 1908-Assistant chief engineer, Canadian Pacific railway, performing the duties of chief engineer in charge of all maintenance matters on the entire system and the construction department of eastern lines, which required supervision of betterments, additions and maintenance of existing lines, and the construction of new lines, among which was the St. Maurice Valley railway, Staynerville branch, South Bank branch, the filling or making permanent of scores of trestle bridges, alignment and grade revisions, including the crossing of Magog swamp, re-arrangement of terminals, new terminals, engine {houses, shops, stores, coaling plants, yard additions, new yards, section houses, track scales, grain elevators, and docks, most of which was contract work, preparation of contracts and specifications and the settlements of all disputes in connection therewith.
General superintendent, Canadian Pacific railway, in charge of construction, maintenance and operation of the Lake Superior and eastern divisions, having immediate charge of the construction of additions and betterments including the filling -or making permanent of all of the trestle bridges on the Lake Superior division, re-construction and extension of terminals at Chalk river and Cartier including yards, -stations, engine houses, and other facilities, further extensions to Place Viger terminals, and in charge of double tracking to St. Martin junction and Adirondack junction and entire new terminal at Sortin.
7.	No connection.



SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has any demand been made to tbe government, verbally or in writing, by any member of tbe House of Commons, praying for the establishment of a separate school system in the province of Manitoba or in Keewatin? If so, by whom?


Robert Laird Borden: The government does not consider that an inquiry of this character is either usual or pertinent.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY BONDS.
Mr. MARTIN (Montreal, St. Mary's):: 1.	Do the Canadian Northern railway bonds, 9aid to have been unconditionally-guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada both as to principal and interest, cover the terminals in Winnipeg, Montreal and elsewhere?
2.	Is the Canadian Northern Railway Company issuing and putting on the financial market of New York, special bonds for said terminals?
3.	Have tbe moneys realized from the sale of the said railway bonds been applied for the purposes for which they were issued?
4.	Does the government intend to order an auditing of the moneys so realized from the sales of these Tailway bonds, to ascertain whether or not such moneys have been applied for the purposes for which the bonds were Issued ?
5.	Does tbe government intend to order an auditing to ascertain whether the terminals


Mr. ROCHE.: of tbe Canadian Northern Railway .Company are included in the securities guaranteeing tbe bonds issued?
Mr. WHITE (Leeds);
1.	The Dominion of Canada has not guaranteed the securities of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or any of the companies connected with the Canadian Northern system, which are a charge upon terminals at Montreal or Winnipeg.
2.	The government has no information. 3 & 4. Moneys realized from the sale of
securities of the Canadian Northern Ontario Company's railway, guaranteed by the Dominion under chapter 6 of the Acts of 1911, are being applied in aid of the construction of a line of railway from Montreal to Port Arthur, as provided by the said Act and deed of trust made thereunder. Such sums only are paid out of these moneys as the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals shall certify as justified, having regard to the proportion of work done as compared with the work of construction of the whole line.
5. In view of the previous answers an auditing as is suggested is not called for.


MR. AZARIE BIBEAU.
Mr. WILSON (Laval):: 1.	Has Mr. Azarie Bibeau, a se isional clerk during tbe last parliament been dismissed? If so. at whose request?
2.	Has be been replaced? If so, by whom?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Yes. It was found on inquiry that Mr. Azarie Bibeau had been paid during sessions at the rate of $4 per day, and that he was repeatedly absent without leave and had not done any departmental work for some years. This was deemed a sufficient reason for his dismissal.
2.	Yes. By Charles Meneilley.


CARRIAGE OF MAILS BETWEEN SOREL AND ST. VICTORIA, QUEBEC
Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	On what date were tenders for the carriage of the mails between Sorel and St. Victoria, county of Richelieu, furnished to the Post Office Department?
2.	Who were the tenders at the date, and what was the amount of each tender r
3.	Who obtained the contract and at wbat price ?
4.	Were some of the tenderers recommended by tbe hon. tbe Postmaster General?
5.	If so, who are they and by whom were they so recommended?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Tenders were received at department, 19th January, 1912.

The following tenders were received: Ade-lard Paulhas, $400; F. E. Pelletier, first offer $425, later reduced to $400; Adelard Paulhas, $425; Pierre Pelletier, $440; Chas. Ethier, $499; Ovila Bussiere, $500; J. B. Aubuhcon, $599.
3.	F. E. Pelletier at $400 per annum, instead of $450, the price paid before.
4	& 5. No.


BUDGET-BOUNTIES ON IRON AND STEEL.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1 At what date will the Budget debate be brought on?
2.	Is it the intention of the government on th >
occasion of the Budget debate to give a favourable answer to the application of the manufacturers for a renewal of the bounties *on iron and steel?


Mr. WHITE (Leeds):: 1.	An announcement will be made in due course.
2.	It is not the custom to answer questions of this character in advance of the Budget speech.


MAIL CONTRACT BETWEEN YAL DES EBOULIS AND RIGAUD, QUE.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Who has the contract at present for the carriage of the mail between Yal des Eboulis and Rigaud?
2.	When was the contract granted?
3.	Did the department ask for public tenders for the said service?
4.	What are the names of the persons who tendered, and the amount asked by each of them ?
5	When did the contract granted to Pierre IJuesnel expire?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Eugene Quesnel.
2.	24th January, 1912.
3.	No. It was not necessary as contract was below $200.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	31st December, 1911.


SOULANGES CANAL EMPLOYEES.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has Damien Laloude, chief electrician on the Soulanges canal, made a report respecting assistant electrician Cuillerrier, accusing him of having stolen tools and goods from the powerhouse?
2.	If so, does the department intend to make an inquiry to establish the truth of the accusations brought against Guillerrier?
3.	When this inquiry takes place, by whom will it be held, and where?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that this question can be asked until it is presented in a different form. One of the rules applicable to the asking of a question is that the question shall not reflect upon individual character. This, I take it, is a violation of the rule.


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What are the names of all persons employed on the Soulanges Canal, permanently and otherwise, up to the 21st September, 1911?
2.	What were their duties and the salary of each.
' Mr. COCHRANE:
I.	Names of persons employed by the year or per month for 12 months:
L.	A. Sauve, overseer, $1,700 per annum.
Dam. Lalonde, chief electrican, $1,100 per annum.
L.	A. Leroux, assistant electrician, $65 per month.
Denis Tremblay, assistant electrician, $5 per month.
Eugene Cuerrier, assistant electrician, $65 per month.
J.	O. Dennis, clerk, $800 per annum.
A. D. Valois, storekeeper, $65 per month.
Em. Lalonde, lineman, $60 per mouth.
J Pte. Denis, carbonman, $60 per month.
J. Bte. Denis, carbonman, $60 per month, nonth.
AY. L. Lefebvre, weirman, $60 per month.
J. Bte. Brabant, weirman, $60 per month. Names of persons employed by the month who work 8 full months and are employed J time for the four months of winter.
Jos. Robillard, lockman No. 4, $60 per month.
A. St. Marseilles, lockman No. 4, $60 per month.
Jul. Sauve, lockman No. 4, $60 per month.
Geo. Chartrand, lockman G. Gate, $60 per month.
Chs. Methot, lockman No. 5, $60 per month.
Jos Girard, lockman No. 5, $60 per month.
M.	Sauve, lockman No. 5, $60 per month.
H. Methot, bridgeman No. 7, $60 per month.
Jos. Hamel, ibridgeman No. 7,	$60 per
mouth..
Avila St. Germain, oiler and cleaner, $1.75 per day.
Names of persons employed for 8 months, during season of navigation.
Elie Gamelin, assistant lineman, $60 per month.
Leon Descarries, lockman No. 1, $60 per month.
Jos. Besner, lockman No. 1, $60 per month.
Os. Gampeau, lockman No. 1, $60 per month.
Wilfrid Sabourin, lockman No. 1, $60 per month.
Ludger Brasseur, lockman No. 2, $60 per month.
J. Bte. DeMontigny, lockman No. 2, $60 per month.
Alex. Menard, lockman No. 2, $60 per month.
Ad. Pilon, lockman No. 2, $60- per month.
Jos. Clement, lockman No. 3, $60 per month.
Rock Leroux, lockman No 3, $60 per month.
O.	DeMontigny, lockman No. 3, $60 per month.

Geo. Leroux, lockman No. 3, $60 per month. Theo. Menard, lockman No. 4,	$60 per
month.
Rene Denis, lockman (G. vGate, $60 per month.
O. Beriault, lockman G. gate, $60 per month.
J. Bte. Periard, lockman G. gate, $60 per month.
Alf. Biron, lockman G. gate, $60 per month. [DOT]Till. Clement/ bridgeman No. 1, $60 per month.
Jos. Menard, bridgeman No. 1, $60 per month.
Wilf. Leroux, bridgeman No. 2,	$60 per
month.
TJrgel Goyer, bridgeman No. 2, $60 per month.
Ohs. Clement, bridgeman No. 3, $60 per month.
St. Marseilles, bridgeman No. 3, $60 per month.
P.	Cholette, bridgeman N. 4, $60 per month. Dd. Robillard, bridgeman No. 4, $60 per
month.
P. Cholette, bridgeman No. 5, $60 per month.
B. St. Germain, bridgeman No. 5, $60 per month.
Geo. Lalonde, bridgeman No. 6, $60 per month.
O.	Rousselle, bridgeman No. 6, $60 per month.
O.	Bissonnette, boat lineman No. 5, $60 per month.
M. Huneau, boat lineman No. 5, $60 per month.
E. Paquette, boat lineman No. 4, $60 per month.
J. Bte. Trottier, boat lineman No. 4, $60 per month.
P.	Walsh, boat lineman No. 1, $60 per month.
Nap. Deooste, boat lineman No. 1, $60 per month.
Names of persons employed hy the month, who work greater part of each month iit year.
Jos. Aquin, head foreman, $3.25 per day. Barnabe Mallette, assistant carpenter, $2 pe~ day.
Fr. Lucas, blacksmith, $3 per day.
Moise Pilon, assistant blacksmith, $2.75 per day.
Ed. Halley, machinist, $88 per month.
Am. Richard, oiler and cleaner, $2 per day. Ad. Frigon, stone cutter, $3.50 per day.
Ed. Leclerc, tug engineer, $2 per day.
Wm. St. Marseilles, tug captain, $2 per day. J. Bte. Juillet, carpenter, $3 per day
N.	Masse, carpenter and driver, $3 per day. Aid. Gauthier, carpenter and painter, $2.75 per day.
A number of foreman, labourers, carters, &e., are employed during the year hut only when the works are under way and none can earn 6 full months in a year.
Engineering staff for protection works at upper entrance, Soulanges canal:
J. T. Lemire, resident engineer, $1,500 per annum.
W. Gauthier, rodman and chainman, $2 per day


Francis Cochrane: Maurice Seguin, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Azarie Marsan, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Rene Felix, labourer, $1.75 per day.
George Denis, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Hormisdas Levesque, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Avila Denis, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Jos. Langevin, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Jos. Leroux, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Emmanuel Legault, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Albert Legault, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Th4o. Denis, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Procule Charlebois, labourer, $1.75 per day.
J. Bte. Lalonde, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Henri F41ix, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Arthur Marleau, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Osias Leroux, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Alderic Cousineau, labourer, $1.75 per day.
Norbert Normand, labourer, $1.75 per day.
H.	Duval, inspector of works, 35 cents per hour.
Willie Menard, bundling empty cement, bags, 20 cents per hour.
Conrad Le roux, bundling empty cement bags, 20 cents per hour.
Joseph Mdnard, bundling empty cement bags, 20 cents per hour.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. BOYER:: I.	Has a person named Denis Methot, recently appointed assistant electrician on the Soulanges canal, replacing a person named Cuillerrier, the required experience to perform such duty ?
2.	If so, can the government state where this man acquired his experience?
3.	Who are the persons who furnished certificates, references, &c., showing that the said Denis Methot has the requisite experience to perform such duty?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Methot had experience with machinery generally. The department does not require expert electricians for such positions. Any intelligent man, especially if he has a general experience in machinery can be trained in a very short time. In this case it was arranged that either the chief electrician or one of his trained assistants would take the appointee in hand and that he would never be left alone in charge of the electrical machines until properly acquainted with their working.
It may be stated that the man Cuillerrier had no more knowledge of electrical machinery when appointed some years ago, than has Methot.
2.	He had no experience at the time of his appointment.
3.	He had no certificates and none were required in his case.


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has the government received a report respecting an assault committed by Damien Lalonde, chief electrician on the Soulanges canal, on the person of one of his assistants, named L. A. Leroux?
2.	Is the government aware, as reported, that the said Damien Lalonde was arrested for


Francis Cochrane: this act, that he appeared before the court on the 22nd February, and that his trial has been put off to the 28th instant?
3.	Is it within the knowledge of the department that the said Damien Lalonde, without any other authority, dismissed the said L. A. Leroux, in order, as alleged, bo replace him by a person named Macdonald, and that bis appointment bad been afterwards ratified by the department?	_
4.	What is the date of L. A. Leroux's dismissal?
5.	What is the date of Macdonald's engagement?	i


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The superintending engineer, was-handed a letter by Mr. Leroux relating the circumstances of the assault in question.
2.	The superintending engineer reports that he was notified of the arrest by Leroux.
3.	Lalonde did not dismiss Leroux. It was necessary to put a man in his place, to complete the staff, so Macdonald was appointed temporarily, by the overseer, who reported to the superintending engineer and his action was approved of.
4.	Leroux left the service on the 19th February.
5.	The 19th February.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH HATCHERIES.
Mr. SHEPHERD:: What was the cost of construction of each of the following hatcheries in British Cohirn-bia: Anderson Lake, Kennedy Lake and Cowi-chan Lake?


John Douglas Hazen: Anderson lake hatchery, $6,964.94. Kennedy lake hatchery, $7,505.57; Cowichan lake hatchety, $9,023.81.
nERRING FISHING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WATERS.


Mr. SHEPHERD:: 1.	Was herring fishing permitted in the waters adjacent to Nanaimo harbour and Departure bay after the season 1910-11 had
2.	If so, upon whose authority and to whom
were such privileges granted?	.
3.	By whom were the necessary permits issued?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


ST. LAWRENCE SHIP CHANNEB-GOVERNMENT DREDGES.
Mr. CARDIN:: 1. Are the captains, engineers, mates and other navigators employed up to last autumn on the government dredges and towboats employed in -dredging the channel of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, engaged for the season of navigation of 1912?

2. If some of tliem are to be dismissed, who are they, what position did each occupy, who asked for these dismissals, and why?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The matter is under consideration.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


PINK ROCK WHARF, N.B.
Mr. FOWLER:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of Pink Rock wharf, Westmorland county, N.B.?
2.	Who is wharfinger, and what amount of tolls have been collected from the public?
3.	What quantities of gypsum or other freight have been handled on the wharf by the Albert Manufacturing Company, or C. J. Osman, free of tolls, under an alleged agreement with the Public Works Department?
4.	Is the title of the land upon which the wharf is built, vested in the Crown? If so, from whom was it obtained, and at what price ?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	$16,065.64.
2.	(a) No wharfinger has, as yet, been appointed; (b) no tolls collected.
3.	No records of such shipments kept in the department.
4.	No, but the agreement entered into with the Albert Manufacturing Company is considered a sufficient title.
FISHERY INSPECTORS, NOVA SCOTIA. Mr. SINCLAIR:
What are the names, addresses and present salaries of the fishery inspectors in the province of Nova Scotia?


John Douglas Hazen: 


John G.: Morrison, Englishtown, inspector for Cape Breton Island, salary $1,200 per annum.
Robert Hockin, Pictou, inspector exercising jurisdiction over Cumberland, Colchester, Pictou, Antigonish, Guysborough, Halifax and Hants counties, salary $1,200 per annum.


Andrew C.: Robertson, Barrington Passage, inspector for Lunenburg, Queen's, Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby, Annapolis and King's counties, salary $700 per annum.


DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES-BIOLOGICAL BOARD.
John Howard Sinclair: ' 1. Who composes the Biological Board of the Marine and Fisheries Department?
2.	What is the salary or allowance paid to
each member of the board, including expenses?	'
3.	Where are the biological stations situated?
4.	What was the yearly cost during the past five years of the operation of the board?
5.	Does the board make yearly or any reports to the department?


Mr. HAZEN:: 
FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO MANITOBA AND NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the population of Manitoba according to the last census
2.	What is the gross amount that will be payable as arrears to the government of Manitoba by the Federal government on account of debt allowance, land account and buildings, under the new adjustment now before parliament?
3.	What, amount, in addition to the arrears referred to in question No. 2, will be payable as provincial subsidy out of the revenue of Canada to the province of Manitoba for the year ending March 31, 1913, under the'adjustment now before parliament?
4.	What is the population of Nova Scotia as per last census?
5.	What is the amount to which the province of Nova Scotia will be entitled for provincial subsidy from the Federal government for the year ending March 31, 1913?


Mr. WHITE (Leeds):: 1.	455,614.
2.	Arrears on account of allowance in lieu of debt (in respect of four years-July 1, 1908, to June 30, 1912)-payable when Bill becomes law, $810,648.52; approximate arrears of allowance in lieu of land (same period), payable when Bill becomes law, $1,368,000; special allowance building account, payable one-half July 1, 1912, one-half July 1, 1913, $201,723.57. Approximate total, $2,380,372.09.
3.	Manitoba will receive, if the Bill becomes law, for the year beginning July 1, 1912 (Subsidy Acts make grants to provinces payable half-yearly in advance July 1st and January 1st, each year), approximately $1,349,345.39.
4.	492,338.
5.	For the year beginning July 1, 1912, Nova Scotia will receive $636,671.28.


POSTMASTER, AT TRACADIE ROAD, N.S
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has any complaint been received by the Postmaster General of the Post Office Department against John H. McPherson, postmaster at Tracadie Road, N.S.?
2.	If so, what was the complaint, and who made it ?
3.	Has any notice been sent to Mr. McPherson ?
4.	Does tbe department intend to take further action in this oase?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Post Office Department has received to-day the following telegram :-
Halifax, N.S., March 4, 1912. The Secretary,
Post Office Department,
Ottawa.


John H.: MacPherson, Postmaster, Tracadie Road, stated to have died four years ago. Report by to-day's mail.
(Sgd.) W. E. MacLELLAN,
P.	O. Inspector.


DISMISSAL OF MR. CHARLES FLEMMING.
Mr PARDEE:: 1.	Has Charles Flemming, employed in the Inland Revenue Department at Petrolia, Ontario, been dismissed? If so, for what cause?
2.	Was an investigation asked for? If so, will it he granted?


Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	Yes. For intemperance.
2.	Yes. No investigation will be held as evidence was conclusive.


LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER AT ILE ROUGE.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1. Has any one asked for the position of Mr. John Irving, floating lighthouse keeper, of lie Rouge? If so, what are their names?


Mr. SINCLAIR.: 2. Is it the intention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to dismiss the said John Irving? If so, will an inquiry he granted him?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Representations have been made to the department that Mr. L. T. Delisle, formerly employed as captain, should be reinstated.
2.	The matter is under consideration.


DRY DOCK AT QUEBEC.
Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Who are the persons or companies now conferring with the government on the subject of the construction of a dry dock in the port of Quebec?
2.	In the case of companies, who are the directors and through whose intervention are they coming to terms with the government?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	The representatives of the Quebec harbour board and of the shipping federation.
2.	No company has made any application to or entered into any pourparlers with the government upon the subject.


CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL.
Mr. LAVALLEE:: 1.	What steps have been taken by the honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to prevent the proposed increase of the flow of water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago drainage canal?
2.	Is the minister aware of the damage this increased flow of water would work to shipping by a lowering of the lake levels?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on learning of the application of the trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, to be allowed to increase the quantity of water withdrawn from Lake Michigan through the Chicago Drainage Canal to ten thousand cubic feet per second, directed Mr. John Kennedy, Consulting Engineer of the Harbour Commission of Montreal, and Mr. W.
J.	Stewart, C.E., Chief Hydrographer of the Department of the Naval Service, Ottawa, to proceed to Washington and watch on behalf of Canada, proceedings in that connection before the United States Secretary of War.
At the said hearing, the trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago were present, the case in their behalf being presented by counsel.
Opposing the application, there appeared representatives of shipping interests from all over the Great Lakes; also representatives of various cities and harbours, including some from Chicago itself, and from as far east as Cleveland.

The Canadian representatives took no part in the proceedings, further than to ask for an adjournment of the hearing until the 27th March, 1912, a request that had already been made by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada through the British Ambassador at Washington. This request on behalf of Canada was readily granted.
In addition, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has arranged for a conference of representatives of the shipping interests, to take plaice at Ottawa on the 5th March, with a view to discussing with him ways and means of presenting Canada's objection to this application, at the hearing arranged, for the above named date, at Washington.
2. The minister is aware that great damage would result to shipping if sufficient water were diverted to affect the lake levels.


SUPERIOR COURT BENCH, HULL.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Has the Minister of Justice read the following from the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of the 29th ultimo:-

[Stage Direction]
' Hector Chauviu may go to Hull Superior Court Bench.
' The announcement made by Judge McDoug-all, presiding at the Hull Superior Court yesterday that it was probable that a new Superior Court judge would he appointed at an early date, caused much satisfaction amongst the members of the Bar Association who were present.
' Judge McDougall stated that he had interviewed the Minister of Justice and told him that he was unable to handle the great number of cases before the court, and that as he would be debarred from sitting on the bench during the hearing of a number of cases in the coming Hull assizes, owing to his having been at one time retained by some of the principals in the case, it would be necessary to secure the services of another judge. Moreover, owing to several of the Montreal judges being at present on the sick list, it would be difficult to obtain one to preside at Hull.
'In reply the Minister advised Judge McDougall that an appropriation would be made during the present session, providing for an additional Superior Court judge, who would reside in the district of Ottawa, pending the establishment of the Nominingue district.
' It is stated that the new judge will probably be Mr. Hector Chauvin, whose name has been mentioned in connection with a judgeship very frequently of late.'
2.	Is an additional Superior Court judge to be apnointed as suggested by Mr. Justice McDougall
Mr. DOHERTY:: 1. This question was practically answered on Thursday last (Feb. 29). The answer will he found on page 4197 of ' Hansard ' (umrevised). If the horn, member so desires I will repeat the answer:
I have not seen -the statement of Mr. Justice McDougall, but the Quebec legislature has provided for a new judicial district to he called Montcalm, and that until there is a proper courthouse at the Chef-Lieu of Montcalm district, the judge to he appointed shall reside at Hull. It is the intention when we introduce the Bill to provide for the additional judges which are. asked for by the different provinces to make provision for the salary of the judge which the legislature has determined is required for the district of Montcalm and who is to reside at Hull, and that was so stated to the Hon. Mr. Justice McDougall.
2. When the necessary legislation is passed an additional judge will be appointed.


MAGDALEN ISLANDS NEWS SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LEMIEUX [DOT]
1.	Who sends the weekly letter by Marconi-gram to Magdalen Islands, and what is his salary ?
2.	What is the nature of the news supplied?
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Mr. David Watson, of Quebec.
2.	I think eight dollars per week, but I will have this verified.


MOTION'S AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all letters, petitions, requests, memoranda, ministerial or departmental instructions in the possession of the government or any department thereof, relating to the alleged change of name of Blind River post office, in the province of Ontario.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all letters, contracts, memoranda, or notice cancelling contracts, and of all other papers and documents in the possession of the Department of Railways and Canals, bearing date after January 1, 1911, relating to the construction of certain branch lines of the Intercolonial railway between Sunnybrae and Guysborough and Country Harbour, and between Dartmouth and Dean Settlement, in the province of Nova Scotia.- Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all documents, correspondence, inquiries, accusations, petitions and reports in the Department of Railways and Canals, referring to the dismissal of Mr. Theophile Moriee, an officer over the delivery of coal of the Intercolonial railway at Riviere du Loup.-Mr. Gauvreau.
For a copy of all papers and correspondence in connection with the removal of the postmaster at Rathburn, township of Mara, county of Ontario, and the change of the location of the post office at said point.-Mr. Pardee.
For a copy of all contracts, correspondence or writings whatsoever, respecting the construction of a dam in 1908 or 1909, called the Lake Tinniskaming dam constructed or built over the rivers forming the inflow or the discharge of the said lake, exchanged between the government of Canada and the contractor or contractors.-Mr. Boulay.
[Stage Direction]


For a copy of all correspondence between the Intercolonial authorities, the Minister of Railways and the Department of Justice, and all other persons, relating to a claim of the Matepedia Water Works Company against the Intercolonial, including therein all plans, designs, inquiries, evidences and other reports concerning this matter; also a copy of all plans, designs, notices and correspondence between the Intercolonial authorities and M. P. Laberge, the Dominion Lumber Company and John Fenderson & Co., relating to the placing of an aqueduct pipe on the land No. 170 of the cadastre of St. Pierre du Lac.-Mr. Bou-lay.
For a copy of all papers, documents, letters, &c., connected with an inquiry made by the Intercolonial authorities of the loss of a horse killed on the Dalhousie branch, belonging to Mr. Xavier St. Laurent, of Causapscal, since 1905.-Mr. Boulay.
For a copy of all inquiries, correspondence whatsover relating to the death - of the late Absolon Lavoie, of Amqui, accidentally killed on the Intercolonial railway at Metis, county of Rimouski, during the summer of 1911.-Mr. Boulay.
For a copy of all letters, complaints, charges and other documents connected with or giving any information as to the discharge of Thomas Hale, of Westville, Nova Scotia, as correspondent for the ' Labour Gazette.'-Mr. Macdonald.
1.	For a copy of all reports of engineers from 1874 to 1900, relating to the most suitable site in the harbour of Quebec for the construction of a dry dock.
2.	Of all correspondence exchanged on the subject of a choice of a site for the dry dock now existing at St. Joseph de Levis, at the time of its construction.
3.	Of engineers' reports, plans, maps and bearings relating to the construction' of a new dry dock in the port of Quebeo since 1900.
4.	Of all correspondence exchanged between the different companies and the government relating to the construction of a new dry dock in the port of Quebec, since 1909.
5.	Also for the production of all documents submitted by the different companies who have asked for the government grant provided by the Dry Dock Subsidies Act.-Mr. Boland. _
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and petitions, sent to the government, or any of His Majesty's ministers, praying for the establishment of a separate school system in the Keewatin territory.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all documents, letters, messages, recommendations, requests, tenders, &c., respecting the contract granted to Alexander Duchesneau, for work done to the wharf at St. Valier, county of Bellechasse.-Mr. Lapointe.	.

Rt. Hon. R. L.: BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 115), to provide for the Extension of the Boundaries of the province of Manitoba. He said:	Mr. Speaker, when the
resolutions upon which this Bill is founded were in Committee, the hon. member for Mr. PELLETIER.
Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), asked that we should lay upon the table of the House a map showing the boundaries as proposed; I have done that and have also handed to my hon. friend a copy. This map has been prepared by the geographer, and I believe it shows accurately the boundaries as proposed by the resolutions, and by the Bill of which I now move the second reading.
I might also give to the House some information as to the population within the added territory as furnished to me by the officials who have charge of the census. The population is as follows:
Origin. English.. .. Scotch.. ..
Irish	
French.. .. Scandiavian Eskimo.. .. Halfbreed.. Indian.. ..
Number.
33
16
259
4,822
Total	 5,771
It is thus apparent that there has been very little settlement and1 apparently very little development in the territory which is thus to be added to the province of Manitoba. However, we cannot tell what development may come in the future. We know that the Hudson Bay railway is to be constructed, and we also know that the government of the province of Ontario have it in mind that the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway will, in the course of time, be extended through a portion of this territory so as to reach a port on Hudson bay.
The boundaries now proposed are the same as those which were affirmed by this House on the 13th day of July, 1908. I might state that between 1905 and 1908, the province of Saskatchewan laid claim to some portion of the territory which is now proposed to be included within the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. That was alluded to by the then Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in moving the resolution I have just mentioned, on July 13, 1908. He used this language as expressing the conclusion which the government had reached in that connection:
After giving due consideration to this claim on the part of the province of Saskatchewan, it seemed to us that, as between the claim of the province of Saskatchewan and of the province of Manitoba, to have the territory which lies north of Manitoba and east of Saskatchewan allotted 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.
The present administration has seen no reason to depart from the conclusion which was thus arrived at.

Objection was taken during the debate on the resolutions to certain financial provisions which were then proposed, and which are embodied in this Bill. Criticism was directed against the date at which these financial provisions shall take effect. I need not remind the members of the House that the claim of Manitoba for an extension of its boundaries is of long standing. It was said, and I think accurately said, by the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), when he was moving the resolutions in 1908, that that claim dated as far back as 1884. It was renewed with a good deal of insistance in 1901, and as far as I am able to understand, it was proposed or suggested at that time that the claim of Manitoba in that regard should be postponed until what were then the territories lying west of Manitoba should be formed into provinces. Those territories were constituted into the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan during the session of 1905. The right hon. gentleman who then lead the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) dealt with the claim of Manitoba in that regard1 when he moved, the first reading of the Autonomy Bills. He spoke of the claim of Manitoba to an extension of its boundaries as one which was entitled to fair and just consideration, but he attempted to justify the delay in dealing with that particular matter by saying that it could not be properly dealt with until Ontario and Quebec, and also the new province of Saskatchewan, then being constituted, had been consulted. Subsequently to that date Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec were consulted, and the result was the proposal of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), embodied in the resolutions of July 13, 1908. The suggestion is made that although Manitoba put forward a claim which was entitled to consideration in 1905, but which claim was not acceded to at that time for the reason already allud'ed to, a delay of some six years having intervened, Manitoba should have no consideration whatever, for the time which has intervened between 1905 and the present time. I am not disposed to accept that conclusion.
I have already said that Manitoba urged, and urged with great insistence, that inasmuch as her claim should have had consideration in 1905 it would be proper, and only just and fair, that whatever financial provisions were to be embodied in the Bill providing for an extension of her boundaries, should date not from today, but from the period in 1905 when the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were first constituted. We have not seen fit to date these financial provisions so far back as that, but we do think inasmuch as the boundaries which are 136i
now proposed were unanimously affirmed by this House in 1908, that it is no more than just to the province of Manitoba that those financial provisions should date and take effect from the 1st day of July 1908, and we ask this House to support us in that conclusion. What are we giving to Manitoba? We are increasing the lands indemnity from the sum of $100,000 to $562,500, the same as to Saskatchewan, and estimated on the same basis as in the case of that province. But we have asked Manitoba to accept, and Manitoba has agreed to accept, a deduction of $149,230 from that sum, leaving the net amount to be received by Manitoba in respect of her public lands of the sum of $413,370. Now my hon. friend the member for Kd-monton (Mr. Oliver) has put the case very strongly in that regard. I do not know whether I quite apprehend the point of my hon. friend, but apparently he thinks that we are not giving Manitoba quite sufficient compensation in respect of her public lands, because I observe that in the course of his remarks on that question in the debate on the resolution, he declared that Manitoba has restored to us swamp lands which are worth at a fair calculation $21,000,000 in capital or $1,000,000 a year in annual revenue. While I do not accept the computation of my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) I think there is at least enough in his argument to justify us in saying that the proposal to which we are now asking the assent of the House does no more than ordinary simple justice to the province of Manitoba. After all, Mr. Speaker why should there be any discrimination between the province of Manitoba and the province of Saskatchewan in that regard? It is perfectly true that Manitoba was constituted into a province in 1871, and that Saskatchewan was constituted into a province in 1905, but everyone of us realizes also that the financial position of this Dominion is different to-day from what it was in 1871, and that consideration can properly, and in the public interest ought to be, extended to the province of Manitoba to-day which it was not possible to extend to that province when it was first constituted in 1871. And I venture to think that a proposal which takes away and removes any discrimination between the enlarged province of Manitoba and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, is after all one which is eminently in the public interest, one which is entirely justified by every sentiment of fair-play and one that should appeal to every member of this House. Further than that, Mr. Speaker, I need not allude to the fact that Manitoba is handing back to us these lands of which a detailed statement was given upon the introduction of this resolution, except to bring the testimony

of my right hon. friend who leads the opposition to the value of the asset which the Dominion of Canada is receiving in the return by Manitoba of these lands. Speaking in the debate upon the Autonomy Bill in 1905, at page 1439 of ' Hansard' of that year the right hon. gentleman said this:
The swamp lands are perhaps the most valuable lands in the province of Manitoba. They require some preliminary work for drainage but when drained there are no better lands in the whole province. When the late government gave to the province of Manitoba th-j swamp lands they made her a valuable gift, and it has proved to her a most important asset.
Well, Manitoba, in qonsideration of the financial arrangements exactly similar to those made for Alberta and Saskatchewan, is handing back to us the swamp lands, the very great value of which have been urged by the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, and by the member for Edmonton. We have charged Manitoba with every dollar which she has received out of these swamp lands, less the cost of administration, we have also charged Manitoba with 150,000 acres of land granted to the University of Manitoba. These stand in a somewhat different position from the swamp lands, because, when these lands were granted to the university, the province of Manitoba had no control over them as I understand. They were dealt with for the University of Manitoba, and so far as the sale of them is concerned the proceeds accrue to the university and not to the province as a whole. We have thought it only fair and reasonable, therefore, that value should be deducted as on the date, or about the date, when they were first granted. That value has been estimated at $2 per acre. So that the total amount in respect to which Manitoba accounts to the Dominion for the lands granted to the University of Manitoba is the sum of $300,000, upon which interest at the rate of 5 per cent has been deducted. But it may be asked, why should Manitoba or any other province receive compensation from the Dominion of Canada in respect of lands that are held by the Dominion, and are not administered by the province? Well, the principle upon which we are proceeding to-day was adopted by the late administration in 1905, when it fixed the financial terms for Alberta and Saskatchewan. Therefore, I do not suppose that any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House will be disposed to quarrel with that principle to-day. In fact it has already been recognized so far as Manitoba is concerned, because to-day, before the Bill passes, Manitoba is receiving, or would receive, $100,000 annually, in respect of these public


Mr. BOKDEN.: lands, or as an indemnity for the lack of them. But I would like to point out the very great revenues which other provinces in Canada are receiving from their public domain to-day. The amounts that I am giving to the House have been taken from the very valuable yearbook or handbook, published by Mr. J. Castell Hopkins, and I am quoting from that handbook for the year 1911. According to Jcnat authority New Brunswick received in the year 1910, for what is termed territorial revenues, the sum of $494,491.64. In the same year the province of Nova Scotia received from its mines, $629,010, and from its Crown lands, $33,600, making a total received by the province of $662,610, from public domain which is not possessed by the province of Manitoba, or by the province of Alberta or Saskatchewan. The province of Quebec, in the same ye_ar, received in respect of its lands and forests $1,150,747, and from its mines, fisheries and game the sum of $182,132, a total of $1,332,897, from its public domain. In the same year the [DOT]province of British 'Columbia received from timber leases and licenses the sum of $2,325,000, and from land sales and revenue '$887,600, a total of $3,212,600. In the same year according to the authority, the province of Ontario received from its lands, forests and mines, $2,951,428. I have no doubt that in every. one of these cases some expenses and costs of administration must be deducted, and I am merely pointing out that the province of Manitoba, and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, in being deprived of their public domain, which is being administered by Canada and for the benefit of Canada, so far as any revenue is concerned, are certainly entitled to some consideration in respect of subsidy for the withdrawal of those lands.
It is upon this principle, the principle acted upon in 1905, that we proceed today when we ask parliament to sanction this increased allowance to the province of Manitoba. Now, it may be asked, Why should we give compensation at all? Why should we not permit Manitoba to retain its swamp lands? Why not hand over to the province all the Crown lands within the enlarged boundaries and thus place the province in the same position as the other provinces of Canada except the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan? Well, it has been thought best- and I apprehend there is>
good reason for the conclusion-that the matter should be dealt with at one and the same time so far as Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned. But the delay that will be involved in carrying out such an arrangement is surely no good reason why there should be delay in doing that jus-

tice to Manitoba which she has long claimed. It is for that reason that we think it is no more than right, in the first place, to put Manitoba upon the same financial basis and to accord to her the same financial terms as those which have been already accorded to the sister provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Because, I repeat once more, these three provinces stand in a different category from the other six provinces of the Dominion. The other six provinces have their natural resources, their public domain, mines, minerals and other assets of that kind; these three provinces have not those assets. Having in regard these considerations our policy and our proposal is, in the first place, to put Manitoba upon the same just and fair basis as that which has already been granted to Alberta and Saskatchewan, and then to take up, at the earliest opportunity, the question of the terms upon which the natural resources of all three prairie provinces shall be handed over to the administration of these provinces. And I would like to repeat what I have already said in speaking upon the resolutions in that regard, that when we do come to consider that pronosal I think it will be just and necessary to give some consideration to the maritime provinces whose boundaries cannot be enlarged by reason of their natural situation, to call them into our councils and give to them a just voice as to the terms upon which these lands shall be ha-ided over, and especially with regard to what compensation, if any, should be given to the three maritime provinces by reason of the transfer of these lands to the governments of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Now, what else do we propose so iar as Manitoba is concerned? We propose to increase the annual allowance on account of debt from $178,947.65 to $381,584.19. Alberta and Saskatchewan each receive an annual allowance on account of debt of $405,375. We have made certain just deductions in the case of Manitoba which have already been fully explained to the House upon the resolutions. Why should there be any discrimination between Manitoba on the one hand and Saskatchewan and Alberta on the other in this regard? Shall the accident of the date of the establishment of these provinces make any difference in that respect? My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) declared with a great deal of earnestness that inasmuch as Manitoba was constituted in 1871 and Alberta and Saskatchewan were not constituted until 1905, Manitoba had no just and reasonable claim in this regard; because, he said, Manitoba is an old province in this confederation, established forty years ago. I would submit two or three considerations to my hon. friend from St. John and to the members of this House. In the first place, these three provinces differ from all other provinces in Canada in this respect-that they are not provinces which originally constituted this confederation and they were not sovereign provinces at the time of confederation, but brought in afterwards. Each one of these three provinces has been carved out of territory that was added to this confederation shortly after 1867. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, and except for the accident of dates, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan are precisely in the same category.
But my hon. friend from St. John declares that the circumstance to which I have alluded, that accident if I may so call it, constitutes a valid reason which should prevent us to-day from giving to the province of Manitoba the same consideration in respect of debt allowance that was given in 1905 to Alberta and Saskatchewan. I aim bound to say that I do not so regard it. Every one of us knows, who has been familiar with these transactions, that Manitoba in 1905 pressed her claim to have her boundaries extended as far west as Regina. We know that the government of that day did not see fit to entertain that claim. But suppose that claim had been entertained, suppose the boundaries of Manitoba had been extended as far west as Regina or further, would my hon. friend from St. John say that no increased allowance in respec^of debt should have been granted' to Manitoba in that regard ? Surely he would not say that. Manitoba is having her boundaries extended to-day. The debt allowance is based upon the consideration of population, in the ease of Manitoba as in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Manitoba in 1905 wanted her boundaries extended. Would my hon. friend from St. John be prepared to say that if the territory so far west as Regina had been constituted into a province it would have been quite right to make for that province a special, generous debt allowance, such as was granted under the Act of 1905, but that if the same territory had been added to Manitoba, no such consideration should have been given to Manitoba by reason of the population, within that added territory? It does not seem to me that the argument of my hon. friend is consistent with the attitude taken by his leader in 1905 and by the government of which he was at that time, or very shortly after, a member. So we have come to the conclusion that the debt allowance of Manitoba should be placed exactly upon the same basis as that which was adopted in 1905 with regard to Alberta and Saskatchewan when they were constituted into provinces.
Now, so far as the terms of the Bill are concerned, hon. gentlemen on. both sides

of the House, are, no doubt, familiar with them. Sections 1 and 2 are of a formal character. Section 3 sets out the bourn-daries, sections 4 and 5 deal with the financial terms and set forth in considerable detail the items of increased allowance which we propose to make to the province of Manitoba by the Bill. Section 6 provides that the Crown iLands and all the public domains shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purpose of Canada, subject to the provisions of any Act of the parliament of Canada.
Section 7 deals with the rights and properties of the Hudson's Bay Company. Section 8 provides that the province shall continue to be represented in the Senate of Canada by four members, provided that such representation may, -after th>- completion of the decennial census of June, 1911, be increased to 6 by the parliament of Canada. Section 9, the last section, provides that the Act shall not come into force until proclaimed by the Governor in Council, and that such proclamation shall not be made until the legislature of Manitoba shall have assented to the provisions of this Bill.
I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, submit the , Bill with every confidence to the members of this House in the hope and in the expectation that it will receive their approval; and in the confidence that they will regard it as no more than a simnle act of justice to the province of Manitoba in respect of claims of long standing, which some of us at least think should have been considered, and should have been regarded, and should have been granted long before this date. So far as the arrearages are concerned, on which the argument of my hon. friends opposite principally spent itself in the debate of a few days ago, I say that inasmuch as the province of Manitoba had every reason to ask that its boundaries be extended in 1905, and inasmuch as these boundaries, exactly as they are proposed to-day, were defined by resolution of this House on the 13th of July, 1908, parliament is doing no more than a simple act of justice When it declares that these terms shall take effect and date, not from to-day, but from the 1st day of July, 1908.


Hon.   W@: I do not think that any one in this House will be disposed to admit that the right hon. gentleman who leads the government has made out good ground for, in effect, making the provisions in respect of these financial terms to be granted to Manitoba, retroactive, and giving the province a lump sum of about $2,000,000 to represent what would have been the increased allowance from the 1st of July, 1908, supposing the same terms had been arrived at at that time. Now the only ground stated by my Mr. BORDEN.
right hon. friend is, that this parliament- I think it was this House, not the parliament-passed resolutions in favour of extending the boundaries of Manitoba in 1908. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was not the conclusion of the bargain. That was an effort on the part of this parliament to extend the boundaries upon certain terms, which were not agreed to by the province of Manitoba; that is all. Nothing was carried to a conclusion, nothing became binding upon the Dominion and the provinces, but everything remained uncompleted until the present time. Now upon what theory does my right hon. friend date this provision back to the 1st July, 1908? He says to-day we are now giving these improved financial terms to Manitoba as a part of the plan for the extension of the boundaries, and because Manitoba is assuming jurisdiction over this added territory. That is one of the grounds which my right hon. friend puts forward for giving to Manitoba these improved financial terms. Well has Manitoba during these four years been charged with anything in connection with the administration of the government in the added territory? -Not at all. Has she been called upon to bear any burdens? Not at all. Has she built a courthouse, has she erected a public building, has she built a road, has she established a school district, has she incurred one single dollar of liability in the added territory? Not one. Yet my right hon. friend is asking this parliament to vote $2,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada to the province of Manitoba absolutely without a particle of consideration. It does seem to me that it is utterly impossible to justify that provision of the Bill.
Now then my right hon. friend puts it forward as a ground for the passing of this Bill that this parliament passed certain resolutions in 1908, and therefore, because Manitoba did not accept the terms,. and this government is now asking parliament to grant new and more favourable terms, which are now to be accepted, the whole arrangement should date back, and Manitoba should get compensation for the four years delay. Well, my right hon. friend has placed upon the order paper resolutions foT the extension ot the boundaries of Ontario and Quebec. The resolutions, providing for these extensions were also passed in 1908, and what compensation does my right hon. friend propose to give to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, because those resolutions were not carried into effect in 1908, and Ontario and Quebec have not had the use of the lands which would have been given them in 1908? Does my right hon. friend propose to apply the same principle to these provinces? He could, with just as much reason. But he could not do it at all, because there is no reason upon which he could found such a proposition in re-

spect of either Ontario or Quebec; and what reason can be advanced for giving financial terms to Manitoba to date back to 1908, which cannot equally be urged in favour of Ontario and Quebec? Can we suppose that the people of Manitoba would ask for anything out of the treasury of this country to which they are not fairly entitled?
Now then my right hon. friend has called attention to the next provision of the statute in relation to the allowance which he says is by way of compensation for the province not getting these lands. He also dates that back to 1908. I think this is the first time that it has been put forward seriously that a money allowance is by way of compensation for lands. That is not the way in which it was put when the $100,000 was first allowed to Manitoba; it was put as being in lieu of lands; in other words, because the province was not given the lands from which it would have a revenue; therefore it was desirable to give it a money grant to enable it the better to carry on the administration of the affairs of the territory. But it was never recognized that the province of Manitoba or any other province of Canada is entitled to the public lands. Those lands, the land in the territories, the land in Prince Rui-pert's land, the land of all the territories, was bought by the original four provinces of Canada, by Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, I do not think Prince Edward Island was then a member of the confederation.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend say it was never put forward by way of compensation?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I think not.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read to him what his owin leader said in 1905:
But I frankly admit, and we must all recognize, that the provinces in the west, in being deprived of the public lands, *vre deprived of a valuable source of income. And in that way they complain that they are put on a footing of inequality as compared with the older provinces of the Dominion. Realiz- I in-; that fact, it is the duty of parliament to make ample, even generous provision which will compensate the provinces for the retention of the lands.


William Pugsley: I think a reading of the whole of the remarks of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, made at that time, bears out what I say. _
My right hon. friend did not put it that the province was entitled^ to the public lands, but he put it that inasmuch as the provinces were not going to have these lands as a source of revenue, it was proper to give them money which woul'd take the place of the revenue that they would get from the lands. That is the way in which it was put in the statute thirty years ago
when $100,000 per year was granted; it was for want of public lands and not as compensation for lands. I say again, and I say it with confidence, that it has never been recognized by parliament that the provinces were entitled to these public lands. They are the l&nds which belong to the Dominion of Canada, which belong to New Brunswick, Nova bcotia and Prince Edward Island, just as much as they do to Manitoba, Ontario, or Quebec, and the matter must, it seems to me, be dealt with from that standpoint. As I have said, they were bought by the money of the people of Canada and the people of Canada have the right to be considered, and the various provinces have the right to be considered, in the disposition which shall be made of these public lands. I grant that in the case of Ontario and Quebec there is an exceedingly strong argument in favour of the placing of the public lands in the control of the provincial governments just as the lands in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as now constituted are under the control of the provinces, but at the same time, in connection with the placing of the land under the control of the provinces, the rights of the other provinces are entitled to be considered. So, I say that in the case of Manitoba, we have the right to deal with the matter from the standpoint that the province of Manitoba has no claim to these lands in the territory which is to be added, but it is a question as to what amount of revenue from the Dominion treasury shall be granted to the province by reason of the fact that it is not to get these lands as a source; of revenue. \vnat I especially object to is that the government to-day is picking out one of the provinces of Canada and proposing to accord to it special treatment without paying attention to the rights of the other sections of Canada. I am not opposed to treating Manitoba not only fairly but generously, I am not opposed to giving Manitoba, out of the Dominion treasury all the money which is needed to enable it reasonably to carry on the administration of affairs within the province. I think it is the duty of the Dominion, as far as possible, to give such aid to all the provinces of Canada as will enable them fairly to discharge the duties devolving upon the governments of the different provinces. It is one thing for the great family of provinces to sit down together and consider what is right and fair to all and it is another thing for the government to pick out a certain province and bestow upon that special favour. The only argument which I have heard from the right hon. leader of the government and the only argument that I heard from the hon. Minister of Finance a few days ago, when proposing the resolutions upon which this


Mr. MEIGHEN.: What are you quoting from?


William Pugsley: Revised1 Statutes of Canada, 1906, chapter 28.


Arthur Meighen: That is simply a transcription of the Act of 1885.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: I presume so, and it is carried forward in the revised statutes. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if Manitoba wants more money to enable her to carry on the affairs of government, and to properly develop her territory, we ought to do the same as was done in 1885; we ought to readjust the debt account as between the different provinces. We should endeavour to treat all fairly. It seems to me further, that we should try to make an end1 of the matter as between the different provinces; we ought to have it embodied in the British North America Act, and make it as nearly final as it is possible to make it. Picking out first one province and then another and dealing especially with it, and so tinkering from time to time with the constitution is exceedingly unsatisfactory, and is likely to cause great discontent as between the people of the different provinces. I want to know why my right hon. friend and his colleagues do not consider the whole question now. Take the case of British Columbia. British Columbia is not nearly as favourably situated as Manitoba will be when this Bill passes. British Columbia is growing with equal if not greater rapidity than is Manitoba, and there is no reason in the world why British Columbia should not receive- equal treatment. But my right hon. friend may say: we will deal with British Columbia by itself; the government of British Columbia has demanded that a commission in the nature of arbitrators shall be appointed to deal with the claims which that province is putting forward; the government of British Columbia has demanded that there shall be appointed three commissioners, one to be chosen by the federal government, one by the government of British Columbia, and the third to be appointed by the commissioners so chosen, and, as appears in the press despatches, the federal government has consented to leave the case of British Columbia to that arbitration. I submit that is exceedingly unsatisfactory. What is to be done in respect to the claims of the other provinces of the Dominion? Are there claims to be dealt with by a commission; are they to have similar special treatment? We have had no intimation so far as to what treatment is to be accorded to the three old provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince EdL ward Island. The people of these provinces have borne the burden connected with the development of conferedation, the building of the Canadian Pacific railway and the construction of other public works for the benefit of the whole country. They have borne their share of the burden cheerfully with the Test of the people of Canada, but I do not observe any indication on the part of this government that their special claims
are to be considered. Is there to be a commission of inquiry as to what claims they have on the public treasury? We have no announcement as to that, but what the government is doing to-day is picking out the one province of Manitoba, giving to it special treatment, and proposing to pick out British Columbia, and through the medium of a commission, accord to that province special treatment as well. In considering this question of debt account, it might be well to deal for a few moments with the basis upon which the debt account of the provinces was provided for by the Act of Confederation. In the case of the four original provinces, the debt account was something tangible; it represented something. In the case of Optario and Quebec, the two original provinces, they had actually expended at the time of confederation, sixty-seven million dollars, for which they were in debt, and this was afterwards discovered to amount to seventy-three million dollars. They had built the great canal system of which Capada is so proud, and which was even then a great system, although it has since been vastly unimproved; they had built other public works and they had incurred this indebtedness actually. The province of Nova Scotia at the time of confederation had built a line of railway from the city of Halifax to the New Brunswick boundary and it had constructed the Windsor branch and other portions of what is now the present Intercolonial railway system. Nova Scotia went into the Dominion with a debt account of eight million dollars, which was actually expended upon public works, and all of which were to be passed over to become the property of the Dominion. After confederation in 1869, it was discovered that between the time of the Quebec conference and the coming into force of the Act of Union, the province of Nova Scotia had expended a very considerable sum which had not been taken into account when the debt was fixed at eight millions, and subsequently the debt account of that province was increased from eight millions to over nine millions. At that amount it remained until 1885, when there was a general pro rata increase of debt allowance among the different provinces of Canada by the statue to which I have referred. ! But, that debt amount did not represent paper as this allowance to Manitoba does. That amount was allowed to the province of Nova iScotia because Nova Scotia had actually gone into debt, and constructed public works to that extent, which were transferred to the federal government. But in the case of Manitoba the Bill itself recites that whereas Manitoba had no debt when she went into the union, therefore, it is pro-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: That is absolutely provided for by the terms of the British North America Act. In subsection 10 of section 92, of that Act, are set out the works which are assigned to the provinces:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes

Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works1 and undertakings, connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the provinces.
Any railway which extends beyond the limits of the province, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. But, then it may be said:	This
parliament can authorize the government of Ontario to build its railway in the territory of another province. I doubt that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there can be any ground for that contention, because while I think parliament might authorize a company to build a railway there, and undoubtedly it could, yet the government of Ontario cannot construct a railway without public money; and I think it goes without saying, that this parliament could not empower the province of Ontario to expend the public moneys of that province in the construction of a railway which the legislature of Ontario itself could not authorize.

It would be a most anomalous proposition that this"parliament snould authorize the government to pay provincial money for the construction of a public work which the legislature of the province itself could not authorize. I take it that there can be no doubt whatever that the government of Ontario would have no power to construct a railway outside of the limits of the province of Ontario as is proposed by this order in council. So, I believe, Sir James Whitney has acted wisely in insisting that he should get this grant of over 760,000 acres and this waterfront upon the Nelson river and Hudson bay without being bound to build what he knows that his government cannot build, a railway through the territory of the province of Manitoba. It may be said that it is intended that this would be to enable the province of Ontario to give a grant to a railway company to build such a line. That is not the order in council; it is that the grant shall be made to the province of Ontario or a public commission or public corporation for that purpose. It is a grant to the province of Ontario, the road must be built out of the public money of the province of Ontario; and, as I have said, it seems to me there is no authority for the government of Ontario to build such a line of railway. I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways if he has had a report yet as to where, in case the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway is to he upon the Nelson river, as to which side of the river these terminals should be constructed?


Francis Cochrane: Judging from the report that was in, on the west side would be best-the far side from here.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman says ' Judging from the report that was in,' the west side would be best. It does seem to me that until that matter is positively determined, it might hamper most seriously the operation of this government in connection with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway to give away to a provincial government some ten miles of waterfront which it might or might not utilize lor railway terminal purposes.


Francis Cochrane: We would take good care of that.
Mr. PUGS'LEY. The hon. gentleman cannot ' take good care of that,' because he and the government have bound themselves, and when we pass this Bill parliament will have bound itself, in good faith to give to the government of Ontario ten miles along the eastern shore of the Nelson river, whether that is or is not the best place to establish terminals in connection with the Hudson Bay railway. In saying that ' they will take care of that ' he is simply saying that they will break faith with the
province of Ontario, to which, in order to induce them to become a consenting party, they have arranged to give this land.


Mr. BRODER.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) mean to say that the Dominion cannot run a road where it likes?


William Pugsley: Undoubtedly it can, but it is not proposed that the Dominion shall build the road. It is proposed that the Ontario government shall build it.


Andrew Broder: I understood the hon. gentleman to argue that if the province owned this it might hamper the Dominion's right to get the port.


William Pugsley: What I say is that the Dominion might build, *but that if this land is given away to Ontario and it turns out that this is the place where the terminals should be, then the government, in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, must settle with the province of Ontario before they can fix their terminals there.
Now, I did not intend to take up so much time; I regret that I have spoken at such length upon this subject. But it is one of a great deal of importance, one, I think, of vast importance. I think we ought not to deal with the matter by piecemeal. We are brought to-day by this Bill, face to face with very important changes in the constitution ' of several provinces. We are called upon to consent to the enlargement of the boundaries of the provinces. Important questions are raised. It does seem to me that the only satisfactory way in which these questions can be dealt with is to treat all the provinces of Canada as being interested in them. All the provinces to-day are interested in the public lands. Ail the provinces, of course, are interested in the amount of money that is given by way of subsidies. The only satisfactory way in which to deal with that is to call together the Premiers of the different provinces, just as was done in 1906, and ask them in consultation with this government to take up all these questions, all questions which are outstanding between these provinces, and reach a settlement upon some broad national basis which will relieve all grounds of dissatification and cause all the people to feel that complete justice has been done to each province and to the people of Canada as a whole.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, this is the second day that this very important measure has been brought to your attention and the attc-nt'on of the House. On each occas-


Mr. CARVELL.: Suppose the time should come in the next two or three years when these lands will be surrendered to the provinces, would the hon. gentleman consider that this allowance in lieu of land should be discontinued?


Arthur Meighen: It has been my habit in public life to cross bridges when I come to them. I apprehend that one will soon
be reached, and then I propose to give it as earnest consideration as I give to other questions. The chief point against which the attack of the opposition is directed is the other item of increased advance, namely, allowance in lieu of debt. Now, I may be pardoned if I trace the history of this allowance, and the reason for it. It has been done at different times in this parliament, but not very fully in this debate. When the four provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec formed confederation in 1867, Upper Canada, comprising the latter two, was burdened with an indebtedness of some $67,000,000. That indebtedness was incurred for similar purposes as the other provinces have incurred indebtedness, which the other provinces incurred since that time, and have to bear themselves. Now I have stated that very briefly, and I do not intend to particularize, just what that money was expended for. But I say it will be clear to every member of this House that in the main that indebtedness which at that time burdened the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada and burdened the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, was in the main incurred for those public works, for those public purposes that otherwise would have had to be borne, and have been borne since in the case of the other provinces, by the local exchequer.
Recognizing that, the fathers of confederation came to an understanding. I should have sftated that the debt thafs was at that time carried by New Brunswick was some $7,000,000, and that the province of Nova Scotia carried a debt of some $8,000,000. It was figured out by the framers of the Quebec resolutions, and then by the framers of the British North America Act, that the debt of Ontario at $67,000,000 was greater per capita than the debt of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at $8,000,000 and $7,000,000 respectively. It was proposed that United Canada should take over these obligations and relieve the provinces and in order to reduce the per capita debt taken over by United Canada to the same basis in the different provinces $5,000,000 of the debt out of $67,000,000 was left standing on the shoulders of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and in the ultimate a debt of $7,000,000 for New Brunswick, $8,000,000 for Nova Scotia, and $62,000,000 for Upper and Lower Canada was assumed by. the confederation under this agreement in 1867. It was fixed at these figures in order that the debt assumed from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, would represent in a word $25 per head of the population. When, therefore, these four provinces came in, Canada assumed a per capita debt of $25 per head. Later on other obliga-

tions from the provinces were assumed by the confederation and the per capita debt was enlarged to $32.43 per head. At the time that was done a rearrangement among the provinces of the debt allowances was made in order to adjust that of each to the changed circumstances. We have thus proceeded on the assumption from confederation, or from a date prior to confederation, that the per capita debt of the provinces, which was found to be $32.43, should form the basis of a system of allowing to new provinces who might join later and thus share in the national burden, a compensation from the federal treasury when such provinces at the time of uniting had themselves no debt for the union to assume. So when new provinces were brought into confederation, by virtue of the Act of Canada alone, by virtue of the Act of this House, and it was found that these provinces, or territories then erected into provinces, had a less debt than $32.43 per head, or no debt, allowance had to be made in respect therefor. Manitoba came into confederation without any debt at all. Her debt, at the time she entered confederation, was nothing, and consequently it was assumed that the debt allowance to be made by Canada should be on the full basis of $32.43 per head of the population. The same principle applied when Alberta and Saskatchewan entered the confederation.


William Pugsley: Is not my hon. friend mistaken? It was not on the actual population of Manitoba, but on an assumed population of 125,000, was it not?


Arthur Meighen: I think that in the first place it was on a population of 17,000, but afterwards, in 1885, it was increased to the figures stated by my hon. friend. But, the point will not help my friend: it rather assists the argument that I hope to advance. In the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan, however, the population was figured, when they came into confederation iii 1905, to be 250,000 in each province. That '250,000, multiplied by $32.43, amounted in the aggregate to $8,107,500, and that was the capital allowance made in lieu of debt made to Alberta and Saskatchewan. Manitoba had come in in the earlier years at a time when her population was very sparse indeed, and the allowance in lieu of debt had necessarily to be figured on a smaller amount of population. Later on, as Manitoba advanced in population, that allowance was increased, as the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), who has just interrupted me, says. But, what I want to point out is that a distinction between the allowance in lieu of debt has to be made by virtue of the fact that whem new provinces come into confederation they Mr. MEIGHEN.
thereby assume a share of the liability of confederation proportionate to their population, whereas, if they had remained out of confederation they would have had no share in that liability. Parliament set to work to do away with that obvious unfairness and the way it adjusted it was this, and it seems to me that if not exactly right the arrangement was conceived in a. spirit of fairness and at the time approximated thereto. Parliament has made a grant to each such province of five per cent yearly on its debt capitalization; that is to say, each province has entered confederation on a capital debt allowance represented by its population multiplied by 32-43, and five per cent per annum thereon has been granted as a subsidy in lieu of debt to each of these provinces. As we apprehend the ground work of this allowance in lieu of debt, we will come to more clearly understand this legislation in the case of Manitoba and whether or not a re-adjustment should take place in this case or any othe^-without a conference of the provinces. While the debt allowance was conceived in a spirit of fairness, and with an effect approximating thereto at the time, it will be seen that with the unequal advance of population in each of the provinces an unfair condition is certain to result. Had it turned out to be the case that each province had remained at the population it had when this debt allowance was made then the conditions should always have been fair and just between them. Had it even transpired, as may possibly have beep expected, that each province would advance proportionately in population, that is to say, that the advance would be at the same ratio in each, then likewise, the allowance in lieu of debt might have been said to have been on a permanent basis and have remained permanently fair between them. But, such has not been the case. Manitoba wag taken in with a very small population. It advanced rapidly. Manitoba came in with about 15,000 of a population, and she has to-day nearly 500,000. She bears the proportion of the national debt of this country that her present population bears to the population of Canada; that is to say she carries the burden now that her population bears to the whole population of Canada and not the burden that the population when she came into confederation bore to the whole population then. So it will be seen that with the unequal advance in the population of the provinces of this country a distinctly disjointed state of affairs arises in so far as this allowance in lieu of debt is concerned. I need only remark ffiat if no readjustment is to be made in lieu of debt, as the right hon. leader of the opposition argued in 1908, and as the hon. member for St. Johu argues now, and as the now loyal opposition in 1908 distinct-

ly said to the province of Manitoba, in these words: ' We will not even discuss this question with you in regard to your allowance in lieu of debt-if that position is to be taken, it would mean that the province which came, in and opened its arms to confederation in its younger life, came in when its population was sparse, would be at a disadvantage and its tax-payers would be suffering a very decided wrong when its population had advanced out of proportion to that of the older provinces. No argument that is rooted in right, or fair-play can be advanced that this allowance in lieu of debt is part of the compact of confederation and would be subject to no readjustment at all.
In my judgment-I argue this from a conviction that it is right-the allowance in lieu of debt-that constituent of the subsidies by the Dominion to the provinces-is just as much and just as necessarily subject to readjustment as is the allowance in lieu of land'. That ie to say, that as the provinces increase in unequal degree and in unequal proportion in their population, a readjustment must necessarily be made on the basis of that increase, and that, I submit, can be fairly made as has been done in the past, by this parliament without conferences. The right hon. the leader of the opposition, and I think the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), will recognize the truth of what I say when I say that the principle I now argue for, of a readjustment from time to time of the allowance in lieu of debt has been recognized by the House before, not once, but five times, without any reference to a conference with the provinces. The allowance to Manitoba itself, in lieu of debt has been increased in 1871, in 1873, and up to 1885. The allowance in lieu of debt has'been adjusted by this House from time to time as population advanced in unequal measure. And never, that I have heard, has objection been raised to it, because it was not preceded by a conference with the provinces. Why, that very Act of 1885, from which the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), quoted, whereby the allowance to Manitoba was increased by a very substantial amount at that time; was not preceded1, so far as I have been able to find out, by any conference with the provinces. If the present Bill is in any way a violation of an infringement of the compact of confederation, the Act of 1885, was certainly the same. The Act of 1885, purported to put the subsidy to be granted to Manitoba on a footing that would, up to that time, do justice to the province of Manitoba. The government of the day thought that justice to Manitoba was not being done by virtue of the tremendous increase that Manitoba's population had undergone, and the larger share 137
she bore of the obligations of Canada, and the parliament in 1885, finding that to be the case, thought it would do justice to Manitoba. All that is asked at the present time is that this parliament of 1912, should do the same justice to that province.


William Pugsley: In 1885, was it not simply a proportionate increase among all the provinces, Manitoba included?


Arthur Meighen: The Act I read, and I am sure it is correct, is an Act respecting Manitoba alone, and the Act is headed: An Act to Increase the Subsidy to Manitoba and1 adjust- all claims up to date.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was not that in 1884 and not 1885?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) told me it was in 1885.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are two Acts, one iri 1884 and one in 1885.


Arthur Meighen: That only adds strength to my argument.


William Pugsley: I was quoting from the chapter in the revised statutes which, as I understand it, is the statute under which the provinces were increased proportionately.


Arthur Meighen: I asked the hon. gentleman and he told me that it was a transcript of the Act of 1885.


William Pugsley: I thought it was. It says it is subject to all claims up to the first of January, 1885, so that it may have been in 1884.


Arthur Meighen: If it was adjusted in 1884 and also in 1885 it will hardly be open to the hon. gentleman to argue that no adjustment must take place without conference. The Act of 1885 is entitled an Act for the final settlement of the claim made by the province of Manitoba on the Dominion, and it proceeds to deal with the matter section after section. The first section grants the swamp lands to the province; the second section grants this one hundred and fifty thousand acres of university lands, the third section increases the indemnity for want of public 'lands, which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) uow argues should never be done unless you call a conference of the provinces. The next section was a readjustment of the per capita allowance of the province, out of a sense of justice by this parliament, and so on all down the line. Therefore, Manitoba's subsidies were revised in 1885, and revised in deference to the fact that Manitoba's population had increased so as to bring about an injustice to herself in the



subsidies she was then receiving from the Dominion treasury, and which were altogether less than she was entitled to receive on account of her population. At that time Manitoba was bearing her share of the obligations of Canada; she was paying her share of the public debt of Canada in proportion to her then population and not in proportion to the population that she had in 1870, when she entered the family of provinces. If there is any fault in my reasoning which I am unable to apprehend myself, I would be glad to have it made known to me now. I say that the allowance in 'lieu of debt, the allowance in lieu of public lands, and the other allowances are all on the same footing, and that they have from time to time been adjusted by this parliament without conference, and solely out of consideration for the existing circumstances. I say that the very circumstances that demanded their readjustment in days gone by, demands with louder voice their readjustment now. And, there is an added reason for their readjustment now, in that, in the case of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, this principle has been recognized and since then the taxpayer of Manitoba has borne an undue share of the burden relative to the taxpayer of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Every reason that existed in 1885 exists now, and to-day we have the plainer, the clearer, the more specific reason in the fact that this parliament recognized that right of Alberta and Saskatchewan to subsidies in 1905 to which in all justice we are entitled as being exactly on the same footing in confederation.
I think I have covered each and every item in the proposed rearrangement. The arrearages are dated back to 1908 by way of compromise, as I understand. In so far as our right to equality is concerned, they *could with all justice, date back to 1905. But it is quite true that we have not been carrying during these years the burden of the extra administration of the northern lands, and consequently I think it was only fair to make a deduction from these arrearages and that a fair compromise was struck in selecting the first of July, 1908, about which date parliament recognized the right of this province to a readjustment of its terms and of its territory.
As to the allowance in lieu of debt, it is justified by all the reasons that have justified this parliament in days gone by in making similar readjustments and it is further justified by the action of this parliament seven years ago.
The justice of the allowance in lieu of lands is admitted by the right hon. gentleman himself who in 1908 clearly placed his government and his party in the posi-Mr. MEIGHEN
tion of being ready to make an increased allowance to Manitoba in lieu of public lands. As to the other features of the arrangement there is no objection. So unless hon. gentlemen opposite can find some graver objection to this Bill than objections to its financial terms I fear they are not going to gain much capital in the country on that ground.
What is the cry of the Liberal opposition in the legislature of Manitoba? The provincial opposition represents in miniature the opposition in this House, they stand on the floor of the local House to-day and say that Manitoba is not getting nearly enough and that they are going to appeal to the people of Manitoba on the ground that the rights of that province have not been adequately acceded to by the parliament of Canada. And, perhaps not on exactly the same grounds but on a similar one, an hon. member of the local opposition, Mr. Mol-loy; has stated on the floor of the local legislature in language that carries us back very closely to 1885, that until justice is done to Manitoba and the west the cry of secession and the demand for secession will increase with emphasis until it cannot be denied and yet his Menus in this parliament are endeavouring to stir up jealousies among the provinces on the ground that Manitoba is getting too much.


Mr. OLIVER.: Was Mr. Molloy in the local House dealing with the question of better terms for Manitoba when speaking in that way?


Arthur Meighen: I said that he made this statement on the ground that Manitoba and the west were not being properly treated in the confederation.


Frank Oliver: It had nothing to do with this subject at all.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know how much reference Mr. Molloy had to this subgect, but I know that the member for Lakeside stood beside Mr. Molloy and doubtless received his applause when he said that he would not be satisfied with the terms granted to Manitoba by this Act but would fight on for better terms. That is to say the opposition in that province is conducting what they believe is a vigourous campaign at this very hour against this Bill on the ground that it does not do justice to our little province and the opposition in this House, professing the same principles, ready to link arm in arm with the local opposition in the same campaign, resist the Bill because it is unjust to all other provinces in confederation.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: Mv hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) dealing with the subject of the Bill before the House, made the point as he sat down, that the financial terms of the Bill must be fair and reasonable, because the opposition in Manitoba were complaining that those terms were not sufficiently liberal to the province, while the opposition in this parliament, were complaining that the terms were too liberal. My hon. friend is under the impression that a great many other people are under, that it is not possible for a bargain to be bad for both parties to it, just on the same principle as some people are under the impression that no bargain can be good for both parties to it; that under normal conditions, a bargain must be good for one of the parties, and bad for the other. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hold very strongly to the view that there are three kinds of bargains. One in which both parties to the bargain. benefit, another where one of the parties benefits, and the other loses, and a third, where both parties are at a disadvantage as a result of the arrangement. It is my judgment that the arrangement embodied in this Bill, as between the province of Manitoba and the Dominion at large, is one of the latter class; it is not fair to Manitoba and it is not fair to the rest of the Dominion. Take for instance, and only as an illustration, the very simple provision in regard to the access of the province of Ontario to a nort cn Hudson bay. The provision is in the first place, very remarkable.	It is not
unreasonable on the face that the province of Ontario should desire to have a port on Hudson bay. On the other hand it is not unreasonable that the province of Manitoba, whose trade must furnish the reason, and to all intents and purposes the only reason, for the existence of such a port, would desire to have provincial jurisdiction over that port. I do not intend to trouble the House with a discussion of the claims of Ontario, but as a western representative, looking at the matter from a western point of view, I am at a loss to know on what reasonable ground, except the desire for acquisition of territory, the province of Ontario has for the claim that it made. If it is asserted that the province of Ontario requires, or desires, a port on Hudson bay at the mouth of the Nelson river, as an outlet for the trade of the province, or as a tributary to that tradp. I can only say, that inasmuch as the railway connection of such a port with the present railway system of the eastern provinces, and of the province of Ontario at Cochrane, would involve the construction of a road some 800 miles in length through 137J
a territory which, at the present time, is not productive of traffic, the construction of such a road is an enterprise that it does not seem to me comes within the range of possibility so far as Ontario is concerned. It is not only that the road would be 800 miles in length, but even that is a matter for consideration even to the province of Ontario, but it is a fact that it would run in a direction to which the outbound traffic of the present productive portion of Ontario would never go; and in all human probability the traffic originated at that point which will find its ultimate market in the province of Ontario, would be so limited as would never warrant the construction of such a road. Notwithstanding this fact, under this very remarkable arrangement the province of Ontario is given proprietary rights in a strip of territory running through the proposed extension of the province of Manitoba and abutting on the proposed port of Nelson. If there is any value in that country at all, it is in whatever locality is fixed upon as the ultimate port is reached by the Hudson Bay railway to be constructed from the Saskatchewan river. If there is any value in that territory it is in the ownership of the town site at that port, which the government proposes under this Bill to hand over to the province of Ontario for the benefit and profit of that province without requiring any consideration from it for the proprietary rights given. It is true there is some mention of the possibility of the construction of a railroad, tout I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, how absurd such a possibility is, and there is nothing in the Bill, and there is nothing in the explanations that have been made, that indicate in the most remote degree the intention of the province )f Ontario to build a railway to that point. Why is this grant made? Is it done for the purpose of satisfying public opinion in the province of Ontario? No, it is to be for the purpose of strengthening the partisan position of the government of Ontario. This government sees fit to hand over to the government of Ontario the only piece of property of serious value in the proposed to be added territory, hand that piece of valuable property over to Ontario without rhyme or reason, without consideration of any kind whatever, simply as a partisan measure for the purpose of strengthening the partisan government in that province. In regard to the position of Manitoba, if that province is entitled to the jurisdiction over that territory and has to assume the responsibility and cost of administration within that territory, surely ithe province of Ontario has no claim, right, title or interest in the proprietorship of the only particularly valuable piece

of land, so far as we can see at -present in that whole area.
It is true that it would either be the property of the Dominion or of the province of Ontario, it would not be the property of the province of Manitoba under the arrangement made in the Bill. But I submit that if this piece of valuable property is to be taken from the Dominion and' handed over to one of the provinces, surely in common justice it should be handed over to the province within whose provincial jurisdiction it is situated, and the province whose trade is the one thing that will give it value. If the province of Ontario is to receive the benefit financially of the ocean port created by the trade of the province of Manitoba, _ while that port is within the jurisdiction of the province of Manitoba, it seems to me to be an arrangement that can neither be satisfactory to Ontario nor to Manitoba nor to the Dominion. If it. is right that the province of Ontario should have a port on Hudson Bay, then it was right that the boundaries should be so adjusted that the province of Ontario should exercise jurisdiction over the port that it was entitled to. It should exercise provincial jurisdiction over that port. It was an easy matter to arrange the boundaries so as to meet that condition. If the easterly boundary of the province of Manitoba had been extended eastward, north of the English river where it does not interfere with the present province of Ontario, if it had been extended easterly to longitude 53J west, there would have been a straight easterly boundary between Ontario and Manitoba north of the English river that would have given to Ontario the south side of the Nelson river at the proposed port of Nelson, it would have given that province the jurisdiction over the port that presumably it is entitled to have. I say that when the -province of Ontario does not get jurisdiction over the port that this Bill says it is entitled to, and the province of Manitoba does not get the port over which this Bill gives it jurisdiction, it seems to me to be an absolutely fixed conclusion that the arrangement is neither fair to Manitoba, nor to Ontario, nor yet to the Dominion.
In regard to the subsidy again, I say that it is not only possible, but it is a fact that the subsidy arrangement can at the same time be unfair to Manitoba and unfair to the sister provinces. On what grounds is it claimed that the debt account of Manitoba should be increased by reason of the increase of population?	What is the
population of Manitoba?	455,614.	The
province of British Columbia has a population of 392,480, and it gets an allowance on debt account, so I am informed, on a population of 60,000. That is to say, the Mr. OLIVER.
province of British Columbia with a much larger area than the enlarged- province of Manitoba, with a population nearly as large, will receive a subsidy on debt account on one fourth as many people as the province of Manitoba will under this arrangement, while she has a population very nearly equal to that of Manitoba. Is that fair to the province of British Columbia? If justice is to be done, this Bill should have contained provisions for an increase of subsidy on debt account to the province of British Columbia as well as to the province of Manitoba. I followed what my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) said about the right and propriety of increasing the allowance on debt account to the various provinces proportioned to the increase of population. In taking that position he was following the position that I myself took in the debate on the presentation of the resolution. I quite agree, as a representative of the western country, where the population has increased rapidly, and in the nature of things must increase very largely over the present population-it is elimentary that an arrangement whereby the subsidy on debt account is fixed on a certain low basis of population, is not fair to those provinces as they increase largely in population. Even at the present time, take the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba with the proposed increases; they are getting an allowance on debt account for 250,000 when the population ranges from 375,000, in the case of Alberta, 392,000 in the case of British Columbia, 455,000 in the case of Manitoba, and 492,000 in the case of Saskatchewan. Now, if there is to be a readjustment of the debt account of the province of Manitoba because of increase of population-I do not for an instant say there should not be such a readjustment,-I say there is absolutely the same ground, and a very much stronger ground, for readjustment in the case of British Columbia, an absolutely stronger ground even to-day; there are stronger grounds to-day for an adjustment of the allowance on debt account in respect to Alberta and Saskatchewan. What we contend is that when the government undertakes to deal with this question of debt account they should1 deal with it having due regard to the rights of all the provinces, and not, as my hon. friend from St. John has said, pick out one province to be dealt with as a matter of special favour and special right, and ignore the conditions and the position of the other provinces.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Did the hon. gentleman think that way when he was arranging with Alberta and Saskatchewan? Why

did he not give a consideration then for the debt account to the other provinces?


Frank Oliver: The debt accounts of Alberta and Saskatchewan were fixed at the time those provinces entered confederation on the basis of the then estimated population, just as the present debt allowance to the province of Manitoba was fixed under the then estimated population.


George Henry Bradbury: What about British Columbia?


Frank Oliver: It was fixed exactly the same way, on the then estimated population. It was perfectly right according to the conditions as they then existed.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend's point is that there was an unfairness toward British Columbia, which was altogether wrong, existing in 1905, when the arrangement was made with Alberta and Saskatchewan. Why -was it not corrected?


Frank Oliver: I was not dealing with British Columbia as connected with Alberta and Saskatchewan. The late government dealt with Alberta and Saskatchewan as new provinces coming into the confederation, and they gave those provinces an allowance on debt account which was 'based on the then estimated actual population of these provinces, which is exactly what was done with British Columbia and what was done in the beginning with Manitoba. But, from time to time, as my hon. friend has stated, the debt account of Manitoba was increased with the increase of population until the readjustment of 1885, when an estimated population of 125,000 was taken. But, a very large increase in population has taken place since that time, an increase that was not expected, that was not looked for, that was not hoped for, and that never would have occurred if my hon. friends had not given place in 1896 to a more capable administration; and had it not been for that increase in population this allowance of debt account would not have been so far behind the requirements as it is now. But, we are facing in this matter, a new condition, a condition which has arisen since 1905, a condition that requires to be dealt with, that this government is dealing with in one way, but that we say should not be dealt with in that way, but should be dealt with in a more comprehensive way, in a way that would do justice not only to Manitoba hut also to Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, to say nothing about the eastern provinces. For the purpose of argument I am leaving the case of the eastern provinces to be dealt with by other members. It is not only the fact that Saskatchewan to-day, according to the last census, has1 a population twice as great ias (the population on which it is receiving allowance on debt account,
but that population, and the population cr\ Al'berta, are increasing, as the census returns show, more rapidly than the population of any other province in the Dominion. Therefore, if their allowance on debt account to-day is below what it ought to be, if their debt account is to remain at the present figure, it is going to be still further -and further below every succeeding year. When the government undertakes to deal with this question of debt account in regard to Manitoba on the plea that it wants to do justice, we ask that it shall fio justice by other provinces as well as Manitoba.
Agakij let me repeat what I said on a former occasion, that the simple statement of area, of population and of subsidy figures, does not establish an equality of treatment. To-day the part of Manitoba that is effectively occupied, on which the provincial government is required to expend money in .enforcing its jurisdiction, is less than half the present area of the province. The present area of the province is some 73,000 square miles. Everybody knows that the population of the province occupies less than the south-west half of the total area. There is a part of the present province of Manitoba-I speak of the north-eastern portion-which is as little known to the government of Manitoba as the Congo is in the interior of Africa.


George Henry Bradbury: What portion of the northeastern part of Manitoba ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is more familiar with the geography of that country than I am.


George Henry Bradbury: I think I am.


Frank Oliver: I say that over the greater portion of that area northeast of Lake Winnipeg the provincial government exercises no more jurisdiction than it does over the Congo Free State.


George Henry Bradbury: It is a very small area.


Frank Oliver: It is not a small area. My hon. friend can see on the map that this is not a small area. This is a statement of fact, and I want to compare that condition with that of Saskatchewan which is effectively occupied by population requiring the administration of the provincial government from the boundary line to a point north of Prince Albert, a distance of not less than 300 miles. There is more territory at present effectively occupied in the province of Saskatchewan than the total present area of Manitoba. Everybody knows that. What is true of Saskatchewan is true in a still greater degrge of Alberta. There is a much greater area in Alberta effectively occupied and requiring provincial expenditure and administration than there is in the whole province of Manitoba. Yet, from the Dominion treasury the prov-

inces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are to get only as much as the province of Manitoba is to get under this arrangement. We do not complain of that if it is the arrangement that exists because of having been entered into years ago, and it is considered not desirable to disturb it, but when this government undertakes to disturb tint arrangement and disturb it in the name of justice and fair play we ask for justice and fair-play all round. Let it be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Manitoba between one-fourth and one-third of the population is in the city of Winnipeg. The cost of provincial administration in the city of Winnipeg is trifling compared with the cost of administration in connection with a like population in the agricultural portions of the country. It is a fact that outside the city of Winnipeg the province of Manitoba has not increased seriously in population in the past few years, or at any rate, has not increased in comparison with Saskatchewan and Alberta. Its increase is in the city of Winnipeg. Does this government tell us that, because of an increase in population in the city of Winnipeg, where there is no practical increase in cost to the provincial government in the matter of administration, the province of Manitoba should have an increased allowance on debt account when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, whose cost of administration is increased stupendously by a similar increase of population, should have no consideration on debt account? If there ie to be justice and fair-play in this matter we ask for justice and fair-play. We are prepared to accede to an arrangement for ian increased debt allowance to the other western provinces including British Columbia, having regard to the physical conditions which lay immeasurably heavier burdens upon the administration in those provinces than are laid upon Manitoba, or will be laid upon that province by this addition of territory.
In regard to the increased subsidy on land account, there are matters that have to be considered in that connection that are aside from and, in my judgment, far above in importance the mere matter of the amount of money that is to be paid.
First of all, let us clear away some little misapprehension which I think exists as to the amount of increase of subsidy on land account that the province of Manitoba is to receive. At present the subsidy of the province, (as shown in the estimates this year) is $833,838, but there must be added to that the amount that is derived by the province from the sale of swamp an'd university lands, which, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, is $149,230, and this brings the total amount that the province of Manitoba is to-day realizing from subsid-Mr. OLIVER.
ies received from this Dominion to $983,068. Under the arrangement proposed by the Bill the province will have $190,000 for civil government, $364,491 per capita, $562,500 on land account, and $381,584 on debt account, a total of $1,498,575, against $983,068 that it is now receiving, or a difference of $515,507. But let me remind the House that under the arrangement that was offered to Manitoba by the Liberal government, there was to be an annual payment of $200,000, so that if that is deducted, the advantage of cash that comes to the province of Manitoba on land account over and above what would have come to the province under the offer made by the Liberal government is, $315,507. That is, the province is better off in cash by reason of this arrangement over and above what it would have received, had the offer of the late Liberal government been accepted, by $315,507, but it is worse off by eight million acres of swamp land, according to the estimate given by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Did the late government offer $200,000 annually?


Frank Oliver: Yes. I cannot give the exact date, but the offer was made some time last spring. I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe) does not suggest that no such offer was made.


William Henry Sharpe: Well, I never heard of it.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is not well-informed in matters concerning his province.


William Henry Sharpe: The only offer I ever heard of was one of ten thousand per year.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is behind the lighthouse altogether. The proposition made by the late government was discussed in the legislature of Manitoba and was rejected there, so that it is a matter of record. The condition now is: that this offer by the present government is $315,000 better in cash and eight million acres worse in swamp lands than the offer of the Liberai government. I think it will take all the gymnastic ability-I mean gymnastic ability in figures-of the Minister of Finance to explain how $315,000 in cash each year is better for the province than an asset of eight million acres of land, some 880,000 acres of which have been sold at a net profit to the province as we are informed, of $2,684,601.


Mr. BURNHAM.: May I ask a question?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


John Hampden Burnham: Are there any other objections to this Bill than the financial and geographical?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) will have to think that out for himself; I am not making any other objection just now. I was trying to show that it will require all the ability of our friend the Minister of Finance to prove to the people of Manitoba, or of this country, or to prove to this House how the province gains financially by exchanging $350,000 a year in cash for eight million acres of land which, on his own showing, appears to be worth three dollars per acre or twenty-four million dollars and twenty-four million dollars at five per cent interest would amount to $1,200,000 a year against the $315,000 cash which this! government) offers. That is how this bargain figures out now as compared with the offer made by 'the Liberal government less than a year ago.


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: Where does my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) get the three dollars an acre?


Frank Oliver: From the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. White) in the House the other day.	[DOT]


William Thomas White: The statement I made in the House was not my statement but the statement of Mr. Young, chief geographer, and I said so. The statement was :
The unsurveyed area in the province is estimated at 12,900,000 acres. This is largely unexplored. It is thought that thirty per cent. (4,870,000 acres), may be swamp. This land will be of considerably less value than the swamp lands already referred to.
My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) may put any price he likes on that land, but I do not want him to give the price he mentions as coming from me.


Frank Oliver: All right. The particular statement of my hon. friend (Mr. White) to which I was alluding, reads as follows on page 3926 of ' Hansard ':
The total acreage sold is stated to have been 838,484-16 acres; tihe amount received for them is $3,137,399.30. Dominion deductions from provincial subsidy with respect to surveys of swamp lands, &c., amount to $211,942.95; provincial expenditure on account of swamp lands, proportionate estimate $240,854.66. These two make a total of $452,797.55 leaving the net amount received by the province from swamp lands at $2,684,601.75. Five per cent, of this amount is $134,230.08, which I deduct, as I have previously explained. That would give an average of about $3 an acre for the swamp lands already sold by Manitoba.


William Thomas White: I don't like to interrupt my hon. friend hut I am sure he wants to be fair.
I stated that with regard to some of the lands already sold. That is a matter of record. These other items with regard to the balance are estimates of Mr. Young's.
I do not know the value. My hon. friend may put any value he decides on them, but do not let him quote me in connection with it because I do not know their value.


Frank Oliver: It must be admitted that the value of these swamp lands is a matter of estimate. The, fact is that of this large area of upwards of two million acres which was in the hands of the province of Manitoba beginning some time in 1885, and coming down to the present time the portions sold from time to time, realised an average of $3 an acre. That is established. It must surely be admitted that with the appreciation in the value of ianas which has taken place within the last few years that the price of $3 an acre received during the past 20 years, was below what the land would now realize.
I find in the report of the Department of Provincial Lands of Manitoba, for the year ending December 31, 1910, a statement in regard to the value of these lands.
Land sales, $73,729.35. There were sold during the year parcels of land representing 142,535-16 acres for the sum of $737,395.26. The prices obtained ranged from $3 to $19 per acre, and the average was $5.17 per acre. The progressive policy of the government of the province in draining, from time to time, largo areas of swamp lands, is responsible largely for the splendid revenue of the department, as lands which, prior to being included in a drainage district, were practically unsaleable, and were held fit $3 and $4 per acre, are now selling at from $6 to $12 per acre. In view of the steady demand for these reclaimed lands, the different municipalities wheiein they are located are benefited to a very considerable extent owing to their being able to collect taxes from the date of sale on hitherto non-a-sseseaible lands.


George Henry Bradbury: Does the hon. gentleman realize what it costs to drain these lands?


Frank Oliver: that have been sold realized $3 an acre, and I produce the evidence of the government of Manitoba that as these lands are reclaimed they are worth from $6 to $12 an acre, and1 there is every evidence that the greater part of those lands can be reclaimed, and reclaimed, on the evidence of the government of the province of Manitoba, at a reasonable expenditure. So I think I have placed before the House ample evidence in support of the assumption that I make of a value of $3 an acre for the undisposed-of swamp lands of the province, to which the province is absolutely entitled. I repeat that in the present condition of land values, in the west, in the present buoyant condition of the money market, no one will question for a moment, that if the province of Manitoba saw fit- to offer to-morrow, the right to the swamp lands of the province they could get in cash $3 an acre and no questions asked. There is no manner of doubt about that. That may be a speculative value, but it is a realisable value, and we are dealing with facts and figures. It is property that belongs to the province of Manitoba to-day, that the province is entitled to dispose of, as it pleases, when it pleases, and if it has not seen fit to dispose of this swamp land more rapidly than it has, the reason is found in the statement contained in this report of the provincial government that by the application of drainage works to these lands, their value is stupendously increased.


Mr. MORPHY.: What does it cost per acre to drain these lands?


Frank Oliver: Drainage in Manitoba is like anything else, in this world, it varies according to the circumstances; but I can tell the hon. gentleman that the province of Manitoba has sold a very large proportion of the 880,000 odd acres which they have sold without any drainage, or any cost of drainage.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is the hon. gentleman aware that in the county of Essex in Ontario, we spent $3,000,000 in drainage?


Frank Oliver: Quite likely, I have no doubt that in Essex there has been $3,000,000 spent in drainage.


Mr. CURRIE.: How much have they spent in Manitoba on drainage?


Frank Oliver: They have spent very little so far. In regard to drainage in the county of Essex, the expenditure that has. been made, has increased the value of that land 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 20-fold, and my hon. friend cannot deny it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If you take the natural values at the time the drainage was done, it did not do anything of the kind. They increased in value later along with other lands.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: And I say, that in Manitoba there are vast areas of lands that have no actual agricultural value, but which by the application of a reasonable expenditure, can be made the most valuable in Manitoba.
But, as a matter of fact, although the province has sold nearly a million of acres of swamp lands, their 'actual expenditure in drainage in regard to that law has been comparatively small. And let me point out this further-that this land has been sold at private sale and not in public competition; it was not sold at public auction, and there is a very grave question if the province received lor that land anything like its value at the time it was sold.


Mr. STAPLES.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) claim that this land was not sold at public competition ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Mr. ROGERS.: Then, the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about.


Frank Oliver: I have very good 'authority for the statement I make. It has been made within, my hon. friend's (Mr. Rogers) hearing on the floor of the House in the legislature of Manitoba, and has been, substantiated there beyond question.


Robert Rogers: If the hon. gentleman will excuse me, I would tell him that when such a statement was made on the floor of the House the hon. gentleman who made it 'had to -apologize for it.


Frank Oliver: There is no point in. my hon. friend -and myself discussing what took place in the legislature of Manitoba. He was there and I was not, and therefore I am compelled to accept 'his statement. But I would ask him, was one acre of that land sold by public auction., and if so, when, ?
Air. ROGERS-. It was not our policy to sell the land by public auction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Rogers: But we were selling land in the same districts where the hon. gentleman himself (Mr. Oliver) was selling school lands and we were getting ia higher price for the adjoining quarter-section in nearly every case than the hon. gentleman was getting for that which he sold-


Frank Oliver: I stated that these lands were not .sold in competition. My Ron. friend has^ admitted that they were not sold in competition; and they were not so sold as a matter of fact. Again I repeat, it has been stated by those who ought to know, that the actual values were not received for a large proportion of the land sold by the government of Manitoba. That is a matter, of course, that the people of Manitoba can settle for themselves.


William D. Staples: If the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) desires to be fair, he should tell the House how these lands were disposed of, and the policy by which they were disposed of. He knows that an upset value was put on every acre and


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William D. Staples: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member. I am making this statement, and I think that if he wishes to be fair


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has the floor.


Frank Oliver: If the House will permit,
I shall be very glad to have the hon. member (Mr. Staples) make his statement.


William D. Staples: I make the statement that everjr acre of that laud was inspected and valued; then a price was put on it, and any person desiring to purchase that land had only to look at the book, see the value placed on the parcel, and pay that price, and not an acre was sold in any other way.


Frank Oliver: I think my statement is thoroughly established, that these lands were sold without competition.


William D. Staples: No.


Frank Oliver: The Dominion government has been administering certain lands in the western country in the interest of this same province-the school 'lands. And this parliament, in its wisdom, provided by statute that not an acre of that land should be sold except by public auction. That is the only true competition. It is by selling at auction that the value is certainly received. When the government of Manitoba sells the public property of the province, in this way, as they have admittedly done, to the extent of 880,000 acres for something over $3,000,000, they must be content to take the same criticism that would have been levelled at the Dominion government if it had undertaken to dispose of the public property in the same way. That, I think, is fair.
Now, just a word in regard to the valuation placed upon these lands. If this is to be a business arrangement let it be a business arrangement. And when we undertake to value a property that has been handed over to a province and to charge the province with that value, a reasonable valuation should be made. We find that
150,000	acres of land were handed over to the province for the benefit of higher education in the province-university lands, as they were called. They were to be farm lands and selected lands; they were not swamp lands by any means. And the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) and the
Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) blandly tell the House that these selected lands in the province of Manitoba are properly valued at $2 an acre-when the very swamp lands were sold, without competition, at over $3 an acre. It is a small affair; it does not matter materially; but it shows, that on the face of it, the calculations that have been made in connection with this matter are unfair calculations; on the face of the calculations there is not an attempt to do justice, but an attempt to do injustice as between the province and the Dominion.
I have said, and I think I have shown that so far as the land account is concerned, the province stands not to gain but to lose in actual hard money. But it stands to lose a great deal more than the difference in the money value between the cash subsidy and the value of the swamp lands. A great part, possibly the most valuable part, of the province of Manitoba is low and level land subject to overflow at times, but of the most valuable character both as to the quality of soil and of climate. All that is required is to get the water off and keep it off, and this acreage of land in Manitoba compares favourably, and more than favourably, with any similar acreage of land in any country in the world in actual ^productive value.
When the arrangement was made whereby the swamp lands were handed over to the provincial government, it was not so much to provide a source of direct revenue to the province as it was to secure the reclamation of these lands, to secure the establishment of settlement upon them, and to secure production from, them, and I say, Mr. Speaker, if there are 8,000,000 of acres of swamp lands in Manitoba, the bringing of that immense area into cultivation, into production, is ten times more important to that province and to the Dominion, than any paltry half million dollars a t-year, whether it goes one way or goes the other. Eight millions of acres constitute one-third of the total grant that it cost to build the Canadian Pacific railway, and within two-thirds of the total area under cultivation in the three prairie provinces to-day. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the question of bringing that stupenduous area of most valuable land into production is something of the highest and greatest importance not only to this Dominion, but to the province of Manitoba and to the people who are in that province. It matters not that the government of Manitoba has not risen to its duty in that regard, that it has treated this swamp lands area as a speculation rather than as a matter of development. Some other government will be formed in Manitoba that will deal with these lands as a matter of development and not as a matter of speculation, at least we will hope so. But the fact is that the lands are there. It

is the business of the province of Manitoba to relieve the conditions of too much moisture in regard to much of the land that is already settled upon, and in doing that they reclaim these 8,000,000 of acres of swamp lands or a large part of them. These swamp lands as they stand to-day are an inducement, nay they are the financial means whereby the government of Manitoba may bring into production and into development that stupendous area; but under the arrangement that is offered for the consideration of this House, the province of Manitoba has to forego the policy of drainage under which it could reclaim that enormous area of lands, and these are to he handed back to the Dominion to remain in that condition, because the Dominion has not the responsibility for carrying out drainage, or the jurisdiction, and the province gets less than half a million dollars a year in cash. Whatever may have been the case in regard to other features of the agreement, this feature is one in which both the province and the Dominion lose and lose heaviiy.	.
But there is another feature of this arrangement and that is in regard to arrearages. The. province is to get a bulk sum of $2,380,271 as arrearages on debt on land and on building account. Now on this question of arrearages it seemed, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, that because the province of Manitoba wanted an extension of boundaries many years ago, therefore, the province receiving that extension is to-day entitled to $2,380,271 of the public money of this country. My hon. friend the Prime Minister did not seem to think that this was a rule that worked both ways. The province of Manitoba has been in possession of the swamp and university lands ever since 1885. It has been drawing interest on the disposition of those lands, and has been using the proceeds as revenue during ail that time, but it did not have to give any account of the money that has been spent before the present Bill goes into force. The province did not have to account for the arrearages, it is only the Dominion government tint has to account for them to the province. Is not such an argument as that too childish to put before an intelligent assembly? What is this proposal to pay the province of Manitoba a bulk sum of $2,238,000 on the passage of this Bill or shortly afterwards? There is no justification of right or reason, for this proposal as between the province and the Dominion, or as between the province of Manitoba and any of the other provinces. It is the declaration of a government in power, a government with a large and hopelessly subservient majority, the demonstration of that government to the various provinces of this Dominion that Mr. OLIVER.
whom they will they will make rich, and whom they will they will leave poor. It is a demonstration to all the provinces that if they do not come in line with this government, if they do not yoke up with the politics and the policy of the party now in power, they cannot expect to get hand-outs of this character; they must stand and se>e their neighbour fattened while they remain hungry. It is simply a declaration that this government pays no attention to the rights of the various provinces. What have rights to do with them? It is a declaration that the terms of confederation do not concern them. They have command of the public treasury, and they propose to use that command for partisan purposes in provincial matters whenever and however it pleases them to do so. Now I am not at present a resident of the province of Manitoba. I was at one time and I have some acquaintance with the people of that province. I have some knowledge of their attitude of mind towards public questions, and I say this to the government; That if it required an annual payment of five dollars a year to every Indian in the province -that payment to be made so long as grass grows and water runs-in order to induce that Indian to give up his rights, a payment of five dollars a piece in one year to the white people of the province of Manitoba will not have the effect of inducing them to give up their rights. Our hon. friends who hope to buy out the province of Manitoba with a bribe of $2,380,000 will find that they have deceived themselves. The people of Manitoba are not for sale at the price-
Mr. BRADBURY, Nor at any other price.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has taken the word out of my mouth-they are not for sale at any price; and the government that undertakes to buy them, taking money out of the Dominion treasury-


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman knows from experience that they are not to be bought.


Frank Oliver: I do not know from experience. Does the hon. gentleman say


George Henry Bradbury: Speaking of the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member. They know from experience, that Manitoba was not for sale.


Frank Oliver: On what particular occasion? Perhaps the hon. gentleman would enlighten us. On no occasion, and under no circumstances, did the late government undertake to offer a bribe to the province of Manitoba or any other prov-

ince. This proposal, Mr. Speaker, if I am within parliamentary rules in so saying, to my mind, is a proposal to pay the province of Manitoba $2,238,000 to which that province is not entitled under the terms of confederation or under any consideration of fair-play as between province and province. It is neither more nor less than an attempt on the part of this government to square the provincial government of Manitoba with their people because of the remarkable and atrocious position of that province in regard . to their telephone transactions, whereby the province has incurred a capital expenditure of $12,000,000 on the promise to give the people reduced telephone rates, while it is proposed now to increase those rates to double, treble and quadruple what they were at the time when they took the telephone service over. It is an attempt to salve the people of the province of Manitoba over the shortcomings of their provincial government, and to salve them over because the farmers of that province have lost millions and millions of dollars by reason of the accession of this government to power.


John Hampden Burnham: How can you salve them over with such terms?


Frank Oliver: I do not think they will be salved over with such terms. I say that the attempt was made, but that it will fail. I think that I have demonstrated that the proposition now before the House is one in which the province of Manitoba does not stand to gain, in which the other provinces of the Dominion do not stand to gain and in which the Dominion does not stand to gain; and particularly one in which the government that brought forward such a proposition stands discredited before the people of this country.


Mr. J. A. M. AIKINS (Brandon).: It is pleasing to know that this Bill finds such favour in the sight of hon. gentleman on the other side. One ex-minister condemns it as giving too much to the proviuce of Manitoba; another ex-minister of that administration condemns it, because it does not give enough to that province. I am delighted with the universal advocacy of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He seems to have taken briefs for three provinces. He seems to have assumed that the province of British Columbia is not able to take care of itself, and, therefore, he takes the brief for that province. Are we to think that the administration of the hon, Mr. McBride has retained the hon member for Ed monton to advocate the interests of British Columbia in this House, or are we to assume that the hon. member for Edmonton has
been retained by the premier of the province of Manitoba to advocate the interests of that province? Are we to assume that Sir James Whitney himself, finding that there is such an able advocate, has given his brief to the hon. member? Or is the House to assume that the McBride administration of British Columbia is better able than the hon. member for Edmonton to look after the interests of that province? And that the administration of the hon. Mr. Roblin in Manitoba and of Sir James Whitney in Ontario know how to look after the interests of those provinces?
I do not intend to go at any length into what has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton, because I am thoroughly convinced that the government of Manitoba knows more about the swamp lands of that province than does the hon. member and that it understands better than_ he, the financial requirements of the province. But I do desire to speak for a short time in reply to certain arguments used a few days ago by hon. members opposite in the debate on the resolution. In 1881, it was supposed that the- boundaries of Manitoba were being extended eastwards as far as the line of longitude extending north from the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio. Therefore, the Act of 1881 was passed. In introducing the Bill, Sir Alexander Campbell, then leading the Senate, spoke of this territory as:
. . . covering an area u,p to a line due north from the forks of the Ohio and Mississippi, of 151,411 square miles, or something like eleven times its present area. It will be observed, by the map on the table, that on the east we do not lay down a line in the sense as we do on the south, west and north, but suggest a dotted-line, as what the boundary line between Ontario and Manitoba will be, as the present government of the Dominion believe the law establishes it. . .
Now, in extending these limits, it is, of course, a matter of interest to the House to know what population is within the proposed extension; and I had a statement prepared showing that the Indian population in such places as North West Angle, Shoal Lake, Rat Portage, Rainy Lake, Rainy River, Manitou Rapids and Lae des Millie Lace, and the white population of the township of Olver, Fort William and Neobing, Mat-tawan, Sibley and a number of people along the line of railway works.
He stated also t-hat immediately after the passing of the Act, Manitoba took control largely of that territory.
A dispute arose between Manitoba and Ontario concerning these boundaries. The matter was submitted to the Imperial Privy Council, and the decision was given in these words:
Their Lordships find the true boundary between the same two provinces to the north of Ontario and to the south of Manitoba, proceeding eastward from the point at which

the above mentioned line strikes the middle line of the course of the same river (whether c-alled by the name of the English river or as to the part below the confluence by the name of the river Winnipeg), up to lake Suel or the Lonely Lake, and thence along the middle lines of Lake Suel, of the Lonely lake to the head of that lake, and thence by a straight line tp the nearest point of the middle line of the waters of lake St. Joseph, and thence along the middle line until it reaches the foot or outlet of that lake, and thence along the middle line of the river by which the waters of lake St. Joseph discharge themselves, until it Teaches a line drawn due north from the confluence of the rivers Mississipi and Ohio, which form the boundary eastward of the province of Manitoba.
And the Privy Council ordered that its finding should be carried into execution. In 1889 the province of Ontario, desiring to have the limits as found by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council confirmed by an Imperial statute, made, through a joint address of these two Houses, an application for that purpose. The recital of the Imperial Act of 1889, which was thus passed reads:
And whereas such boundaries, as far as the province of Ontario adjoins the province of Manitoba, are identical with those found to be correct boundaries by a report of the Judieial Committee of the Privy Council, which Her Majesty the Queen in Council, on the 11th day of August, 1884, ordered to be carried into execution.
. The Privy Council found the boundary for Manitoba extended as far east as the line of longitude which ran noTth from the confluence of the rivers Mississippi and Ohio. Speaking in reference to that, the Hon. Mr. Mills, in 1889, said:	'
What both the representative of Manitoba and the representative of the Dominion maintained was that this meridian line was the eastern boundary of Manitoba, and beino- the eastern boundary of Manitoba so much of Manitoba as lay north of the Albany river remained in Manitoba under that decision It was never argued before the Judicial Committee that if Manitoba could not claim any portion of the territory south of the Albany river, she would not be entitled to any portion north of that river. That Question was not Taised, and I do not see how the Judicial Committee could do anything than as it did, leave to Manitoba that portion which was uncontested, and assign to Ontario that portion west of this meridian line which they believed belonged to the province of Ontario. I am pleased that the hon gentleman has brought forward this resolution, and I trust thalt this will be the last time we will have to discuss the boundaries of Ontario in the parliament of Canada.
Now, Sir, as the judgment of the Privy Council determined the easterly boundary of Manitoba, which extended as far east as the line of longitude running north Mr. AIKINS.
from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi, if that line was carried immediately north it would come almost to the northeast corner of the boundary of the proposed province. One wondeTS why was it, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that part belonged to the province of Manitoba, it was not given to the province of Manitoba? The late administration refused it. The province of Manitoba long ago demanded that in connection with the extension of her boundary north, and if that had been given to Manitoba when" it should have been given by the late administration, then no question would have arisen such as that raised by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), that the ports of Churchill and Nelson should belong to Ontario. Although the government of Manitoba made application to the late administration time and again to have their boundaries properly extended, it was refused, and that has been one of the causes whch has led to the disturbed feeling which prevails to some extent in the west of Canada. In 1903 the right hon. the leader of the opposition said:
I a-m aware that the boundary we have laid down has been disappointing perhaps to both parties. Judging by what I have seen of statements made by the premier of Manitoba he expresses disappointment although I do not believe it would be possible for the government or parliament to concede in full the claims of Manitoba. I have seen some flaming articles in some newspapers stating that the rights of Ontario have been sacrificed inasmuch as the two harbours of Churchhill and Nelson have been given to-Manitoba. Well, Sir, I think that tfhe province of Ontario has enough of wealth and of territory and of glory to enable her to willingly concede to the sister province what little advantages there may be in that. Moreover, the traditions of history would seem to indicate that the Churchill and Nelson rivers should belong to Manitoba. They were the avenue of the fur trade in the olden times when the fur trade was all the trade there was, and if we were to take away from Manitoba what advantage there may he in this, I think Manitoba would be entitled to complain on sentimental grounds. At all events I submit these reasons to the fair consideration of the House and I think they will impress themselves on all those who will give this matter impartial consideration.
One would assume, when the judicial decision of the Privy Council was placed before the late administration, that they would have given effect to it. But instead of doing so they decided to give that part of the territory to the province of Ontario. You may ask now: Why is it not now demanded by the province of Manitoba? Simply because, for a dozen years the province of Manitoba was demanding it, and1 all that was offered them was the easterly boundary

which is offered now, and as further effort was useless with that administration they were almost obliged to accept it subject to a proper financial settlement, which they have been unable from that time until this administration came into power, to secure. Having once accepted that eastern boundary from the late admin:stration, they could do nothing else than accept it now. Although it was thus settled by the late administration, we find the hon. member for Softth Wellington trying to stir up the feelings of Ontario against the west concerning it. We find only recently, on the 21st of February last, the leader of the opposition in the Ontario house moving a resolution insisting that the boundaries should be extended north to the Churchill river. Just a little previous to that the same hon. gentleman declared that it was desirable there should be no antagonism between the west and east of Canada, still he moved that resolution which would disturb the whole of western Canada. Why should that old trade route by York factory and Nelson river be given to the province of Ontario? We find hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, for instance, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), trying to stir up the other provinces against this settlement with Manitoba. We find the hon. gentleman who has just spoken trying to set one province against another province in the west. The policy of hon. gentlemen opposite thus appears to be to sow discord and create strife, and disharmony, in order that out of the resulting confusion they may in some way or other derive party advantage. However, I am sure that as the province of Ontario and the province of Manitoba have agreed with the Dominion on a settlement, all the efforts of hon. gentlemen to cause a cleavage between the east and the west will prove futile, because these provinces and the Dominion have agreed to settle their differences in order that peace and harmony may prevail between the east and the west.
Therefore, Ontario has no right to complain. Both political parties in Manitoba, practically accepted the eastern boundary, as laid down by the late administration and this administration. The only question for settlement was the question of financial terms, to which I wish to refer for a moment. In 1878 the University of the province of Manitoba realized that in consequence of the small income that the province was deriving it could not give much assistance to it. Therefore, the university applied to the Dominion government for a grant of land to assist it in its educational work. In 1881 another application was made to the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, and in 1884, prior to the passing of this Act
of 1885, he wrote to the University of Manitoba stating that the government would make the grant. We, nevertheless, find that it is incorporated in one of the clauses in the Better Terms Act of 1885. Section 2 of that Act provides that:
An allotment of land, not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand acres, of fair average quality, shall be selected by the Dominion government and granted as an endowment to the University of Manitoba for its maintenance as a university capable of giving proper training in the higher branches of education, and to be held in trust for that purpose upon some basis or scheme to be framed by the university and approved by the Dominion government.
Approved not by the provincial but by the Dominion government. Before coming to this question of the basis of trust let me say that, although the grant of land was to be of fair average quality and saleeted by the Dominion government, no step was taken by the Dominion government to make that selection and most of the fair average land had been taken up as homesteads, given in grants or otherwise disposed of. Up to 1886 or 1887 no arrangement had been made for the selection of the land. The University of Manitoba pressed strongly that the selection should be made. They were practically told that they would have to make it themselves. Accordingly, they spent money and the province gave them some assistance to make the selection, but as the best land had been alienated, they were not able to select the first quality of land. In consequence of the delay and difficulty in making their selection of land, application was made to the Dominion government to commute the grant for a money payment. In January, 1888, a committee appointed by the university reported an interview with the Minister of the Interior which stated that with respect to the land which had come back to the government by the non-fulfilment of homestead conditions, the minister was unwilling to withdraw it from homesteading and would prefer the grant of a sum of money in commutation of said land. In February, 1888, the Minister of the Interior made a recommendation to the Governor in Council that he had been waited on by representatives of the university council and favoured a commutation as a way of settling the difficulty in procuring lands and he thought that the commutation would be an advantage, both to the interest of settlement and of higher education in the province, and, therefore, recommended the commutation and suggested legislation. But commutation was not carried out because, as was stated afterwards, the revenue of the Dominion was not in a buoyant condition. The only

Not merely a subsidy, but:
-costs incurred in the government of the disputed territory or the reference of the boundary question to the judicial committee of the Privy Council and all other questions and claims discussed between the Dominion, and the provincial government up to January 10, 1885.
Therefore, when' you come to consider either commuting the value of the university land or the restoration of the other lands to the Dominion you must consider tlie fact that they were not given solely for the purpose of subsidies but partially to defray the expenses of the government of that disputed territory, for that disputed territory was governed for a time bv the province of Manitoba; it was formed info an electoral district which sent a representative to the local legislature, until 1884 or practically 1885, when the judicial decision was given that it did not properly belong to the province of Manitoba. It is, therefore, improper to argue this question solely on the ground that the swamp lands and the university lands were given only as a subsidy to the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, you cannot compare things which are utterly dissimilar; you cannot contrast one condition with another condition in no way identical, and, consequently you cannot contrast the position of the western provinces with that of the east-

ern provinces, their conditions are altogether dissimilar. It cannot be justly said that the conditions in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are at all similar to the conditions in the eastern provinces, or even to the conditions in the province of Ontario. Neither are the prairie provipces similar to British Columbia, and, therefore, what is done by the Dominion for one of these eastern provinces, or for the province of British Columbia, cannot be taken as a fair standard of what should be done for the prairie provinces which are not similarly situated and do not own their own natural resources or their lands. In what respect are the three prairie provinces similar. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver), has assumed that they did not come into confederation at the same time, but he ought to know better, for the fact is that the Northwest Territories and the province of Manitoba came into confederation on July 15, 1870. There was, no doubt, this difference: that full provincial autonomy was given to the province of Manitoba, whereas there was a limited government given to the territories, the Dominion government retaining certain control. In 1905, when Alberta and Saskatchewan were given their autonomy, thie conditions then prevailing in these two provinces were similar to those which prevailed in Manitoba. True, Manitoba had a larger population and a little more settlement, but settlement was going on in Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905. as I say, the conditions were generally identical, save that there was a greater burden of government on the province of Manitoba than on either Alberta or Saskatchewan. That being so, why was it that the Liberal government treated Manitoba in a different way from that in which they treated Alberta and Saskatchewan? Why? Because Alberta and Saskatchewan were practically the creations of the Liberal adtninistration, subject to its will, and the province of Manitoba was not. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), has said: why do you not get all the members of confederation together in a family council and discuss the terms that are now to be given to the province of Manitoba? Let me ask the hon. gentleman why in 1905 the Liberal government did not call the family of confederation together to discuss the financial terms which were to be given to Alberta and Saskatchewan? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver), has asked why British Columbia should not be called into council now, why did not the Liberal government, 'in 1905, call British Columbia into conference when they were settling the financial terms for Alberta and Saskatchewan? Why is it that these gentlemen opposite now suggest that a different course should be pursued
by the present administration Irom that which they themselves pursued under exactly similar circumstances? Their former action and their present argument are utterly inconsistent. The Dominion government was supplying the funds for the Northwest Territories from July, 1870, to the year 1905, while during that period Manitoba was allowed to look after herself and to struggle as best she could with an insufficient subsidy. During that period the Dominion government was erecting in the Northwest Territories public buildings out of Dominion funds, while Manitoba was paying for her own buildings. I therefore claim, and I do not think it can be disputed, that the conditions in Manitoba were quite similar to the conditions in Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 when these two provinces were created and therefore the government cif to-day should have treated the province of Manitoba with the same consideration and given it the same subsidies as Alberta and Saskatchewan. And now, these gentlemen opposite complain because the increased amount of the subsidy is dated back to 1908. Well Sir, if full justice were rendered to Manitoba it might well be contended that it should date back to 1905 when the late administration should have treated Manitoba the same as they treated Alberta and Saskatchewan. But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) has told us that the cost of administration was greater in the two new provinces than it was in Manitoba and in support of his idea he pointed to Manitoba with its large capital city containing almost one-third of the entire population of the province. I would remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) and his friends that the cost of governmental administration in a large city, with a new incoming population, is as great or greater than the cost of administration in rural districts, and whatever argument may be founded on that ground is altogether in favour of Manitoba. I would like to know how the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) makes out that with a smaller population in Saskatchewan than in Manitoba and with a still smaller population in Alberta, there was more settled country in these two provinces and a 'larger district to govern than was the case in Manitoba. I therefore contend that it was at least fair as a compromise for the government when making this arrangement with Manitoba, to have dated it back to 1908. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) tells us that the money subsidy we are giving to Manitoba is too large and in the same breath he tells us that the province of Manitoba is giving too much to the Dominion government when it surrenders these lands. I would like to know how that equation works out. If they are giving such valuable

lands back to the Dominion, surely the Dominion can give them financial compensation in lieu of that land. Well, Sir, considering the terms on the whole it seems to me that they are just and fair both to the province of Manitoba and to the Dominion of Canada.
A moment on the financial terms or subsidy. Hon. gentlemen opposite are evidently not at all agreed about them. When you hear some hon. gentlemen opposite say on behalf of the province of Manitoba that the government have not made terms sufficiently good for that province and others saying that the terms are too good for it, we may come to the safe conclusion that the government did the just and proper thing in making the terms they did. Therefore, this Bill should pass without very much more contestation.
It has further been suggested that it was wrong to give the province of Ontario a strip of land five miles wide running from the eastern boundary of the proposed boundary to the Nelson river. The property within the borders of Manitoba, the public domain, belongs to the Dominion government, and the Dominion government can do with it what it thinks proper, can give those lands as a subsidy if it likes for the construction of a railway across it or a port on Hudson bay. I am sure the province of Manitoba will be delighted if Ontario will join with it in creating such a port as there ought to be created for the whole of western Canada at the mouth of the Nelson river. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken has been complaining that we have not enough outlets for the surplus annual products of the west, and that therefore everything possible should be done to give facilities for the transportation of that surplus. Is there then any objection to Ontario building a railway through their own province to the eastern boundary of Manitoba and there being joined by a line, if you like, constructed by Manitoba, and thus forming another national line to carry out the surplus products of the west to the markets of the world? The west will be glad to have such a rkilway, will be glad to join Ontario in having a joint railway from a common point on such railway up to the port on Hudson bay, will be glad if on one side of the river the province of Ontario creates a splendid port there, as there should be. Let me say to hon. gentlemen and to the people of the west that assurances are given that there will be created either at Churchill or at the mouth of the Nelson river, by the Dominion government, a port which will help them to ship the western surplus products by a speedy route-through Hudson bay and Hudson Strait to the final market of Liverpool, to the great benefit of the west.


James Albert Manning Aikins: There are difficulties in the west. I hope for the consolidation of Canada, I deprecate every statement that is made by hon. gentlemen opposite or elsewhere which will have a tendency to separate the provinces or to create disunion. What we want is union, and if the present administration does what, for 15 years the late administration neglected to do, and cares for western interests, the west of Canada will not only be prosperous but will be contented. The troublesome conditions which now prevail in the west are largely the natural result and consequence of the neglect of western interest and western affairs by the late administration during the years of their power.


Mr.  F. B.@: CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) has discussed this subject entirely from the standpoint of its effect upon Manitoba, and has carefully avoided alluding to any other aspect of the case, or to that aspect which would appeal to any other portion of Canada, and therefore, I hope he will not consider me discourteous if I leave the track which he has trodden so carefully and try to call the attention of the House back to this proposed agreement to some extent as it bears relation to the other provinces of Canada and try to see if it is a reasonable agreement taking Canada as a whole. My hon. friend from Brandon has made a very strong appeal for peace and harmony and the union of Canada, and I heartily concur in that sentiment, but I doubt if the policy which the government is following in this case will be the best means of attaining the very much desired end to which my hon. friend has alluded. We can have no peace and harmony in this country so long as there are incongruities and unfairness existing as to the manner in which one section of the Dominion is treated as compared with others and as I view this case there is a manifest unfairness in the manner in which Manitoba has been dealt with as compared with the treatment of eastern Canada, and I think I might say of every province in Canada, but the greatest distinction probably would be between Manitoba and the eastern portions of Canada. There are perhaps three general principles upon which the Bill now before the House might be discussed. The first is the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba or its territorial expansion. To that I shall not devote much time because it is, I believe, pretty well settled that Manitoba is entitled to the amount of land she is receiving, and in fact that principle was adopted before this House four years ago. If Manitoba is willing that Ontario should have a right of way five miles wide and one-half of what may be the principal port in the Hudson bay, I have no quarrel with that, and if

Ontario is satisfied with it again I have no quarrel.
The next question provided for in this Bill is the financial arrangement which will be applicable to Manitoba in the future, and the third subdivision would be the arrearages which we are paying to Manitoba on account of what has taken place or has not taken place during the past four years. My hon. friends seem to treat the province of Manitoba as though it was a new province just entering the union, as though it had not 40 years of history and experience, as though it had not worked out its existence along the line of other provinces and as though it should be placed on an entirely different basis from other provinces that came into the union only 45 years ago. You must remember that this province became a separate entity with a legislature and government of its own in 1870, or between 41 and 42 years ago, and the other four provinces in Canada only came into the union in 1867. When the four provinces formed the union I submit that the financial arrangements, both as to the per capita allowance, as to the debt allowance, and as to all financial matters were worked out on a thoroughly fair and honest basis. There was a principle involved in all these things, and it is on account of departing from the principle that I chiefly find fault with the government for the terms of this Bill. I shall not quarrel with the amount of money Manitoba is receiving, but I do quarrel most seriously with the arrearages.
I think the principle objection is the departure from the principle established in 1867.
Now we know that when the different provinces united in 1867 they received their public lands, with the minerals and all that would go in connection with them, and therefore, so far as those provinces were concerned there was nothing to adjust. The next question that came was the amount of money that would be paid to each province for government and local purposes, and that was apportioned on a population basis and divided up fairly and evenly, and each province received the amount that it was entitled to. There again you had a principle which was followed in arriving at this conclusion. We come next to the debt account. Now the debt account was not so easy of adjustment, but yet the principle was followed as my hon. "friends opposite know. The debt of the old province of Canada was found to be about, I think, $67,000,000-I am speaking now in round numbers-and it was decided that the government would assume of that debt $62,000,000. Then it was found that the debt of Nova Scotia was somewhere about $8,000,000, and the government agreed to assume that debt. The debt of the province of New Brunswick was a little less 138


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
than $7,000,000, it was somewhere over $6,000,000, but in order to make the debt allowance of New Brunswick compare proportionately with the debt allowance of the other provinces of Canada, they agreed to assume the debt of the province to the extent of $7,000,000. They would pay the actual debt, which was something over $6,000,000, and they agreed to pay New Brunswick five per cent interest on the difference between the actual debt and the assumed debt of $7,000,000. Now there you had a principle, you had something which was perfectly fair and reasonable, as between the different provinces, and something to which no person could find any fault. When Manitoba came into the, union in 1870 it had no debt, and for some reason fox which I can find no explanation, and I must say that I have investigated matters pretty carefully, it was decided that Manitoba would 'be allowed a debt of $472,090 estimated on a population of 17,000. The basis I understand was, that it was to be $32 on an estimated population of 17,000. But I never could see the reason of that excepting that the Dominion government said:	We ought to give Manitoba something with which to carry on her government and, therefore, we will say that she ought to have a debt of $472,000. Then I find that when Prince Edward Island came into the union they also assumed a debt of $4,701,000, but in the case of that province they followed the principle which had been laid down at the time of confederation, and allowed a certain debt according to the population of the island, and agreed to pay the difference between the actual debt and the assumed debt. Now things went along fairly well for a number of years. Finally Manitoba commenced to demand more money, and the Tesult was that in 1882 a change was made by which Manitoba was to receive $50,000 in place of $30,000 on account of government, and then they were to receive 80 cents a head on a population estimated at 150,000, which was probably two or three times in excess of the actual figures. But it was assumed to be 150,000 and that would make a payment on a per capita basis of $120,000. Now in 1882 we find the first reference to the allowance to be paid to the province of Manitoba in lieu of the lands, and in that..year it was provided that Manitoba was to receive .an annual allowance of $45,000, as it was put in the statute for the want oi lands. Because the lands were owned and controlled by the Dominion she received no revenue and had no control over them, and it was thought she ought to receive something for them. Well, Sir, with this last proposition I have no fault to find, I can readily understand that if the four older provinces owned their lands and were able to receive a revenue from them, the new

[Stage Direction]
provinces ought to be put in the same position as the older ones were in, and it was only fair to give them a grant for a certain amount on account of not receiving their 'lands. That was placed at $45,000 in 1882. In 1885 a change was made and they received from that time down to the present $100,000 annually. I find no fault with that, and I do not think that any person from any of the other provinces could find any fault if that amount had teen increased, because we must all understand that if the province did not own its land it was not on a parity with the four older provinces of Canada, and also with British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, which had since come into the union, and, therefore, they were entitled to something. It may be true that the Dominion cf Canada received no revenue from these lands, but the Dominion had the administration of them, they were able to hold them out as an inducement for settlers to come into that country, and we know that settlement did come in and not only did Manitoba prosper, but the whole of Canada prospered, by reason of having the lands to offer. Therefore, I say no objection can be found to giving Manitoba an allowance in lieu of her lands, and I do not think that very much fault can be found with that provision of the Bill at the present time. It may be a little exaggerated but that is only a matter of degree. The Federal government is allowing the province of Manitoba now, I figure cut, $413,270 annually, in lieu of the right to control her own lands, but it must be remembered that in 1885 the province of Manitoba received something else besides the $100,000 in lieu of her land. She received all the swamp lands from the province, or all lands which hereafter might be declared to be swamp lands. That feature has been pretty thoroughly discussed during this debate, and I will, therefore, only refer to it very shortly when I come to it in a few minutes. But Manitoba also received at that time 150,UOO acres of land for the university, and my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) has tried to show that those lands were not very valuable. But it is more remarkable that my hon. friend has not stated-at least I did not hear him state, nor did I hear anybody state in this debate-how much the* province of Manitoba actually received from the 150,000 acres. It will be interesting to know exactly what the provinces did receive. I am satisfied, however, that the Minister of Finance must be away below the actual amount received when he places it at the nominal sum of $2 per acre. If any of these lands are still in existence and owned by the province they must be worth $20 an acre rather than the small sum of $2.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


William Thomas White: May I say to my hon. friend that the university lands never were owned by the province.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate the fact that they went into a fund for the benefit of the university, but that university exists for the advantage of the province, so that really the proceeds come back to the province in that way.


William Thomas White: Oh no.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then there is a difference of opinion between my hon. friend and myself. In 1884 there seemed to be an attempt made by the Federal parliament to rearrange the financial conditions of the different provinces and they there adhered to a certain matter of principle. They rearranged an increase of the debt allowance to each of the provinces on a proportionate basis according to the population. Now, that was a principle. They increased that debt, so far as the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec were concerned, by $5,397,000, Nova Scotia $793,368, New Brunswick $604,509, Manitoba $110,825, British Columbia $83,107, and Prince Edward Island $182,973. Now, the thing that I complain about particularly in this Bill, so far as the general financial arrangements are concerned, is the debt allowance. I contend, Sir, that it is unfair to the maritime provinces to a greater extent, probably, than auything else, and unfair to some extent to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It is not so great an injustice to these provinces as it is to the maritime provinces because they have in the past received large additions to their territory which are very valuable, and under which the province of Ontario is to-day receiving, I think I am safe dn, saying, millions of dollars in royalties on lands, timber and mines, and upon which the province of Quebec must receive large sums each year in stumpage and royalties on lands and timber.
But now we ha ve a proposition-and I will not discuss it at length because there will be another opportunity during the session-to add to Quebec and Ontario; and you add a second time to the amount which they receive from the Dominion, whereas the maritime provinces received nothing; the maritime provinces cannot receive anything. Then, I want to point out the unfairness of this debt allowance to the province of Manitoba, a debt allowance of $8,000,000, upon which they will forever receive an estimated income of $381,584.


Arthur Meighen: Did I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carveil) to say that he never could see any reason for this allowance in lieu of debt? Do I understand him to argue that he never was able to see

reason for an allowance made to a province that came in without a debt?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is my contention. If yon want to give a province sufficient funds to carry on its affairs as a province, you ought to give it in a straight way, not by a circuitous method like this.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that a province that comes in and assumes a share of the debt of the whole Dominion, ought not to receive any compensation?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Arthur Meighen: Why was an allowance made in lieu of debt not to the old provinces of Canada but to New Brunswick?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In order to bring the debt allowance on the basis of population, to a parity with that of old Canada.


Arthur Meighen: And the same with Manitoba.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When Manitoba came in she had not the population. According to the hon. gentleman's argument, the more people you get into a province the more you have to add to the debt allowance. But there is no suggestion that this should apply to New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. You may add a million people to those provinces, but they receive no increase in the debt allowance. New Brunswick, for example, is receiving and has been receiving for many years*, al-

most ever since confederation, interest on something like $500,000 at 5 per cent. The federal government assumed a debt which is something over $6,000,000. But then we handed over to the federal government assets to that $6,000,000. Except the amount on which we are receiving 5 per *cent, it is true that this debt was paid by the federal government, but we gave them assets with which they paid it. Some of the assets we handed over are among the best assets of the Dominion of Canada to-day. We gave the present Intercolonial railway practically constructed from St. John to Halifax; the only portion of the Intercolonial railway, I venture to say, which has paid its way, a portion which is paying more than twice as much as any other equal mileage on the whole system. Therefore, we paid the federal government for paying our debts, and we owe them nothing.
We would be delighted to take back the property which we gave them and pay our own debts. Then there are the customs and excise; but on the property alone my hon. friend would be delighted to take over the Intercolonial from St. John to Halifax and pay our own debts. Now, what did they do with Manitoba?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman said that my explanation of the debt allowance was illegal and fallacious. If he will turn to page 1437 of ' Hansard,' of 1905, he will find exactly the same explanation given by the leader of the opposition.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish to follow my argument on my own line, and I am going to show whether my argument is logical or not. Now, the result is that the province of New Brunswick to-day is receiving as a debt allowance probably half a million to three quarters of a million collars; the province of Nova Scotia is receiving a little more. The province of Manitoba, which has had a population equal to that of New Brunswick only within the last three or four years, and is only about equal to that of Nova Scotia, is receiving interest on $8,100,000 as a debt allowance. If my hon. friends can argue that this is fair and just to the maritime provinces, then I fail to see by what method of argument they can make it appear reasonable. I have already stated that so far as the allowance for land is concerned I think it is fair, the principle is good. I am not saying that the actual amount of figures is fair, but I think the principle is all right.
There is one thing which I cannot understand, and that is why tne government of Prince Edward Island has not been making a demand for an increased allowance in lieu of land when Manitoba is being treated so generously, as Prince Edward Mr. CARVELL.
Island had no public lands any more than Manitoba. When Prince Edward Island came into the union in 1873 they were allowed an annual amount of $45,000 a year, or $800,000 if they wished to borrow *that for the purpose of purchasing land from the landed proprietors and selling it to the people again. If tney borrowed the money and bought the land they had the property; if they did not borrow the money they got the $45,000 a year. So, therefore, for the purpose of argument, we are safe in saying that the province of Prince Edward Island receives $45,000 in lieu of lands. Prince Edward Island came into the union about the same time that Manitoba did. When Manitoba came into the union she received1 nothing in lieu of lands. In 1882, she was given $45,000 a year in lieu of lands, and in 1885 she was given the swamp lands, which we have been told here to-night aggregate 8,000,000 acres, and she was given $100,000 annually in lieu of her lands, and she has gone on receiving $100,000 annually ever since. But now the government come down and propose to give the province of Manitoba for all time to come, after making ail allowances for interest on what she has received for some of her swamp lands, the magnificent sum of $413,270 annually. Why on earth has not Prince Edward Island been considered, when Manitoba has been treated so magnanimously? It seems remarkable that Prince Eaward Island has been entirely forgotten in this arrangement. I merely throw this suggestion out to the hon. members representing. Prince Edward Island in this House. I hope hon. gentlemen from Prince Edward Island supporting this government will wake up to the enormity of the situation, to the manner in which they have been treated byr the present government in granting this allowance to the province of Manitoba in lieu of her lands.
Now I come to discuss the third branch of the case, and that is the arrearages. While the second branch of the case, or the financial, arrangements, are possibly unfair to the rest of Canada, yet they have followed to some extent previous legislation, and in some instances they are justified as a matter of principle. But I cannot for the life of me see where you can justify these arrearages from any standpoint whatever. My hon. friends from Manitoba say, Well, we have had a grievance. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) said that a great many years ago they wanted to extend their boundaries eastward and the Privy Council said they were wrong. Though the highest court in the Empire says they are wrong, yet they insist that they have a grievance. Then they said, We want to go westward to Regina. But the people of Regina said No, and the province of Sas-

katchewan would have nothing to do with them. Then they say, We have another grievance, we want to get northward. And Because they could not get northward they have another grievance, and because they have all these grievances the Minister of Finance said the other night:
I think this matter goes very much deeper than that. The province of Manitoba has been dissatisfied for years, and where you have such a province as Manitoba dissatisfied, and expressing that dissatisfaction irritably, there must be, as my hon. friend once said, something wrong in the political situation
And because Manitoba has had a grievance for all these years the Minister of Finance says: Well, you may have been unreasonable, I think probably you have, but you have a grievance, there is an irritation going on, and it won't do to have the province of Manitoba with a grievance; therefore we will give you something which you are not entitled to, and which we are not giving to any other province in Canada. Will any one say that I am drawing the parallel unfairly? I say the proposition cannot be justified on any logical argument or with any logical reason. The Minister of Finance has not tried to justify it-except, and I will do him this credit, that ten times in the short speech that he made on the resolution, he said: We are going to give her what you gave Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is the Minister of Finance's justification for it-because you did this for Alberta and Saskatchewan we are going to do it for Manitoba. I want my hon. friends to consider the application of this reason to the rest of Canada. Now let us see where it will land us. As I said before, they have a grievance, they are irritated, and it won't do to have Manitoba irritated, therefore we must give them what they want. What do you think will happen next? Manitoba will say: Well, we have a sentimental side to this question. We were called the postage stamp province, and we wanted that remedied. Now we have reason to believe that there is some land round the North Pole, and we want land at the North Pole, and all we have to do is to keep at it long enough, and if the Minister of Finance is in power long enough, he will come back and say, Manitoba has got a grievance, she is dissatisfied, she is irritated, she wants land round the North Pole, it won't do to have Manitoba dissatisfied1, and therefore we must either give her land at the North Pole or another donation of a few millions. That is the logical conclusion. I would advise every province in Canada to get busy and work up a grievance. I think you will find that the next thing will be that my friend Sii James Whitney will be coming up here and he will say, I have a grievance, I wanted
lands clear to the Nelson river, and you have only given me the right of way. And if he persists long enough, and shouts'loud enough, and argues strenuously enough, and the bion. gentlemen opposite remain in power long enough, they will say: It won't do to have Ontario dissatisfied, therefore we have got to give them a couple of million dollars.	.
That is the only logical position but, there is another way of getting at it. Let us analyse it. My hon. friend says that they should have gotten this land in 1905, but as they did not get it, and as this parliament only passed that resolution saying that they should have it in 1908, therefore, we will date the arrearages back to 1908 and these arrearages are based on two considerations. First, on the debt account. The debt account has been discussed a good deal. I have discussed it myself, i have read every word uttered by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister on the discussion on the resolutions, I have listened to everything that has been said here to-day and I would like to know, and I hope the Minister of Finance or some other member on the other side of the House, will enlighten us, as to the ground on which the province of Manitoba is being given $202,637 for four years, or a total sum of $810,648. What can be the reason unless it be that Manitoba has a public grievance, and we do not want to have Manitoba irritated, and therefore, we must give her this money. It is not on the ground that if this added territory had been given to her four years ago, she would have more population so that rhe could have drawn a per capita allowance. It cannot be on that ground as a simple statement of the population would show. The right hon. leader of the government told us this afternoon that there are now 5,571 people in that territory cf whom 4.822 are Indians. The federal government looks after the Indians; therefore. you would be reduced down to about 900 people which the Manitoba government would have been compelled to look after during these four years. You are giving them $800,000 because they were not called upon to look after these 900 white people in the last four years. I cannot see any other reason. But if that be illogical and'unreasonable, it pales into insignificance when compared with the reasons given for the allowance in lieu of land. I hope that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will follow me on this point, Decause he at least, I presume, would like to be able to justify it. It is a well-known principle that we are giving money to the prairie provinces, because they do not have the control of their lands, they have not a chance to sell them, they have not the right to make money out of them, they do not get the minerals, they get nothing out of them whatever, and they are compelled to spend

money in carrying on the ordinary affairs of the government within their territory, let it be large or small. The theory is. that the province of Manitoba must expend money in building roads and bridges, to some extent, providing for school accommodation, looking after the adminstration of justice, and doing all the other things that go to make up the cost of the administration of affairs of government in that portion of the province. We are giving them $413,270 for all time in the future to provide for the administration of the affairs of the government in this added territory. You have only got at the present time 900 people to look after, because the Indians will still be looked after by the federal government. Let us take the last four years. Manitoba has not owned these lands in the last four years, it has not spent a dollar on schools, it has not spent a dollar on roads, it has not spent a dollar on bridges or on any other governmental affairs within that territory for the last four years. It has not incurred either directly or indirectly, one cent of liability in the last four years, and there is no possibility of it being called upon to pay a cent, by reason of the administration of this territory.in the last four years. Yet the people of Canada, the people of the maritime provinces, are to pay their proportion of this magnificent sum of $1,363,000 to the province of Manitoba for doing that which they have not done, that which . they never will do. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance wants the people of this country to feel that this is a justifiable transaction. I think that he will -have to look up some arguments that have mot yet been produced in order to justify to his own mind, let alone the people of this country, the grant of this sum to the province of Manitoba. If my hon. friend said: Well, we want to make a present to the province of Manitoba, and then, af he would make a present to the other provinces of Canada in proportion to their population and just demands, there could not be so much objection to it because there you have a principle. But Iiere,. without rhyme or reason, without any justification apparent on its face, you are presenting the province of Manitoba with $1,368,000 for doing nothing and for not pretending to do anything. Is there a reason for this? There must be a reason for it. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) told the reason why. I am not going into that to any great extent. But, before I take up that branch, I want to take another glance into the unfairness of this arrangement to the people of the rest of Canada. While in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-I take these two as an illustration-we have our lands,, our minerals and whatever we Mr. OARVELI.
can make out of them, yet we have to look after all the affairs of our country in the way of roads, bridges, public buildings, schools and everything else connected with the affairs of the government. The right hon. leader of the government gave. some figures as to what the provinces had received during the last year as territorial revenue from their lands and he gave the province of New Brunswick as receiving $494,000 and Nova Scotia $662,000 in the year 1910. We will say that in New Brunswick we received last year $494,000 from our public domain. I may say here that we have never received that much before. I do not believe that since confederation we have averaged $200,000 from our public domain; we certainly never averaged $250,000. While I am not going to go into local matters, I make this statement that if we continue milking $494,000 a year out of our public domain in New Brunswick, in twenty years we will not have any public domain because, while they are supposed to be cutting lumber in New Brunswick, they are practically cutting pulp-wood. They are getting twice the revenue that they ever got before, but they are doing it at a terrible sacrifice and they are paying the awful penalty in the depreciation of our capital, the only source which we have in New Brunswick from which to raise money except that which we raise from direct taxation. But, that is only by the way. My right hon. friend, however, failed to take into consideration the fact that Manitoba last year received from her proportion of the school lands alone $200,000, as I find by the sessional papers of Manitoba for 1911, or half as much money was paid to Manitoba last year for education alone out of the sale of Dominion lands as was received in New Brunswick altogether from our territorial revenue.
That has not been taken into consideration. The more you compare the financial terms you are giving to Manitoba with the terms given to the other provinces of the Dominion, the more unreasonable do they appear to any fair-minded person. I agree in the opinion of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that this is an unfair trade even from the standpoint of Manitoba and, I know I may be charged as being illogical when I say it is unfair to everybody. It is unfair to Manitoba for this reason: You are taking from Manitoba swamp lands which are of very great value, and, there is of course a difference of opinion as to what that value is. But, from the sessional papers of the Manitoba legislature for 1900 I find that in that year the province sold 37,096 acres of land for $115,295, the price ranging from two dollars to five dollars per acre, and the average price be-

ing $3.14. The sessional papers of the Manitoba legislature for 1911 show that last year the provinces sold 142,535 for Which was received $737,395, or an average price of $5.17 per acre, so that in these eleven years the average price of these swamp lands has increased by two dollars per acre. Of course, the value of these lands depends on your building roads into them and inducing settlement, and assuming that this is done it is fair to say that the remaining lands are worth more than five dollars per acre. Then, if you take the seven million acres and say they are worth five dollars an acre, the result is that the Dominion is taking from the province of Manitoba an asset worth thirty-five million dollars. These lands are, of course, increasing rapidly in value and the report of the Manitoba government, stated last year that they were selling all the way from three dollars to nineteen dollars per- acre, and at the present time they were selling at from six to twelve dollars per acre. It may be said that the province of Manitoba would have to spend a great deal of money in draining these lands in order to make them valuable, but as I understand it the province does not spend out of the ordinary revenue account any money whatsoever to drain these lands. The province is divided into nineteen different drainage districts, and these drainage districts have issued debentures which at present amount to $1,897,853. As I understand it these debentures are a lien upon the land, and the man who buys the swamp lands buys them subject to this lien so that he and his associates in the end not only pay the cost of the drainage, but the interest as well. That is my understanding of it, and the Minister of the Interior can correct me if I am wrong. It is, therefore, the case that these lands were worth last year $5.17 an acre in the province of Manitoba irrespective of drainage, and the money expended for drainage simply appreciates their value because it is paid by the owners of the land and is not practically chargeable to the province. It is argued by gentlemen on the other side that it is only fair when we are taking these lands, to compensate the province for them, but, these hon. gentlemen must remember that the government of Canada does not sell land and will not sell land. The hon. gentleman from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) told us that it was the duty of the Dominion government to drain these lands and make them valuable, but that being done he will no doubt tell us that it is the duty of the Dominion government to give them away to homesteaders. Then, when these lands are developed, settlers will 'be brought in and every man, woman and child that is brought into Manitoba yields a Dominion subsidy Tevenue of eighty cents per head to the province, so that from the Dominion
standpoint we are receiving nothing and from the standpoint of the province, we are taking that from the province which can be made of very great value to it. It may be asked, why the province of Manitoba accepted such an unreasonable bargain. Well, the only reason I can see is that the province is a little hard up at the present time for ready cash. If the Minister of the Interior would tell us the real facts he would have to admit that the dividends from his telephone scheme are not as great as he anticipated and that in consequence the province of Manitoba is in an unenviable position financially. The fact is, I believe, that Manitoba is so financially hard up that the Conservatives there are willing to sacrifice the immense potential value of these lands	in order to get	some
ready cash in hand to pay their liabilities and to get themselves out of their difficulties. There cannot be any other reason that I can see for it. It is fair to assume that if other and better methods were adopted in selling these lands they would bring in more than $5.17 an acre, and, therefore, from the standpoint of Manitoba the province is getting $2,000,000 cash and is giving away a heritage which will be of enormous value in time to come. The provincial accounts of Manitoba show that last year the province received from lands alone $648,848, thus they are giving to the Dominion lands which will yield them that sum each year in return for a lump sum of $2,178,000. I think my *Conservative friends from Manitoba will have to admit that that is not a good business proposition.
For these reasons the Bill is ill-advised and ought not to be passed. I think that the government are not treating the rest of Canada fairly in not giving the rest of the provinces that to which they are entitled. It is true they are putting them off with a promise and saying: When we give back all lands to the three prairie provinces we will take into consideration the rest of the maritime provinces-but it may be a long time before they give the lands back to the prairie provinces. We all know our hon. friends opposite and we can conceive of a condition of affairs in the three provinces when they might be willing to give them back their lands, but we know a condition of affairs when they will not be willing to give them back their lands, and I make the prophecy now that if the political conditions in the prairie provinces remain as they are to-day it will be many years before those provinces get back their lands, and if that be true it will be many years before the maritime provinces get any change in their financial arrangements or receive justice to which they are entitled under this arrangement. Therefore it would be well for the government to consider even at this late

date, the unfair treatment 'accorded to the rest of Canada, to revise the conditions, to change the Bill or hold it over until an arrangement can, be made with all the provinces, thins arriving at 'Something which will be fairly definite, and above all tilings, based on some principle. When you have arrived at -a conclusion based on that principle then you will have that splendid condition which my hon.. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) so desires, when we shall have peace and harmony between all the provinces of Canada.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour).: -and the lower provinces made no claim thereto.


Mr. FOWLER.: so oq. At the time of confederation there were four classes of subsidies recognized and only four, and there has been one added since. There was, in the first class, a sum allotted to each province for government and legislation, secondly, there was provision for allowing 80 cents per head of the population, thirdly, there was provision ior paying the several provinces certain *sums growing out of the allowance for debt, and in the fourth class, there were special grants. Now I have been unable from the statutes, to ascertain any very definite principle upon which any of these allowances were made. If you look at the Act *of 1867, you will find in the first place, that ihe debt allowed the old province of Canada, which was composed of Ontario and QueDec, was $62,500,000, to the province of Nova Scotia, $8,000,000 and to the province [DOT]of New Brunswick $7,000,000. There is a special grant allowed in the British North America Act for New Brunswick. That Act provides that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec should be allowed 80 cents per head of their population, based upon the population of 1861. Now that was not made applicable under the British North America Act to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for you will find in section 118 of the British North America Act. these words:
The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the several provinces for the support of their governments and legislatures

The amounts are guaranteed and the section continues:
-and an annual grant in aid of each province shall be made equal to eighty cents per head of the population as ascertained by the census of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the case of Nova Scotia and Xmv Brunswick the 80 cents per head was to be based on the decennial census.
They had not adhered to the same principle which was applied to Ontario and Quebec.
-by each subsequent decennial census until the population of each of those two provinces amounts to four hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall thereafter remain.
Now there is a special provision in the Act of 1867 which is applicable to Nova ocotia and New Brunswick and not made applicable to Quebec'and Ontario. Then you have a special grant made to New Brunswick by this very Act in the very next section:
New Brunswick shall receive by half-yearly payments in advance from Canada for a period of ten years from the Union an additional allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars per annum

On what principle? There is nothing in the Act to indicate.	*


Thomas Wilson Crothers: -but as long as the public debt of that province remains under seven million dollars, a deduction equal to the interest at five per centum per annum on .such deficiency shall be made from that allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars.
Then I find after the union there were some special grants, and I may say that each one of these four classes has been modified from time to time. The sum allowed for government and legislation has been changed many times by statute. The sum allowed per head has been changed at .east once, even as to Ontario and Quebec. At the conference in 1906-it was agreed that the annua! sum for government and legislation should be $240,000 instead of $80,000, as it had been up to that time in the two provinces, and it was agreed also that their per capita allowance should, instead of being based on the population of 1861, be based upon the decennial census. The special grants have been changed. The debt allowance has been changed time and time again by special legislation.
The first special grant after confederation I find recorded was made to Nova Scotia in 1869, by chap. 2, 32-33 Vic. It was a grant of $82,695 a year. New Brunswick got the amount I mentioned a moment ago, $63,000 for ten years. In the case of Manitoba several changes have been made. Changes were made in 1873, 1874, 1884, and 1907. All these classes of subsidies have been varied from time to time by statute on special grounds. I cannot find any principle upon which they have gone. Now, we come to the present Bill. These three prairie provinces occupy a different position in confederation from that of the other provinces. The British North America Act, section 109, provides:
All lands, mines, minerals and royalties, belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the union, and all sums then due or payable for suoh lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the province in the same.
But these three western provinces, out of the nine provinces of the Dominion, have been deprived of the public 'lands within their borders. Hence they are to be dealt with on a different basis altogether. Saskatchewan and Alberta, in 1905, were very generously dealt with. Manitoba now is asking, as being in the same class as the other two, to be dealt with on the same basis, and it is proposed by this Bill to do it. Now, 1 only repeat what I started with, that the hon. gentleman who began this criticism against this Bill has been completely and fully answered by hon. gentlemen who followed him on the other side,

and by the right honourable the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). In tlie first place, the plea that the other provinces are unfairly dealt with by giving this territory to Manitoba was completely answered by the speech of the present leader of the opposition on the 13th of July, 1908. The statement that too 'much money is being paid to Manitoba is answered by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who showed that the government of which he was a member, had offered Manitoba $885,000 more than is provided under this Bill.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton).: It is somewhat late, and if it is satisfactory to the leader of the House, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS: It is early yet.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If I were allowed to speak on another occasion my audience would bb fresher than at the present time. But if it is the desire of the leader of the House that 1 should speak on this occasion, I will do so.
It might have been thought that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meig-hen) having been put up to reply to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), he would be able to dispose of the argument of the hon. member for St. John in a way satisfactory to the government. But it is evident that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) regards the hon. member from St. John as not having been answered. He found the arguments of that hon. gentleman were too keen and cogent, too much to the point, and also that they were not answered by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, and he undertook to answer them himself. I must say, that if I am capable of following the line of argument presented by the Minister of Labour, it will be necessary to put up somebody else on that other side. If the hon. member for St. John was not answered by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie I can assure you if I am a judge at all, he stands still unanswered, and it is just as necessary now, as it was before to make a proper, a substantial and conclusive reply, if such a thing be possible, to the argument put forward by the hon. member for St. John. The point made by the hon. member for St. John was that somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,000,000 was being paid to the province of Manitoba without the slightest justification either under the constitution or any form of law that we know of in this Dominion. And that point is still unanswered. As I have suggested, it will be necessary for the Minister of Finance himself, who is answerable to the people of this country for what shall become of the public revenue, to either give a satisfactory answer to the hon. gentleman
from St. John or strike this provision out of the Bill. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) said that some hon. members on this side were finding fault with the terms because they were too good and some because they were too bad. I submit that it does not make any difference whether the terms are good or bad when we are dealing with the provisions of the statutes under which we live.. If we make a bargain which must be governed by the constitution and have no right to break away from it and to make bargains and agreements that have no foundation in the conditions and terms of that constitution, I submit that a bargain in reference to the responsibilities of the citizens of this Dominion must not be governed by the generosity or wishes of any government which for the time being happens to be in power.
I submit that the rights of our provinces and of each citizen must be founded upon a better and more stable basis than that. We came into the family of confederation upon a well-defined basis and subject to conditions which were regarded as fair to all, and we have the right to suppose that whether we are in the maritime provinces or in British Columbia, whether the province to which we belong is washed by the surges of the Atlantic, or by the waves of the Pacific, the same laws must apply, and that the conditions under which we entered confederation shall be regarded and respected by the government.
I submit that the moment we depart from that principle, the moment we come, as the Minister of Finance said the other day, to be good-natured, the moment that it is a question of kindliness apart from the consideration of actual facts and conditions and the relations of the provinces to each other and to confederation, that moment we are treading on dangerous ground. The part of the British North America Act which deals with this particular point now under consideration is very simple and very easily understood. It is not necessary to go over the historical events to explain why we are dealing with Manitoba in this way. 1 was going to say that at the time of confederation it was discovered shortly afterwards that there were some grave doubts as to whether this parliament had the right to create provinces at all, or whether we had any right to make a constitutional compact with any territory, and create it into a province. It was found necessary to go back to the mother country for authority and get a new chapter to add to the British North America Act, and remove all question as to our right to create provinces. Under that Act we got the right to create provinces, to give them a constitution, and all the powers. I submit that we have no right to deal with


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman will admit that on several occasions the parliament of Canada has readjusted the terms of confederation in the case of other provinces.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That was done, but I say that the Act of 1895 was in the way of a settlement, as I understand it, with the province of Manitoba, and' the other provinces were putting forward certain claims on the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: The first case was for the benefit of the hon. gentleman's own province in 1869.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It does not make the slightest difference. But it was explained here that that was the mere correcting of a mistake in the arrangement ot the debt at the time. That was the reason why better terms were given to the province of Nova Scotia. But it is no answer to tell me that a certain thing was done if that thing was not constitutional. I suppose as we grow in population and strength, and as we become wiser in experience, we shall grow in knowledge of the constitution under which we live. I find in our constitution a provision which says that we can add to a province from time to time, and when we do add territory to a province we must make such financial arrangements as will compensate that province for the charges that have been brought about. But certainly we have no authority to go back to the foundation and disorganize that. That is the condition which I find here. I find that in the preamble of the Bill the idea I suggest has been to some extent followed, so far as the draftsman could, until he found it necessary to break away from it; that is, he was going to provide' for the necessities of the case where additional territory had been added to a province.
The preamble says:

Whereas, on the thirteenth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and eight, the House of Commons resolved that the limits of the province of Manitoba should be increased by the extension of the boundaries of the province northward to the sixtieth parallel of latitude and north-eastward to the shores of Hudson bay, as in the said resolution is more particularly set out, upon such terms and conditions as may he agreed to by the legislature, Manitoba and the parliament of Canada.
And whereas it is desirable that the financial terms

and accepted in that case or in this, then, of course, all that is necessary is that we pass an Act of this parliament that will override any of the terms of the constitution. Upon that basis and for these reasons I submit that we have no authority at all to change the terms of confederation or the terms upon which Manitoba entered confederation. Manitoba may have entered confederation on terms that were not satisfactory. Manitoba may have entered the confederation on terms that were not as good as they ought to be. Then, of course, there is a constitutional way of remedying the difficulty. That constitutional way, I presume, was followed, particularly in 1907, when at a conference of all the provinces of the Dominion a basis for the payment of subsidies to the provinces was agreed upon which was perfectly satisfactory to the present Premier of Manitoba and to the bon. gentleman who is now Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), and who was then an important member of the Manitoba government. They, at that time, agreed to the conditions that were accepted by this House and as to which an address was presented to His Majesty for legislation readjusting and reconstructing the terms of confederation. In 1907 the terms of confederation were constitutionally readjusted by an Act of the Imperial parliament which can be found in the Acts of 1908 of this parliament, and, that being the case, I think It is rather strange that now we are making another change, setting aside altogether everything that has been done from 1870 down to the present and taking a new standard for confederation. What is the standard that is taken now? The standard up to now was the proper adjustment of all our difficulties, financial and otherwise, under the terms of that Act.
If this Bill is founded on right and justice the inference from it is that we must start afresh and give new terms to ' every other province in the Dominion. I submit that there is no justification for acting in this way. I believe the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was perfectly within constitutional lines when he said that if we were to give better conditions to Manitoba it should only be done after the provinces had all sat down w'th the Dominion and heard the grievances of Manitoba, if grievances she had, and then make provision to remedy them. But, if each province of the Dominion can come to the government at Ottawa and get better conditions according to the pull it has with the government, and that seems to be the only rule now, where is it all going to end? We heard to-night that the fate of Manitoba could very well be left to the Premier of Manitoba, and acording to the Minister Mr. MoKENZIE.
of Labour, Mr. Rob'lin would see to it that his province received fair treatment at the hands of this government. We were also told that Sir James Whitney and the government of Ontario would see to it that Ontario was wrell treated, but that is not the spirit in which to deal with a great question of this kind, and that is not the way in which the people of this country would wish to have it dealt with. The people of Canada want to know whether or not we have a constitution in this country; they want to know whether there is going to be an equitable scale of division between the provinces, so that each province will be dealt with according to the understanding on which it entered confederation, and not because Mr. So-and-so and Mr. Some-body-else is more vigilant than another to look after its rights. I submit that there is no constitutional basis for this law and that it is simply a makeshift to get over a certain contingency in order to bolster up the Manitoba government and try and place the province in a better financial condition than it is in to-day. I wish that some one on the other side of the House, who knows something about the subject, would tell me where we find our authority for passing legislation such as this: where do we find a constitutional basis for reconstructing and making over again the financial terms we have accorded to the province of Manitoba? If it is true that we can do so with respect to Manitoba, what argument is there that we cannot do so in the case of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. If the Premier of New Brunswick, or of any other province, should come here to-morrow with a hard-up story stating that his province was not treated properly at confederation, that his debt allowance and his per capita allowance should be increased, in view of such legislation as this, how can we refuse his demand? I repeat that the reason I spoke on this question is to enter my protest against any manipulation of the standing of the different provinces in confederation without sufficient constitutional authority for it. I say the people of Canada will make a great mistake if they allow this tinkering with the right each province has under the British North America Act. I say that the people of Canada should demand that if changes are necessary with respect to the standing of any province in the confederation, these changes should be brought about in a constitutional wray and not in the extraordinary manner in which this Bill proposes.
On motion of Mr. Bradbury, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. ROGERS moved the adjournment of the House.


William Pugsley: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Robert Rogers: We will continue the same debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 5, 1912.