1914-03-09

REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of the Interior for the year ended March 31, 1913, volume
2.-Hon. W. J. Roche.
Report of the Militia Council for the Dominion of Canada for the year ended March 31, 1913.-Hon. Sam. Hughes.
Report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate and verify the claims of applicants for Fenian raid volunteer bounty in the province of Nova Scotia.-Hon. Sam. Hughes.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. B. NANTEL (Minister of Inland Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 99, to amend the Adulteration Act. He said:	This Bill provides for several
amendments to the law, but there is only one of very material importance. The following new section is introduced:
No person shall manufacture for sale, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, as maple sugar any sugar which is not pure maple sugar, nor as maple syrup any syrup which is not pure maple syrup, and any maple sugar or maple syrup which is not up to the standard prescribed by the sixth schedule to this Act shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this Act.
It is also provided that the word ' maple ' shall not be used, either alone or in combination with any other word or words, on a package containing any article of food which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance):: Before the Orders of the Day
are called, I desire to correct a statement which I made in this House on January 20 last in the debate on the Address. Upon that occasion I directed the attention of the House to an article which had appeared in the Montreal Daily Telegraph, and which had been reproduced in the Daily Chronicle of London under the caption, ' Frenzied Finance in Canada.' I said that the article in question had been written by or under the direction of my predecessor, the ex-Minister of Finance. It has been drawn to my attention that the article to which I referred appeared in the Montreal Daily Telegraph a few days before the Hon. Mr. Fielding assumed its management. I therefore take very much pleasure in correcting the statement I then made, and in saying that in attributing to the exMinister of Finance the article in question, or in stating that it was written under his direction, I was in error as to the facts.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the Government received from the authorities at Washington any representation
regarding the construction of a railroad from Alaska, through the Yukon and British Columbia?
2.	Has the Government considered the project of such a road?
3.	Has the Government endorsed any project of co-operation in building a line to Alaska?
4.	Has the Government any knowledge that the Standard Oil interests and the Milwaukee, Chicago and St. Paul railroad are behind such project?
5.	If not already committed to the project, will the Government ascertain the effect such a road would have in diverting the Canadian trade of the north from Vancouver and other Canadian cities to Seattle?
6.	Will the Government consult Canadian commercial interests on the coast before taking action ?


Mr. ROCHE:: There is no information
in any department of the Government relating to the above.


GASPE-QUEBEC-CAMPBELLTON ATLANTIC SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the Department of Trade and Commerce aware as to whether the steamer Canada will perform the service between Gasp6, Quebec and Campbellton, N.B., during the coming season of navigation?
2.	If this steamer is not t^ perform the service, have arrangements been made to have another steamer perform this service? If so, what is the name of the new steamer?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	The department has received no information leading to the belief that the steamer Canada will not perform the service this year, as the present contract does not expire until the" close of navigation next year.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ESQUIMALT DRY DOCK.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Is it true that an Order in Council has been passed authorizing the purchase of a site for the proposed dry dock at Esquimau, B.C. ?
2.	If so, has the site been purchased, and from whom, what is the purchase price, what is the acreage, and w'hat is the situation of the proposed site?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Department of Public Works is now negotiating with H. F. Bullen, Richard Jackson, W. S. Terry, Joseph Hardisty Estate, Alve von Alvensleben, Mary E. Nicholson, Harry Noble, the municipality of Esquimalt and the Imperial Government for the purchase or acquisition of the site having a frontage of about 2,793 feet on Lang Cove, and the estimated cost will be about $334,595,


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-MINIMUM RATES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the minimum local rate now chargeable by the Intercolonial railway on small packages of goods shipped by said road?
2.	What was the minimum rate charged by said railway on similar packages prior to October, 1911?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Minimum local freight rate on small parcels is 25 cents, except west of Chau-diere Junction, which is 35 cents, the latter charge having been in effect on the Drummond County railway when it was taken over by the Government.
2.	The same rates as mentioned above were in effect prior to October, 1911.


INTEREST ON PRE-EMPTION PAYMENTS.
Mr. KNOWLES:: Is it the intention of the Government to take steps to cancel the interest cnarge in connection with pre-emption payments?


William James Roche: This matter is now engaging the attention of the Government.


FRENCH RIVER WHARF.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What quantity of the different kinds of material were used in the repairs made to French river wharf in Prince Edward Island?
2.	'"What is the name or names of the party or parties who supplied said material, and the price of the different kinds?
What are the names of the men who were employed in doing the work, the time they were employed, and the amount paid to each?
4.	What is the name or names of the inspector or inspectors, the time they were employed, and the amount paid to each?
5.	What was the quantity of material left over, if any, to whom was it sold, or to whom given away?


Mr. ROGERS:: Answer filed with Clerk
of the House.


EMPLOYMENT OF L. E. TREMPE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. CARDIN:
1.	Has Mr. L. J. Trempe, of Sorel, been given a position in the Government yards at St. Joseph de Sorel, or in connection with same or has he been entrusted with a job relating to these yards, to the hiring of workingmen, the purchase of material or performing the work?
2.	What is the position, if any, and what duties devolve upon its holder?
3.	What salary does or will Mr. Trempe receive for his services?
4.	Was the appointment made after a recommendation from Mr. C. A. D. Morgan, of Sorel ?
5.	Has Mr. Morgan been consulted about that recommendation?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	There is a Mr. L. E. Trempe employed at the shipyard, Sorel.
2.	Assistant stock bookkeeper. Duties consist of entering into books all invoices duly accepted by the accountant, as to the dates and quantities of every article in detail; enter all requisitions of material needed for construction and general repairs, shipyard and fleet; see if all the goods specially received for construction have been charged at the right place; keep the stock books balanced so as to show the quantity on hand every day, etc.
3.	$750 per annum.
4.	No.
5.	The department has no information.


QUEBEC AND MONTREAL HARBOUR
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Is the Government considering the advisability of transferring the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec and Montreal, or either, from the Marine Department to the Public Works Department?
2.	Has any member of the Quebec Harbour Commission sent in his resignation?
3.	If so, why has it not been accepted?
'Mr. HAZEN:
1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


QUEBEC LAND PURCHASES.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Did the Government authorize the purchase of Indian Cove and stone quarries at Quebec?


Mr. HAZEN:: The Harbour Commissioners for Quebec, pursuant to the powers vested in them, purchased the properties referred to; the same being required for the purposes of the harbour improvements now going on.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
William Erskine Knowles: Were any persons employed in connection with the purchasing of the right of way for the Hudson Bay railway? If so, who were so employed?


Mr. REID:: The matter of purchasing
land for the right of way for the Hudson Bay lailway has been dealt with by the officers of the Department of Railways and Canals only.


HARBOURVILLE LIGHT.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Who is the keeper of the light at Harbourville, Kings County, N.S.?
2.	When was he appointed, by whom recommended and what salary does he receive?

3.	Were there any other applications for the position? If so, what are their names?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	William Spicer, wharfinger.
2.	Appointed wharfinger by Order in Council May 21, 1913. Mr. A. deWitt Foster, M.P. $3 per month while the light is in operation.
3.	No.


ALDERSHOT CAMP SUPPLIES.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What are the names of persons tendering for the supply of forage and rations for the Aldershot camp drill for 1914, and the price or amount tendered for each item thereof?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	No tenders have
been received yet.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Who was the contractor for the supplying of ice for the Aldershot camp, N.S., for the season 1913, and what was the price received therefor?
2.	Where was the ice obtained by the contractor for the season of 1913?
3.	If the said ice was obtained from Sutherland lake, was the same within the knowledge of the Department of Militia and Defence?
4.	Was the contractor for ice for the preceding year prohibited from obtaining the same from Sutherland lake? If so, why?
5.	What are the names of all persons tendering for the supplying of ice for the season of 1913, and the price or amount therefor, in each case?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Kenneth Sharpe, $325.
2.	Thurlow's Pond.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No.
5.	No tenders were obtained. The contract was renewed with Mr. Sharpe, who had been the contractor for the season of 1912, at the same price. For the season of 1912, tenders were obtained from Kenneth Sharpe and W. F. Redden, Mr. Sharpe's tender being the lower.


SOURIS RIFLE RANGE.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Has the Government purchased a rifle range at or near Souris, Prince Edward Island? If so, is the Government aware that said rifle range will, as alleged, close a public road, and thereby inconvenience and injure a large number of people?
2.	Will the Government compensate the people so inconvenienced and injured?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	The Government has purchased a rifle range near Souris, P.E.I., and no public road is closed thereby.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


FARNHAM CAMP.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	How many acres of land were purchased in Farnham, Quebec, for a military camp ground prior to September 21, 1911?
2.	What was the average price per acre?
3.	How many acres have been purchased since September 21, 1911, for the same purpose, and what was the average price per acre?
4.	What was the date of the last purchase?


Mr. HUGHES:: A motion for a Teturn
having been made, this information will be contained in the papers brought down.


D'ISRAELI WHARF.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has the Government purchased any real estate at D'lsraeli, county of Wolfe, for the purpose of erecting a public building?
2.	If so, where is the property situated?
3.	From whom was it purchased and for what price?
4.	Who recommended the said purchase?


Robert Rogers: No.


PUBLIC WORKS STAFF, MONTREAL.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the staff of the public works at Montreal, who are supposed to receive their orders from Mr. Dubuc?
2.	What is the name of the lady stenographer employed in Mr. Dubuc's department?
3 (a). Are Mr. Leger, Mr. Landry and Mrs. Arcaud on the public works staff at Montreal? (b) If so, who do they take their orders from?
4.	Do the persons named belong to the Public Works Department or to the Dredging Department?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	There is only one office maintained in Montreal by the Engineering Branch of the Public Works Department. This office is in charge of Mr. J. L. Michaud, district engineer, but in view of the importance of the district, it was thought advisable to give Mr. A. E. Dubuc, senior assistant engineer, the direct control of the dredging in Mr. Michaud's district. No separate staff, however, was appointed foT this purpose.
2.	No such 'employee. The two ladies in the Montreal office do all the stenographic work both in connection with the construction and the dredging.
3 and 4. (a) Yes. (b) Mr. Michaud.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Has Mr. Joseph McGillis, of the Department of Customs, Ottawa, been suspended from duty?
2.	If so, what are the reasons for his suspension, and is it proposed to re-instate him?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Insubordination. Reinstatement is not under consideration.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1. On what grounds was J. E. Bigelow, collector of customs at Canning, N.S., dismissed from office, and at whose request?
2 Whs anv investigation had in connection with the same?
3.	Who is Mr. Bigelow's successor, and by whom was he recommended?
4.	Were any other persons recommended for the office? If so, who, and by whom?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Mr. J. E. Bigelow was dismissed on charges of political partisanship, preferred by Mr. A. de Witt Foster, M.P.
2.	No.
3.	John W. Miller; recommended by the Minister of Customs.
4.	W. H. Baxter was authorized by the Minister of Customs to act temporarily; but died before being assigned to duty.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Fortier.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, notes, requests, etc., addressed to the Department or the Minister of Public Works, directly or indirectly, in connection with the work necessary for the completion of the wharf at Sainte Croix, county of Lotbini6re, since the 21st of September, 1911, to date.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Alexander McRae, Lighthouse Keeper at Point Prim, Prince Edward Island, and the appointment of his successor.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all correspondence since October, 1911, between the Government of Canada, represented by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, of the one part, and the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of the United States, or any other Government, of the other part, relating to stream trawling in Atlantic waters.
Mr. Graham.-For a copy of the petition, recommendations and other correspondence relating to the change in the location of the post office at Mount St. Patrick in South Renfrew, and the dismissal of the postmaster.
Mr. Burnham.-For a copy of all correspondence, reports, evidence taken, and of all other papers in the possession of the Minister of Railways and Canals, relating to the investigation recently held by Mr. Ferguson, M.L.A., concerning the affairs of the Trent Valley Canal.
Mr. Buchanan.-For a copy of all papers and correspondence in the Department of Customs regarding the entry of a boring mill at Lethbridge, Alberta, shipped in August, 1913, by John Stirk and Company, and billed to the Lethbridge Iron Works.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence, etc., from any person or persons in connection with the purchase of the site for the post office at Canning, N.S.

Mr. Kay.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, and other correspondence, in possession of the Department of Militia and Defence, relating to the purchase of land in Farnham, Quebec, for a military camp ground.
Mr. Boivin.-For a copy of all charges, correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Geo. J. Ryan and Charles Hamlin from the Canadian Customs service at Newport, Vermont, and of the appointment of Chas. A. Boright and Frank S. Baker to the said positions.
Mr. Sevigny.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents relating to the claim of the Bona-venture and Gloucester Interprovincial Company, Limited, in connection with a wharf on Bonaventure river, Bonaventure county.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all papers, documents, Orders in Council, correspondence, etc., in reference to the suspension of Mr. Joseph McGillis of the Department of Customs, Ottawa.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, notes of evidence, charges, if any, and other papers and documents relating to the dismissal of Christian L. Ehler, postmaster at Queensport, N.S., and of all correspondence, petitions and other papers and documents relating to the appointment of his successor, with a detailed statement of the expenses of the said investigation, if any.
Mr. Lemieux.-For a return showing the details as to the nature of the work concerning the damming of the Chateauguay river, the number of men employed, their names, the wages paid in each case and the period of their employment during the calendar year 1913.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a return showing how many professors, lecturers and inspectors the Department of Agriculture has in the province of Prince Edward Island; their names, the salaries they receive, and the travelling expenses of each; the duties of these professors, lecturers and inspectors; how many meetings were held or demonstrations given by each of these professors, lecturers and inspectors during the months of March, April, May, June, July, August, September and October last year; where each meeting was held or demonstration given, and how each was advertised; how many boxes, baskets and barrels of fruit were inspected last season, and the kinds of fruit so inspected; when and where the inspection took place and how many boxes, baskets and barrels were found to be improperly or falsely marked; whether the department received a resolution or petition from the Fruit Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island ; if so, what prayer or request the said resolution or petition contained, and what the department has decided to do in regard to the matter; how many cheese and butter factories were operated in each of the counties of Prince Edward Island in the year 1910 and how many in the year 1913.
Mr A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing how much money was spent upon Kingsport pier, Kings county, N.S., during the year 1913 ; the name of the foreman or commissioner, by whom he was recommended, and the remuneration paid him; how much lumber was purchased and used for said pier, from whom it was purchased, and the particulars of the prices paid therefor; what was done with the lumber or piling taken out of said pier, and if the same was sold, to whom and at what price.

Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing how much money was spent upon Hall's Harbour wharf, Kings county, N.S., in 1913 ; the name of the commissioner or foreman, by whom he was recommended, and his remuneration; how much lumber was used upon said wharf during 1913, from whom the same was purchased, and the price paid for the various forms thereof.
Mr. Tobin.-For a return showing how many acres of public land have been given to railway companies in the Dominion of Canada by the federal Government from 1878 to the present time; how many acres were granted in each year during the above period of time.
Mr. Sevigny.-For a return showing the amounts of money expended by this Government in the county of Portneuf from the 1st of July, 1896, to the 21st September, 1911; the nature of the work done in each parish; what year such work was executed, and what amount was expended in each case.
Mr. W. Chisholm.-For a return showing the names and post office addresses of all parties from the county of Antigonish, N.S., who have applied to the Department of Militia and Defence for a bounty under the Fenian Raid Volunteer Act, indicating the date on which each application was received, the names of the parties to whom such bounty has been paid, date of payments, and also names of those parties to whom the bounty has not been paid, with the reason, if any, for non-payment thereof.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAQUET moved;
For copies of all correspondence, memoranda and other papers concerning the inspection of immigrants entering Canada from the moral, intellectual and physical standpoints.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this motion for copies of all correspondence, memoranda and other papers, concerning the inspection from the moral, intellectual and physical standpoint of immigrants entering Canada, I would like to offer a few remarks. My only object in doing so, is to ensure a more thorough inspection of those people who seek admittance into the Canadian household.
In every province of Canada, we have thousands of acres of land of unexceptional quality. We are in need of farmers and farm labourers to put under crop our unoccupied lands, so as to increase our output and increase our national wealth. The development of our trade, our industries and our agriculture has drawn to our shores, in the [DOT]course of the last fiscal year, 402,432 immigrants. In the interest of our civilization, we are anxious to make a wise selection of those who are to be admitted into the Canadian family circle. The enormous increase in the number of immigrants has a tendency to fill the country with heterogeneous elements difficult to assimilate.
Race assimilation, in this immense and young country of ours, is a social problem
*of the greatest moment. The population of the United States reaches 100,000,000 souls. However, Mr. Hanotaux, in his fine book 'La France vivante,' writes; 'The American people is not as yet an actual entity; it cannot be stated with absolute-truth that an American ideal is outstanding.' It is a common sense notion, which the experience of centuries confirms, that the less homogeneous the population the greater the difficulties in the way of the government. We have to solve the1 appal- . king problem of governing with order and success the various races congregated on the Canadian soil, with aspirations and traditions brought from the United States, Europe or Asia.
If we are anxious to carry out the national ideal and to ensure the unity of the Canadian people, we should study with the greatest care the problem of race assimilation in this Dominion. Oriental immigration has just been in this House a subject of debate. Accordingly I shall forego any references to the yellow or Oriental peril. If we are anxious to safeguard our institutions, if we wish to maintain the bonds which unite the various provinces of Canada, it would be the part of wisdom to close the doors of Canada to immigrants who would, be unable to understand our manners, our traditions and our past. I am chary of those new comers who are not likely to grasp the lofty, far-seeing aims of the fathers of Confederation. They might bring ruin to that splendid monument erected in 1867.
We should welcome agricultural immigrants. The tiller of the soil is aware that in ,a new country gifted with a suitable climate he will be in a position to follow his calling. We should be careful as regards the industrial class. Their turn of mind will incline them to settle in large centres, where they will be confronted with competition of a more or less pronounced type, such as exists in the country they come from. The industrial classes flock towards cities, but there they will not find such scope, such opportunities, as the virgin soil of our unoccupied lands offers to settlers of the agricultural class. The flow of immigration which is constantly growing from year to year fills our cities with thousands and thousands of people, who, on account of their straitened pecuniary circumstances, crowd together in houses where sanitary requirements iare too often neglected. The bulk of those immigrants are constantly shifting from house to house, from one neighbourhood to the other, and from town to town, as well.
[Stage Direction]
They are too often indifferent to sanitary requirements and constantly at variance with them. The provision of the Act for their deportation within two years after their landing, whenever they develop tuberculosis, is of very doubtful efficiency, on account of the unsatisfactory control which under present conditions it is possible to exert over such matters. So I say we should be thankful to the Government for specially assisting the immigration of farmers and farm labourers. The bulk of settlers should be of the agricultural class.
According to the last census, the proportion of Canadian-born was equivalent to 77.9 per cent of the population, and supplied 50.5 per cent of criminals. British subjects bom outside Canada made up 11.6 per cent of the population, and. supplied 15.3 per cent of criminals. People coming from the United States represented 4.2 per cent of the population and 5.8 per cent of convicted criminals. People originating from other countries represented 6.2 per cent of the population, and supplied 12.2 per cent of the criminals. People born outside Canada represented 22.1 per cent of the population, and were responsible for 49-5 per cent of criminals. During the fiscal year 1910-11, 1,004 criminals were Canadian-born, and 861 foreign-bom.
I must emphasize the great influence exerted by heredity in the spread of lunacy. If there exists a well established law it is that of hereditary transmission of disease. Ancestral deficiencies are transmitted from generation to generation; a large proportion of the descendants of a lunatic, a criminal, a man of unbalanced mind, will themselves be deficient in those respects. Mr. L. Brown, a New York representative at the congress, points out the case of the Juke family, five generations of which have given 200 criminals, including . seven murderers and hundreds of men and women unable to honestly earn a living. We too often read accounts of series of tragic occurrences wherein immigrants play the leading .parts. These things are recurring more and more frequently in large cities, and the authorities should take more efficient means towards ridding us of such criminals.
The means resorted to at present are unavailing. I have looked into the form which the immigrant is required to fill and I see it contains no reference whatever to moral qualities. To my mind, we should deport all those whose previous record cannot be shown to be good. There should 'be some sort of agreement between the Dominion Government and foreign governments towards satisfactorily settling the question 
of inspection of immigrants as to their moral standing.
Every immigrant should be called upon to show a penal certificate under the signature of the provincial or municipal authorities. Any immigrant who is anxious for admittance into the Canadian household should have a certificate showing that he has committed no crime implying moral turpitude. Such certificate might he issued by a magistrate, a clergyman or the mayor of the municipality wherein the immigrant resides.
Were such a provision incorporated in our statutes, we should 'have at our disposal a new means of ridding Canada of criminals. Steamship companies should be obliged to furnish a certificate as to the moral standing of every immigrant. The provisions of our statute relative to deportation of undesirables enables us to do away with criminals. But too often no action can be taken until some further crime has been committed.
Deportation is the sending back to the country they have come from, of immigrants disheartened by grief, sorely disappointed just when they were on the point of conquering freedom in this Dominion. To-day the British authorities seem disposed to cooperate with the Dominion authorities towards ensuring >a better choice of immigrants. We should take advantage of these dispositions.
Previous to 1903, undesirable immigrants could easily enough gain admittance into this country. In 1903, under an immigration Act, there was a system of inspection of immigrants in our seaports organized by the Dominion authorities. In 1912, 147,000 immigrants landed at Quebec. We have there an inspection board which does excellent work. I could not praise too highly the knowledge and zeal of Dr. Page, with a view to improving and perfecting the system of inspection for immigrants.
On several occasions, the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division of Montreal strongly urged the inspection of immigrants at their starting point. In that way would the necessity of deporting undesirables be avoided with its consequent inconveniences. The former Minister of the Interior spoke as follows on May 14, 1910:
I agree that an inspection effected on the other side would offer great advantages, hut for the time being it cannot be carried out. This Government has no jurisdiction outside the limits of the Dominion and our inspectors would be without the requisite powers.
We have no jurisdiction over foreign territory, but an agreement might be con-

eluded with the authorities of the various countries.
Ret me quote the following extract from the report of the United States Immigration Commission. It might help towards solving the problem of the inspection of immigrants:
It is highly desirable both for humanitarian and medical reasons that aliens who are not admissible to the United States should be turned hack at foreign ports of embarkation, or, better still, that they should not leave their homes for such ports only to be returned. It has been strongly urged by immigration officials and other students of the question that the embarkation at foreign ports of persons not admissible to the United States because of their physical condition would be more effectually prevented by a medical inspection by American officers at such ports. This plan was so strongly urged that this Government a few years ago made official inquiry respecting the probable attitude of European Governments toward it. At that time one or two governments expressed a willingness to permit such an inspection by American officials; others made indefinite replies to the inquiry, while others were positively opposed.
As >a matter of fact, United States officials *have been carrying on the medical inspection of immigrants in the ports of Italy for the last ten years and their recommendations have in every case been accepted by the steamship companies.
Steamship companies should strictly be held responsible for the proper inspection of immigrants. Managers of such companies should be made to understand in unmistakable terms that they must not take over to Canada undesirable immigrants. To-day companies are obliged to repatriate at their expense immigrants which cannot be admitted. But, to my mind, repatriation 'by the steamship company does not constitute a sufficiently severe penalty. The payment of a heavy fine should also be exacted. In that way will the steamship companies realize that they must have passengers undergo a searching medical examination at the sailing port.
Immigrants bound for the United States must undergo medical examination at the .sailing ports. Those regulations are more or less strictly adhered to according to the country and the steamship company. The latter has an interest in transporting only desirable immigrants. Should it take over to the United States undesirables, it is forced to take them hack at its own expense and even a fine may be exacted by the officials.
The Austro-Ameriean company which transports produce from Greece, was compelled, in connection with the first trips *effected by its ships, to repatriate at its expense 300 immigrants bound for the
United States. In the meantime that company has had recourse to the services of several medical men in the various parts of Greece. Every Greek who wishes to emigrate to the United States is called upon to undergo medical inspection in a Green city. If the outcome is satisfactory, the doctor issues a certificate to the immigrant who proceeds to the sailing point. There he must undergo a final examination. Thanks to the introduction of that system, there is no occasion for repatriating undesirable immigrants. The inspection is performed as a rule by a medical officer in the employ of the steamship company. In some of the ports the United States consul appoints the medical inspector, who is paid by the company.
At Naples, Palermo and Messina, the American and Italian authorities have concluded an agreement. The inspection is effected by the officers of the American hospitals .and health department. Their dealings in the matter have no official character, but their suggestions are always accepted. Those officers are also supposed to look into the sanitary conditions of the steamers carrying the immigrants.
German authorities take great precautions in regard to the immigrants coming from Austria and Russia and who must pass through Germany to reach the seaports. Inspection stations have been established at the frontier. Undesirables are not permitted to reach the seaports.
It is surprising to see what space is occupied in Italian periodicals by questions relating to immigration. Private associations for the protection of immigrants are very numerous. Italy has an immigration code which is a work of no mean importance.
A doctor of the Italian Royal Navy of good reputation accompanies the immigrants on the ship which is to transport thorn. He is expected to .board the ship two days previous to departure, and to remain on hoard until its return. The doctor concerns himself with safeguarding the immigrant as much as possible against sharpers. That officer bears the title of ' Royal Commissioner ' and is of great assistance to immigrants.
I have furnished those particulars to show what measures should be taken towards perfecting our legislation concerning immigrants. With the oo-operation of the British authorities, we might make an experiment .and see what results would be obtained from a system of inspection in a few sailing ports.
The ideal system would consist in an
[Stage Direction]
inspection effected on the ship 'by a medical man appointed and paid by the Canadian Government. That medical officer would have all the time requisite to make a thorough examination. I trust the bon. Minister of the Interior will introduce that system on some of the ships. That system of inspection strikes me as necessary, in cases especially where we have to do with immigrants suffering from diseases of the mind.
Under certain circumstances, the medical officer at the port either of departure or of arrival, will not be able in a few minutes' time to determine the mental condition of an immigrant. The mental inspection of immigrants is a question of much concern to our neighbours. They are getting anxious over the constantly increasing number of those who have to be confined to asylums. In the state of New York, such asylums contain 13,163 lunatics of foreign origin, entailing an expenditure of nearly $4,000,000. I could not insist too much on the great part played by heredity in the spreading of lunacy.
Mental inspection constitutes from the social standpoint one of the gravest aspects of this immigration question. The specialist in mental diseases in our large cities is in a position to make us realize the great necessity of that inspection. Deficients and feeble-minded persons are too frequently admitted in our country. Oftentimes they become criminals, patrons of our jails and hospitals. Should they remain at large, then their descendants will bear the imprint of degeneracy, and may become a burden to the State.
I call on the Minister of the Interior to appoint a specialist in mental diseases as inspector of immigrants in our seaports. Such an officer would certainly be of great service to society.
In 1910, I entered my protest against section 4 of the Act, which enables the minister to issue a permit in writing under which a person may enter Canada without subjecting to the requirements of the law. Such a permit should not, from the social and economic viewpoint, be granted in other than the exceptional cases provided in the Act.
It too often happens that transportation companies consider the immigration question solely as a means of securing some revenue. The assimilation of the various races whose immigrants are flowing into Canada is a problem of the greatest moment. Formerly the strong, robust inhabitants of Northern and Western Europe emigrated in large numbers to the United States. In

latter years, these conditions have undergone a change. The inhabitants of Southern and Eastern Europe are invading the United States.
In 1912, the United States received 40,408 English, 14,578 Scotch, 157,134 Italians, 162,239 Russian and 178,875 Austro-Hungarian immigrants.
In the course of the last fiscal year, Canada received 150,542 British, 21,875 Austro-Hungarians, 16,601 Italians and 18,623 immigrants from the United States.
I prefer our immigration to that which goes to the United States. Our immigrants come largely from Northern Europe, the British Isles and the United States and have a better insight into the working of British institutions than have the immigrants from Southern Europe. On our shoulders rests the burden of establishing European civilization within our immense territory. To attain that object we put severe strictures on the introduction of undesirables.
On January 23, 1914, the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas) said: I notice that in spite of the strong current of American immigration directed towards Canada within the last five years, Canada has gained 20,000 only. I wish to have those figures recorded in ' Hansard '.
From Canada From
.	to United States
United States, to Canada.
1907-	OS	
58,826	58.3121908-	09	
S4.564	59,8321909-	10	
94,496	103,7981910-	11	
105,512	121,4511911-	12	
107,943	133,7101912-	13	
143,578	139,009594,919	616,112
Net gain for Canada in six years, 21,193.
It will be noticed that there is a yearly increase in the numbers of those coming to Canada, as well as in the numbers of those going to the United States. I made a special study of those statistics which are rather a matter of surprise to me. According to my figuring, during the fiscal year 1010-11, 44,439 Canadian crossed over the border to settle permanently in the United States. During the fiscal year 1911-12, that figure went up to 42,649.
Those so different calculations show the importance of improving our statistics.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question for the mere sake of information? Could he find out how many of those 42,000 immigrants who went through to the United States during the year mentioned, had left our country in order to settle finally in the United States,

and how many of them intended to come hack to Canada?


Mr. PAQUET:: I stated that on the 20th of last January the hon. member for Strath-cona (Mr. Douglas) said that Canada had increased her population but by 20,000 in the space of six years, because 549,919 people had gone from Canada to the United States, while 616,212 had come from the United States to Canada. I made researches and I found that during the fiscal year just alluded to, 44,439 Canadians who had been residing here for quite a few years had gone to the United States in order to settle there permanently. During the same period 25,000 Canadians have returned from the United States in order to settle here definitely.
I shall now conclude my remarks. I have had another resolution put on the Orders of the Day to the effect that a commission should be appointed with the object of studying the question of European immigration, including the question of repatriation and that of French, British and Belgian immigration. I intend to deal with this matter again, if I only oan, at another phase of the session. Moreover, some inquisitive minds, with conscientiousness and patience, may continue this task in a debate which must rank above political party considerations.
Trying to improve our legislation with respect to immigration; trying to preserve our national character, is to show that we hold Canada, our country, in pious and faithful veneration.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paquet) who has moved the resolution, himself being a medical man, has quite properly discussed the question largely from the standpoint of good citizenship, and has emphasized the need of a proper medical examination of all immigrants coming to make their homes in Canada. It is a question of very great importance from the standpoint of the individual as well as from that of the state. While I was not able to follow the hon. gentleman in his speech, as it was in a language with which I am not familiar, still I understand that he has particularly emphasized the need of a more stringent carrying out of our present regulations regarding the admittance of immigrants into Canada.
Our immigration law at the present time is fairly rigid; but, as with all other laws, exceptions are made at times in connection with its enforcement: that is, in the enforcement of this or any other Act there may be
times and occasions when the strict regulations are not lived up to, and as a result undoubtedly some undesirable immigrants, notwithstanding all the precautions that may be taken, gain access to our country. Our immigration laws at the present time provide for the exclusion of all immigrants who are physically, mentally or morally unsuited for our country. Those who are encouraged to come to Canada, being able to pass the medical examination and the other requirements of our law, are of the agricultural classes and domestic servants. For these classes bonuses are paid, and the energies of our officers are largely directed to getting a sufficient number of these desirable classes. By reason of the fact that this is an agricultural country, we are very anxious to get in as many as possible to occupy the land, and that is the reason for the special propaganda in that direction.
The examination that immigrants have to undergo has been much more rigid during the last few years than it was some years ago. Not only have we more stringent laws regarding their admittance into Canada, but we have a more strict enforcement of those laws than our neighbours south of the international boundary line. On my way to the old country last year, I had the privilege of stopping off for a day at New York, and I visited Ellis Island. I had the opportunity of seeing the medical men there passing upon the immigrants seeking access to America, and it was a very interesting proceeding. I also had the opportunity of discussing the question w'th the Commissioner of Immigration of the United States, a gentleman of independent means, who is devoting his time and attention to the work by reason of his love for it. He admitted that we were getting a considerably better class of immigrants into Canada than they were into the United States. This was something that I was rather pleased to hear, although as a Canadian I was quite satisfied in my own mind that it was the case, but it comes with more force when emphasized by a commissioner of immigration of a neighbouring country. With regard to the southern European immigrants he declared that there was no comparison; that those they were getting were not at all the equal of those we were getting in Canada..
We have inspection in the motherland first by the British Board of Trade officers. This examination, I may say, is rather imperfect; still it is an examination. Then there is an examination by the steamship company's medical officer before the immigrants come

on board; and an examination is made by the steamship medical officer on the ship on the way across the ocean, when he has an opportunity of coming into closer contact with the immigrants. In addition to that, we have the examination by our own medical officers before the immigrants land in Canada. The examination made by the steamship company's medical officer in the old country is of very great importance, and the steamship companies in their own interest are honestly endeavouring to admit on their steamships coming to Canada no one who cannot pass the requisite medical examination, because the law imposes the penalty upon the steamship companies of having such immigrants deported at the expense of the steamship companies if they have not exercised due precaution. It is true that the examination which takes place when the immigrants are going on board ship,is of a somewhat cursory character; but during the week they are on board the vessel the medical officer has an opportunity of coming closer in touch with them and of seeing any outbreak of disease that may occur.
Within the last three week's I had an opportunity of discussing the question with the representatives of the steamship companies, and I brought to their attention that they had been accused in the past of not having a sufficiently critical medical examination of the immigrants coming into Canada; that as a result during the past year we have had more deportations than in any previous year. They might have answered by stating that we had a very much larger number of immigrants coming to Canada this year than in any previous year. At the same time it is another evidence that our Canadian medical officers are doing their duty , more completely than they did some years ago. Still, the fact that the steamship companies had not detected these cases seemed to be a reflection upon them. One complaint which was made to me, and which I think was touched upon by my hon. friend who preceded me (Mr. Paquet), was that the medical men on board the steamships were not paid sufficient salaries to keep them in their positions permanently; that young physicians, just after graduating from college, secured positions with those companies for the sake of the experience and that they were paid such pittances that they did not remain there for any length of time. The steamship companies said that that accusation might justly have been charged against them some years ago, (but that they did not

think it could truthfully be laid at their door at the present time, inasmuch as they had raised the salaries of, and were keeping these medical officers permanently in their positions. While there is undoubtedly room for improvement, and while improvements are being made from time to time still I am glad to say that the examination is of a much more successful and critical character than it was before.
Suggestions are constantly being made in regard to immigration, and we are willing and ever ready to adopt suggestions which we think are practical and in the interest of our country, because I am sure that we are all desirous of seeing not only quantity but quality in the immigrants that come to Canada, in order that we may build up a strong Canadian nationality.
The hon. member has also discussed the question of the Canadian Government paying a doctor to take his position on those steamships in order to have a sufficiently competent examination. I discussed that question also with the steamship companies. I told them that that suggestion had been made to me before but that I did not think it was necessary for the Government of Canada to come to the succour of these wealthy steamship companies in order to give sufficient compensation to their medical officers. They agreed with me in that respect, seeing that the law states that steamship companies must provide competent medical men on their steamships. Now they are doing so without the Government of Canada being asked to come to their relief.
The Immigration Act is very rigid in regard to immigrants who come to our country. I might take the time to place upon ' Hansard ' sections 27, 28 and 29, which read as follows:
27.	Before any passengers are permitted to leave a vessel in Canada the immigration officer in charge, or any officer directed by him, may go on hoard and inspect such vessel and examine and take extracts from the manifest of passengers, and from the bill of health.
The master shall permit any examination of passengers required under this Act to be made on board his vessel whenever so directed by the immigration officer in charge.
28.	Medical officers appointed under this Act shall make a physical and mental examination of all immigrants and passengers seeking to land in Canada from any ship or vessel, except in the case of Canadian citizens and persons who have Canadian domicile. Such examination shall be made in accordance with and subject to regulations prescribed by the superintendent of immigration under the direction or with the approval of the minister.
29.	The immigration officer in charge, after satisfying himself that the requirements of

this Act, and of any Order Council, proclamation or regulation made thereunder, have been carried out, shall grant written permission to the master of the vessel to allow the passengers to leave the vessel.
These are the particular provisions in regard to the medical examination of immigrants just before they land in Canada. The steamship companies themselves are under obligations to deport at their own expense all undesirable immigrants that are brought to Canada by reason of negligence on their part.
It is therefore necessary to enforce the law as strictly as possible, otherwise they would be subject to sub-clauses 8 and 9 of section 23, which read:
8.	Any transportation company or person knowingly and wilfully landing, or assisting to land or attempting to land in Canada, any prohibited immigrant or person whose entry into Canada has been forbidden under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction, to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars for each prohibited immigrant or other person so landed in Canada, or whose landing in Canada was so attempted.
9.	Any transportation company or person interfering with or resisting an immigration officer in the performance of his duty under this Act, or knowingly and wilfully assisting in the escape of any person detained by an officer, or at an immigrant station for any purpose under this Act, or giving false information to an officer, whereby such officer is induced to land or permit the landing of any person in Canada who otherwise would be refused landing, for any cause under this Act or would be detained for examination, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and not less than twenty dollars for each such offence.
I; has been suggested, time after time, that we should have an examination at the port of departure of the immigrants, to the exclusion of the examination in Canada. Australia has adopted that principle quite recently, and how it will work out we do not know, but we are watching the experiment with a great deal of interest. While that system may be applicable to Australia, it possibly might not be applicable to Canada, for Australia is several weeks sail from England, while Canada is only seven or eight days, and it would be severe on the steamship companies if it were provided that they should at their own expense carry back undesirable immigrants from Australia. We have, at present, a certain medical examination conducted by the British Board of Trade on the other side; we have an examination conducted by the steamship companies by their own officers, and we nave the medical
men on the steamships. If all these precautions are properly enforced they would, in my opinion, constitute a pretty reliable safeguard against undesirable immigrants coming to this country.
It is much more difficult, of course, to get to know the moral character of immigrants than it is to determine on their physical and mental state. Our officials in the old country, if they become aware that any person is coming to Canada whose character is not good, or wbo has been convicted of crime, are required to notify our agents in Canada with the greatest expediency, so that such persons may be deported. Should any such escape the vigilant eyes of our officers, we have a provision that undesirable immigrants may be deported within three years after coming to Canada, and if during these three years we find an immigrant is physically, mentally, or morally unfit to make a good and healthy citizen, we can have that immigrant depoTted. The requirement that during the winter season an immigrant shall have $50, and during the summer months $25, before being allowed to land, is a guarantee against our getting an over-supply of people who might become a public charge. We aTe not encouraging general artisans to come to Canada, unless they have assured employment before leaving home.
I can assure my hon. friend that repatriation has not been lost sight of by the immigration authorities. We have our colonization agents, our repatriation agents, and our boundary inspectors. We have agents visiting the New England States, to which so many of our French people have migrated, to engage in work in the mills there. Many of them go temporarily for a few months in the year, coming back to Canada and living here for the greater part of the twelve months, while some of them have become permanent residents in the States. To encourage these people to come back, not only to the province of Quebec but to induce as many as possible to occupy our lands in the Canadian Northwest, we have officers engaged, who I think are doing most valuable work. I was glad to hear my hon. friend approve of the repatriation work conducted by these officers.
The hon. gentleman has suggested that we should have some expert in mental diseases, and as to that I may point out that we are encouraging our officers at the principle ports to visit the United States centres, to gain as much experience as possible, not only as to the ment'd examina-

tion of immigrants, but also as to their physical examination. Dr. Page, our Quebec agent, is a gentleman of high professional attainment, and he has recently returned from a trip to the United States, during -which he looked into the system of examination with regard to the mentally unsound. That is a practice which should be followed in connection with our principal physicians in the various ports, in order that they may keep themselves in touch *with the most modern method of examination. I am anxious to see the examination work perfected as much as possible, and I am taking as much personal interest in it as the time from my other duties will permit. I have no objection whatever to the resolution being passed, and I am sure the thanks of the House are due to my hon. friend for bringing this important matter to our attention, arid to the attention of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Kouville) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the federal Government ought to encourage the projected international exhibition on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of confederation.
He said: In moving this resolution I feel that I am conveying to the Government and to this House the wishes of many of the most prominent public bodies, and of many of the leading citizens of Canada. I am actuated personally by no partisan feeling; I intend to speak only as a Canadian who has the welfare of his country at heart. I am, I believe, voicing a sentiment, which has been gaining strength of late, irrespective of province, of party, of creed, -or of race. Three years hence, on the first of July, 1917, we will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Canadian Confederation. It is a day well worthy of being remembered, not only in North America, and not only in the British Empire, of which we are a component part, but in all the world.
Our constitution may not be perfect, nor do I believe there is any instrument of government in this wide world that is perfect. No human law is perfect, but every one must admit that the constitution of Canada, the system of government under which we live, compares very favourably with that of other nations. Indeed, during the last few years, we have seen the great [DOT] commonwealth of Australia, our sister

dominion, and also the new-born union of South Africa, taking their inspiration, and drawing the vital principles of their government from the constitution given us by the Fathers of our Confederation. In Great Britain itself, where political economists are to-day discussing a system of devolution which would harmonize the various parts of the United Kingdom, they point to Canada as an example of a country carried on under the best system of federative government. The year 1867 is, therefore, all-inspiring to Canadian students of history. It is an outstanding date; it is a landmark in the field of Canadian history. Confederation-and let me say here, I do not intend to deliver a First of July oration-was the culmination of several unsuccessful attempts to establish a firm government in Canada. We all know, and you, Mr. Speaker, and others of the older generation in this House know better than most men, that the vastness of our country, the varied races composing our population, the conflicts of interests along our frontier of four thousand miles extending from one coast to another, made the problem of Confederation in 1867 a most complex and difficult one. Yet, if we look back, we cannot help but see that the process of nation building in Canada has been a gradual one, that the extension of the principle of responsible government has gone on step by step and that its several stages have come in due time in our history. It may be that as we read the annals of our constitutional government we shall find some gaps from time to time; but every British subject knows full well that it is the custom of Great Britain to gradually educate the subjects of the Crown in self-government.
The successive constitutions given to Canada answered very fully the needs of the day; since the cessation of the French domination, when the subjects of His Majesty the King of France were governed by a bureaucratic oligarchy, each period under British domination in Canada has marked an advance and always with this guiding principle-that our constitution should as far as possible be similar to that of the mother country. Taking a brief survey of our constitutional history, I find that from the very beginning it has been the policy of the statesmen in England to assimilate our political institutions to those of the mother country.
Let me give you a few dates and a few facts. With 1759 we reach the end of the French regime in Canada. In 1763, on

the 10th of February, the formal cession of Canada to Great Britain took place by the Treaty of Paris. On the 7th of October of that year, we have the first embryonic constitution of the country. It is contained in the famous proclamation oi General Murray. By that proclamation four governments were established within the British possessions in North America: One in Quebec, one in Bast Florida, one in West Florida and one in Grenada. This _ proclamation initiated what is known to historians as the Military Regime. There was then no popular assembly given to the King's new subjects, and quite a chaotic period ensued. The laws of Great Britain were substituted for the laws which had been in force during the French regime. The new subjects of His Majesty, who were then the vast majority in Canada, petitioned the King for a new constitution. It was then that Lord North introduced in the British Parliament what is known as the Quebec Act of 1774. The Quebec Act is considered by my fellow-countrymen, and ought to be considered by every true Canadian, as the Magna Charta of this country. By it the Canadians of the day -and they were mostly of French origin- were guaranteed the free exercise of their religion, the clergy their accustomed dues; property and civil rights were again brought under the old French laws and customs which had existed in the country; the criminal law of Great Britain, the most humane and generous of that time, was* introduced in the colony. The Act also provides for the establishment of a council composed of members selected by the Crown, to legislate for the colony. Shortly afterwards the revolt of the Thirteen Colonies broke out, and our forefathers loyal to the Crown witnessed the arrival in Canada of those sturdy sons of Great Britain known as the United Empire Loyalists. These United Empire loyalists ha>d been accustomed in the Thirteen Colonies to freedom and self-government. They would not tolerate any longer the irresponsible control of the executive council, and they in their turn petitioned for a popular assembly, and the Imperial Parliament, naturally, logically, enacted the famous Act of 1791, known as the Constitutional Act. Briefly, this Act divided Canada into two provinces, Upper Canada and Lower Canada, each with a legislative assembly and with a legislative council elected for life and selected by the Crown.
But the executive council was independent of the assembly, and when there was a deadlock between the executive and the assembly, the only remedy oi the assembly was to Tefuse Supply. This constitution, though imperfect, was a considerable improvement upon the two constitutions which had previously been granted to this country by Great Britain. As Lord Granville says in his memoirs:
The object of this Act was to conform the constitution of Canada with that of Great Britain as nearly as the differences arising- from the manners of the people and from the present circumstances of the provinces will admit.
As I said a moment ago, the tendency' of Great Britain has always been to give to her dominions constitutions similar, so far as possible, to that of the mother country. The constitution of 1791 lasted until 1840. I need not refer to the troubles which, prior to 1840, occurred in different parts of the country. It is admitted today that the men who fought in Upper Canada and in Lower Canada had but one object in view: that of maintaining the best traditions of British Government, and of obtaining for this young country a full measure of responsible government. The mother country sent to Canada one of her most gifted sons, in the person of Lord Durham. At first his mission was stifled through jealousies which existed in the party to which he belonged, but, seen in the light of history, much as we differ from some of his conclusions, the report which he made on that occasion remains as one of the greatest state papers of the nineteenth century. Upon that report the constitution given to Canada in 1840 was based. The main characteristic of this third constitution was that responsible government was at length granted; Her Majesty's Government in Canada was responsible to the people of Canada, and not to the home authorities. Previously, while legislative powers were given to the provinces, responsible government was withheld, and the only recourse the people had when their grievances became acute was to refuse supply. Lord Durham had said that it was not possible to secure harmony in any other way than by administering the Government on those principles which had been found to be perfectly efficacious in Great Britain, and while he would not impair a single prerogative of the Crown, and while he believed that the interests of the people of these provinces required the protection of prerogatives which had not hitherto been exercised, still, the



Crown should submit to the necessary consequences of representative institutions.
Then we reach the fourth period, that of Confederation in 1867. I need not recite to you, Mr. Speaker, or to the House, the struggles which, under the union, brought about the deadlocks so frequently in ine fifties, but they form one of the most interesting pages of our Canadian history. The double majority system, the cry of representation by population, may have precipitated the crisis, but it must be borne [DOT] in mind that from the beginning of British domination in Canada the idea of a union of the various British provinces in North America had been advocated not only in Canada but in Great Britain as well. Indeed, Chief Justice Smith of Quebec, at the end of the eighteenth century, later on Chief Justice Sewell, and Lord Durham himself, had advocated the federal system as the best means of harmonizing all conditions in His Majesty's dominions. In the Quebec resolutions are clearly expressed the leading principles on which the Canadian federation rests-which, in my judgment, deserve to be commemorated on the fiftieth anniversary of that event- federation, with a central government having jurisdiction over matters of common interest to the whole country comprised in the union, and a number of provincial governments having the control and management of certain local matters naturally and conveniently belonging to them, each government being administered in accordance with the well-understood principles of the British system of parliamentary institutions.
Two facts are prominently outstanding m the various circumstances to which I have briefly referred, especially in the last instrument of government given to Canada by the mother country. One is the insistence of the Canadian representatives upon the principle of maintaining intact our British connection with the mother country, and the other is the principle of self-government for Canada. Under our constitution, 'Canadians -are loyal subjects of His Majesty the King of Great Britain; yet Canada is mistress in her own house. As a student of history and political economy, I find that this is the miracle which alone could be accomplished by British statesmanship.
Sir, many were the apprehensions in 1867 as to the ultimate destiny of our young country. Some predicted the absorption of Canada by the United States, our great neighbour. Others foresaw the dislocation
IMr. I .emieux.]
of our various provinces. There were even statesmen in England who shared these pessimistic views. But we have survived all those fears, all those predictions, all those forebodings. The Canadian Confederation is now fast approaching its semi-centennial, with a Canada united, hopeful and above all conscious of her national existence within the great empire. A mere geographical expression fifty years ago, our country is now known, respected, envied, not only in the British Empire but all over the world. Indeed, our trials were many since 1867. We had to quell two rebellions in the West. The lean and long years of fiscal vexations on the part of Washington were deeply felt and resented in- Canada. We also followed with a longing eye the trail, the long trail, of our young men going southward, lured as they were by the glamour of American industrial centres during many years. The conflicts of jurisdiction between the Provinces and the Central Government were at times very serious. We [DOT] had our full share of racial and religious difficulties, and we also, during many years, felt how uncertain would be the settlement of the great lone land of the West. But, Mr. Speaker, better days have come. Canada has emerged, hopeful, vigorous, united, from the crucial test. Need I repeat the words used by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on one occasion-words that are repeated all over the world?: 'If the nineteenth century was the century of the United States, the twentieth will be Canada's century.' Let me quote the remarks made not long ago by the hon. gentleman who leads the House (Mr. Borden). The right hon. gentleman said:
The highest future for this Dominion lies within the British Empire, upon conditions of equal status. .	. Its flag streams in undiminished splendour upon the breezes of the 20th century, and mindful of its power for peace and its influence for civilization and humanity, we do not dare to doubt its greater destiny in the years to come.
Sir, the thoughts expressed so admirably by both the leaders of the House are also the thoughts of the seven and one-half million Canadians who inhabit this country. It is the general belief that the twentieth century will witness the full development of Canada. Is it not, then, fitting and proper that we 5 p.m. should commemorate the event upon which, more than all others, rests our great future as a country? Confederation has not only

supplied us with a stimulus to our political development, but Confederation has achieved for us a great material develop' ment. Canada extends now over half a continent. To quote again the language used by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister:
Do you realize how great a country Canada is? If you could pivot Canada upon its eastern seaboard, it would cover the northern part of the Atlantic ocean, the British Islands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, the northern part of France the entire German Empire, and a considerable part of European Russia, and a man who lives in Halifax is a thousand miles farther away from Victoria than he is from London.
Canada has one-third of the area of the British Empire; her area is one-third of that of Africa, and one-fifth of that of Asia. Canada is larger in area than the United States, including Alaska. Canada is as large as thirty United Kingdoms and eighteen Germanys; twice the size of British India; almost as large as Europe; eighteen times the size of France; thirty-three times the size of Italy. We have carved since Confederation, three provinces out of the prairies of the West; and I believe, with the right hon. leader of the Opposition and my friends from the West, that there is yet another province to be carved out of the Peace River valley district. The population of Canada is increasing at the rate of one thousand per day. The trade of Canada in 1913 reached the high-water mark. It is over one billion. It has doubled in ten years and trebled in fifteen years. We own the greatest farming territory in the world. Our forest, our mines, our fisheries, contain inexhaustible wealth. Our industrial development in the last ten years was the greatest on record. Our railway mileage in 1867 was 2,278 miles, and in 1913 it was 29,304 miles. We will soon have three transcontinental railways spanning the country from one ocean to the other.
The object of the proposed commemoration of the establishment of Confederation is, in my judgment, twofold. It will tell the world of the triumph of our political institutions and also of the signal success of our material development. It would meet the approval of all Canadians, because	nobody to-day questions the
wisdom	of * the Confederation Act.
Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Cartier, George Brown, Oliver Mowat, Alexander Mackenzie, all joined in the great constitutional struggle, and this celebration would therefore meet with the approval of all 92*
their political heirs. It would attract the attention of the world to the potential wealth of Canada. It would bind more closely the East and the West, for notwithstanding Rudyard Kipling, Mr. Speaker, there is an East and there is a West. It would make Canadians realize their vast heritage, and it would Show what a large place we occupy in the British Empire.	I might be astved
at Ibis juncture, ' Why commemorate the semi-centennial?' I answer without any hesitation that in America and Canada we move faster than in any other country. A semi-centennial in Canada is worth a centennial in Europe. The idea itself was launched in Montreal, in the month of October last by an enterprising journalist, the editor of La Presse, one of the largest dailies in Canada; but the idea had been in the public mind for a long time before that and the journalist was only giving expression to the general sentiment. A largely attended meeting of the citizens of Montreal was called in October; and after speeches had been delivered by public men from both parties, and by gentlemen occupying very high positions in. the commercial and the financial activities of Montreal, resolutions were adopted. The press, generally, has favoured the project. I just wish to quote a few lines from a letter written by the originator of the project to Sir Hugh Graham, editor of the Montreal Star:
Montreal, November 26, 1913. Honourable Sir:
As you know, there has been considerable talk about holding an international exhibition in Canada in 1917, 'IS or '19, to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation. VVe ourselves are heartily in favour of the scheme, and from investigations, we have conducted find that public opinion throughout Canada is unanimous in approval of the project. Already over a thousand interviews with some of the most prominent citizens of Montreal and other cities and towns throughout Quebec province, have been published; the mayors of all the principal cities of Canada have been asked their views by telegraph, and in every case they have endorsed the idea and promised their hearty support, while the Prime Ministers of several provinces have also expressed their approval.
To which Sir Hugh Graham, inter alia,
replied:
That the idea of an international exhibition meets the approval of many Canadians and of many friends of Canada, has been well shown by the expressions of approval secured, not only in this country, but in Great Britain. The endorsements of the mayors of most of the cities of the Dominion, which have been sent to you, coupled with the assurances of sympathy which

have been cabled over by our London correspondent since the suggestion was first broached in England, would seem to indicate that the project of an international exhibition in Canada in 1917 or one of the succeeding years, appeal strongly to all those who have the welfare of the Dominion at heart. In the last few weelcs the proposal has been endorsed by Lord Strathcona, Earl Grey, Lord Desborough, Sir Thomas Skinner, Mr. A. G. Smithers, chairman of the Grand Trunk railway; Mr. Bur-bridge, manager of Harrod's stores; Sir Trevor Dawson, of Vickers-Maxim, and some three hundred of the leading manufacturers of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds. Bradford, Halifax, Hull. Bristol, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and Belfast. With such support in Great Britain, it seems to me we would be neglecting our duty if we did not -take advantage of this magnificent opportunity lo show the world what we have done with our resources as well as what they are going to do to bring Canada into the forefront of the nations before the end of this, our special century.
Boards of Trade and other public bodies have been consulted and in every case a favourable answer has been received. I wish to quote a few lines from letters written by the mayors of several cities and towns of Canada. The mayor of Prince Rupert:
I am sure that the city of Prince Rupert, and district tributary, would be glad to do their share towards making the exposition a success.
The mayor of Quebec:
As Mayor of Quebec, the oldest of our cities, the cradle of the nation, I would contemplate with pleasure, together with all the Quebeckers, the success of a Canadian Universal Exhibition, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Confederation of the provinces.
The time seems to be well chosen, at the first period of the twentieth century, who should be Canada's century, if one takes into consideration the very rapid and extensive progress of our country.
The mayor of Welland:
To reply to your favour of the 13th insi., I wish to say that I heartily endorse the idea to celebrate the fiftieth birthday of our Dominion. It seems to me that all Canadians should jump at the opportunity presented at that time to do something really large, to advertise Canada and draw the attention of the whole civilized world to the wonderful progress we have made in the fifty years of Confederation.
The mayor of Campbellton, N.B.:
In reply to your esteemed favour of the 11th inst., regarding the holding of an Inter-Imperial Exposition in Canada during the year 1917 or 1918, I certainly think the project is one which will commend itself to all citizens of this Dominion, as it will prove, if properly handled, of incalculable benefit. I had the pleasure of attending the Toronto exhibition this year and I feel sure that if the proposed exhibition were carried out along the lines pursued by the

managers of the Toronto exhibition, it would prove an unqualified success.
The mayor of Chatham:
Pardon one suggestion, viz: in the event of a decision in favour of holding the exposition, I would propose it be laid before the official board that a publicity officer be appointed in every city and town of importance in Canada, to zealously strive for the success of the project. Possibly the Mayor of each corporation would act in an honorary capacity.
Mayor Hocken, Toronto:
It is needless to say that I heartily agree that the jubilee of Canadian Confederation is an event worthy of being celebrated in some appropriate manner. In 1867 the success of the union of the provinces in a Canadian federation was perhaps uncertain and problematical. After a lapse of nearly half a century the Union is consolidated and the Dominion is, what it was meant to become, a strong, indeed the strongest of the nations of the Empire.
The mayor of Windsor:
1 am in receipt of your letter of the 11th. The project of holding a Universal Exhibition in Canada in the near future, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the birth of our Dominion, is one which must commend itself to every citizen of Canada, and indeed to all the British Empire. The time has long since passed when anyone professing a degree of reading, experience or judgment, can doubt that the dayspring is at hand, and that we are on the eve of a world-wide transformation wherein Canada must perforce play a leading part, but in which her just dues shall be accorded to her only by the exercise of that measure of effort on the part of her people, which is at all times the price of success.
The mayor of Cobalt:
I consider it would be a great mistake if such an occasion should be allowed to pass without a monster exhibit of the forward strides which our Dominion has made in the first fifty years of its existence and of the wonderful advancement of our institutions and our industries.
The mayor of Belleville:
Would not this be a time at which our King could attend	and open this	great	nationalgathering of	the	empire?	It	may	appear a
little ambitious on the part of Canada, but it would illustrate to the world that the empire is a real living power.
The mayor of	Calgary:
On behalf	of	Calgary	in	particular and!
Southern Alberta in general, I can promise you every support that can be given you in your endeavours to make known to the world the fact that the Dominion of Canada has now grown to be one of the most valuable assets of the British empire.
The mayor of Calgary adds:
I suggest that you call the attention of your association to the fact that Calgary is' the most ideal Convention city in Canada, and also one of the most progressive and prosperous

cities in America and well worthy of consideration as a place of meeting for Canada's universal exhibition celebration.
The mayor of Hamilton.
I consider that an exposition of this character would bring Canada before the attention of the nations of the world in a manner that would prove to be a revelation to them of the immensity of our Dominion, its vast resources, and its many great manufacturing and commercial enterprises, which would no doubt result in lasting good to this country.
He adds:
I confess to a little disappointment in not seeing Hamilton ' the Birmingham of Canada ' mentioned in the list of cities contained in the special cable to the correspondent of the Montreal Star. I will, however, be greatly pleased to further the project to the best of my ability.
The mayor of Port Arthur:
This letter was read before council last night, and one and all are in thorough sympathy and accord with the movement, and will do their share to enthuse the citizens here.
I have about 1,000 similar letters, written from all parts of Canada. The letters sent by the various municipal councils and public bodies all favour the idea of the commemoration, by way of an international exposition, of the fiftieth anniversary of the Confederation. But I must be frank; several of the correspondents are inclined to favour their own cities and towns, which is, after all, quite legitimate. I admit that every one has a right to be proud of his own city or town, but the main thing is that all agree as to the chief proposal. My resolution does not favour one city or the other, but were I asked what my sentiment is, I would say that Montreal, the commercial metropolis, is the place for such an exposition. However, the choice will rest with the Government. The last words of Lord Strathcona, justly called the great empire builder, spoken in his London office to a correspondent of La Presse, were in favour of the holding of a universal exposition on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of that Confederation, in which he played such a prominent part.
And why should we hold such an exposition? I contend that it would be highly educational and at the same time it would possess great commercial advantages for this country. I shall read an extract from a lecture delivered by Mr. De Bray, an authority in such matters. He is the principal of L'Ecole des Hautes Etudes Com-merciales of Montreal. On Friday, the 6th of March last, he delivered a lecture, in the course of which he said:
The creation of national exhibitions is greatly facilitated by the universal or international exhibitions, because the large grounds which have to be reserved for a universal exhibition admirably serve, henceforth, the purpose of the national exhibition. And that is why, in London, we have now the Crystal Palace, in Brussels the 'Halls du Cinquantenaire,' and in Paris the Trocadero which are now permanent institutions and in the same time remain as admirable souvenirs of the great exhibitions of the past.
As regards the commercial point of view, the great exhibitions always produce an extraordinary recrudescence of commercial activities, through the enormous influx of foreign capital, which has a tendency to stay, even long after the gates of the exhibition have been closed. And then there is also the great impetus given to the railways, which have to carry the many thousands of sight seers. It is also a well established fact that, during an international exhibition, the operations of the clearing ing house have been far more important than at other times, and the explanation resides in the fact that all branches of trade are then taxed to their utmost, through the presence of so mdny large crowds, whose wants have got to be perforce attended to. We have a proof of that in the fact that during the last exhibition of 1900 in Paris, there were deposited in the savings banks over three hundred millions dollars more than in former years.
But the advantages to be derived from an international exhibition must not be calculated only from a mercenary point of view, and indeed the moral aspect also possesses a very appreciable value. We must not lose sight that the thousands and thousands of foreign Visitors must henceforth serve admirably the purpose of putting our country in a better light in the eyes of the world, if only we can teach them in the right way the lesson which I am sure we are well able to give them. And the natural sequence of all that is that there are closer diplomatic relations between nations which have now learned to appreciate one another. And then, also, what about the great influence on the masses of the people, during exhibition time, through the gorgeous pageants at certain fixed intervals, the great labour celebrations and allegorical representations, the inauguration of monuments, etc.
As regards the educational side of the question, what better lessons could we wish for the pupils of our schools than the knowledge imparted by the sight of the innumerable marvels of a great exhibition. All trades and professions are here specially interested, and more particularly those that are of a technical kind, as the student sees there, so to say at a glance, all the great inventions and all the methods of modern fabrication which are the wonder of the age, and constitute the indispensable complement of technical education.
Sir, all countries, great and small, old and new, have had, and will have in the future, their world's fairs. As Canadians, we have taken part in nearly all the universal expositions which have been held for the last forty years, and with great profit to Canada.
In conclusion, Sir, we must commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation. Our constitution is the best evidence of

British statesmanship; it is based fundamentally on law, order, justice and freedom. Political economists agree that it is because of those strong features in British institutions generally that our empire endures.
The dedication, in 1908, of the plains of Abraham on the occasion of the tercenten-nary of Quebec was the solemn homage of a united people to the valour and heroism of both the victor and the vanquished. The commemoration of the semi-centennial of Confederation will mark our appreciation of tfte happy development of British institutions in North America. It is in that spirit and in that spirit alone that I now hare the honour to move the resolution *which stands in my name. One event, the dedication of the plains of Abraham in 1908, was the expression of our admiration of 'j glorious past; let the other, the commemoration of the serm-centennial of our Confederation, be for every Canadian the expression of our high hopes for the brilliant future that awaits this, our great country.


Eight Hon.   I@: My hon.
friend, in proposing this motion, has presented to the House a very admirable, interesting and comprehensive review of the growth and development of constitutional self-government in His Majesty's Dominions of North America. In the course of his remarks he has commenced from the very beginning; he has taken us back to 1774 and has traced the progress of autonomous self-government from that time up to the 1st day of July, 1867, when the foundations of the present Dominion were laid.
It is beyond question-on this I think there will be no division of opinion in this House or indeed in the country-that when we reach the fiftieth anniversary. of that date, that great anniversary should be worthily commemorated in this country. I have not the slightest doubt that other portions of the empire would be desirous of joining us in celebrating that event, which was an event not full of significance for this Dominion alone, as then constituted or as now constituted, but was an event fraught with great significance for the future growth and development, influence and destiny of the whole empire. Therefore, so far as the observations of my hon. friend commend to the attention of tne House, of the Government and of the people of the country a worthy celebration of the event, there should, it seems to me, be nc division of opinion on that "object.

My hon. friend, however, devoted particular attention to the consideration of a projected international exhibition on that occasion. He has placed before us information of perhaps not a very definite character as to what is proposed, and-he has shown us that the project which he has in mind has support not only in this country but in the British Isles as well and that support has been given by various representative bodies. The subject is one which must engage the attention of Parliament and of the Government in the early future, because, if there is to be a worthy and suitable commemoration of the anniversary alluded to, it is perfectly obvious that the preparation for that celebration cannot be delayed until the last moment. I do not at the moment dissent from the view, although I have given to it very little consideration and have an entirely open mind on the subject, that an international or a great exhibition of some kind might very properly be held on that occasion and as part of the celebration. It seems to me, however, that we have not before us at the present time such information, as to precisely what is proposed or as to the means or methods by which it could be carried out, as would justify the House in giving an expression of opinion on the subject to-day. I am in entire sympathy with the observations of my hon. friend the member for Rouville so far as the object which he desires to obtain is concerned in itself, .but I would suggest to him that, until we have information of a somewhat more precise character as to what is proposed, it would be well for us not to commit ourselves too distinctly to any definite or specific project. If Parliament should be of opinion that a great exhibition, whether international or otherwise, should form a necessary or desirable part of the celebration which my hon. friend has discussed and advocated, it might well be that such an exhibition ought to be taken in hand by the Government itself, with the sanction and approval of Parliament, and that all the various bodies which have commended the project should be invited to lend their aid and assistance for the purpose of making that exhibition a great success. Until, however, we can come more definitely to a conclusion, after the fullest consideration as to what ought to be done in that regard, whether by the Government or by some representative body outside of the Government, it would perhaps be undesirable and unnecessary that we should commit ourselves to the pro-

posal embodied in this resolution. I would be inclined therefore to move the adjournment of the debate in order to afford to the House fuller opportunity of considering what is proposed and of understanding it more clearly, because, while the speech of my hon. friend was very admirable as regards the growth and development of constitutional self-government in this country, only a small part of his speech was devoted to placing before the House the exact proposal which he has in mind. At the moment I shall not move the adjournment of the House, as there may be hon. gentlemen on either side of the House desirous of giving their ideas and suggestions as to what my hon. friend from Rouville has proposed. In so far as he proposes a worthy celebration of the great anniversary alluded to, I am entirely in sympathy with what he has said.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.):: I am sure we have all listened with a great deal of satisfaction to the remarks of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). His speech was very interesting, and it will commend itself to the people of Canada that this occasion should be worthily celebrated by this country. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island is about to celebrate, in August next, the first conference of Confederation. You are aware, Sir, that from the year 1854, the time at which the Confederation of the province was mooted in the Parliament of the province of Nova Scotia, up to 1864, no meeting of the representatives of the provinces was held to bring about the consummation of this idea, though the idea was prevalent not only amongst the poeple of the provinces but amongst the people of the old country as well. A resolution was passed in the legislature of Nova Scotia in 1862, which appears in a book issued by Hon. Edward Whelan, who was the secretary of tihe first conference of Confederation held in the city of Charlottetown. That resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the subject of a union of the North American provinces, or of the Maritime provinces of British America, has been from time to time mooted and discussed in all the colonies ;
And whereas while many advantages may be secured from such a union either of ail these provinces, or of a portion of them, many and serious obstacles are presented which can only be overcome by mutual consultation of the leading men of the colonies, and by free communication with the Imperial Government; therefore Resolved, that His Excellency the
Lieutenant Governor be respectfully requested to put himself in communication with His Grace the Colonial Secretary, and His Excellency the Governor General, and the Lieutenant Governors of the North American provinces, in order to ascertain the policy of her Majesty's Government and the opinions of the other colonies, with a view to an enlightened consideration of a question involving the highest interest, and upon which the public mind in all the provinces ought to be set at rest.
A copy of this resolution was sent to the Duke of Newcastle, who was then Colonial Secretary, and he, on the 6th of July, 1862, sent the resolution to the different colonies. He did not express on behalf of the British Government any opinion as to the advisability of this union, but it was well known at the time from the expressions of opinion in the British Parliament that the people of Great Britain were very anxious that the union of the colonies should take place. In pursuance of this resolution, other resolutions were passed in 1864 in the legislatures of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The resolution passed in the legislature of Prince Edward Island reads as follows:
Resolved, that His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor be authorized to appoint delegates (not to exceed five), to confer with delegates who may be appointed by the Governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for the purpose of discussing the expediency of a Union of the three provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island under one Government and Legislature, the report of the said delegates to be laid before the Legislature of this colony, before any further action shall be taken in regard to the proposed question.
-A similar resolution was passed in the legislatures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and a conference was arranged to take place in the city of Charlottetown, in Prince Edward Island, in the month of September, 1864. So soon as it became mooted that this conference for the consolidation of the three Maritime provinces was to take place, the legislatures and representative men of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada tasked to be permitted to join in the conference. The premiers and members of the governments of the Upper provinces came to Charlottetown and entered into conference with the representatives from the three Maritime provinces. It was found that it was not thought advisable to consolidate the three Maritime provinces, and the consensus of opinion which was held in the conference was that all the British American colonies should be consolidated in one confederation. Nothing definite took place in that

conference at Charlottetown, except the expression of that opinion. It was agreed that another conference should be held and the confederation enacted into law. Speeches were made at that conference by Sir George Etienne Cartier, Sir John A. Macdonald and other eminent men. It was decided that these leaders should tour the Maritime provinces and also the Upper provinces, and that the final conference on Confederation should take place in the city of Quebec. They entered upon this tour, and at each of the different capitals they were royally entertained. They came to the city of Quebec, and on the 10th of October, 1864, the agreement of Confederation was drawn up and consented to by the delegates from all the provinces with the exception of those from the province of Prince Edward Island, who did not see their way to agree to the terms set forth in the report of the conference.
Now, I consider that although the final consummation of this conference took place in 1867, some consideration should be given to the first conference of Confederation which took place in the city of Charlottetown in 1864. The people of Prince Edward Island would be glad to see every member of the House of Commons join the assembly in the city of Charlottetown to commemorate this great event, the greatest and most momentous event in the history of our country. The city of Charlottetown is the cradle of Confederation. All the delegates who afterwards were at Quebec assembled in the city of Charlottetown, and the opinions formed in the Charlottetown conference were the opinions which were afterwards enacted into law and became the British North America Act. Now, while I am not opposed to having the Confederation event, the great event of the consolidation as finally accomplished, celebrated as suggested by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), I think some consideration should be given by the Parliament to the celebration to take place in the city of Charlottetown in the month of August next. I bring this to your consideration because it may not be generally known that the Island Province has taken upon itself to celebrate in a proper manner the great event in our history, and I think it is due to Prince Edward Island that this Parliament should give consideration to the celebration of Confederation in the place of its nativity. I would ask that when this matter comes up, if the Government does bring it up, my suggestion should receive the unanimous support of

the members of this House, as I know' it will receive the approval of every man in Canada who approves the Confederation of these provinces. At the time of Confederation our population was only three millions; to-day we have a population of eight or nine millions, with a prospect in a few years of having a population of over thirty millions. Here is an event, the consolidation of our country, the celebration of which should receive the favourable attention of this Parliament. And, although the final consummation of the Confederation project will receive greater consideration than the event of which I have spoken, still this momentous conference in the city of Charlottetown should receive great consideration at the hands of this House and the country.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: The matter which the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemiuex) has brought to the attention of the House is certainly deserving of careful consideration. It goes witn-out saying that the fiftieth anniversary of the Confederation of the Canadian provinces should be celebrated in some fitting manner, and the hon. member for Eouville deserves the thanks of the House for having brought the matter to our attention. His further suggestion, however, that the celebration should take the form of an international exhibition, is a matter that will require very careful consideration. In the remarks of my hon. friend in this rega-d I did not detect quite as much enthusiasm as I have observed in his remarks upon subjects of lesser importance on previous occasions. I do not suppose we are justified in saying that this was because of a lack of sympathy, but he certainly did not express himself as emphatically upon the idea of an international exhibition as I think he should do if he 'believes that that is the best way of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Canadian Confederation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The main object of my resolution is to commemorate the semi-centennial of the Canadian Confederation. It is suggested that it should be commemorated by an international or universal exposition; of course, I await the judgment of the Government on that point.


William Foster Cockshutt: I quite understand
the position of the hon. gentleman. I would point out, however, that, in respect of cost the matter of an international exposition is one of very serious importance. Having regard to the international exhibitions that have been held on this continent during

the last thirty or forty years, what is the financial experience of the cities in which they have been held and of the communities that have had to pay for them? I think the hon. member for Rouville will agree that if an international exhibition is to be held, it must be a good one, and one worthy of this country. Look at the history of the exhibition that was held at Chicago, in connection with which I believe, millions of dollars were sunk, never to be recovered. The experience .of Buffalo was very similar, and the same may toe said of St. Louis and other cities in which such exhibitions have been held. It is hardly to be expected that the Dominion of Canada could make a paying enterprise out of an international exhibition. In the first place, the Government would have to come down with a good round sum-I hesitate to name the amount without further consideration, but it would have to be a large sum. Further, a contribution from the Dominion Government would not be sufficient to make such an exhibition successful; it would have to be backed up by the people of Canada; the producers of Canada in all lines-in the mines, the farms and the forests-who send exhibits on such occasions would all have to make some personal sacrifice in order to make such an exhibition the success it should be.
It is hardly necessary that I should enter into all the details to which my hon. friend referred with regard to the location of such an exhibition, but that would also be a very important matter, and one that would have a great deal to do with the success of the project. The hon. gentleman read several letters showing that certain cities throughout the Dominion of Canada were ready and willing to accept the responsibility of holding the fair. But it must be borne in mind that any city in which such an exhibition is held must have more hotel accommodation than many of these cities have. It would have to be a large city; I do not know whether the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLean), has one big enough or not; I am a little doubtful whether he has, but, in any case, there are only four or five cities in the Dominion of Canada that could furnish anything like the accommodation that would be required if the public of all nations were invited. It is evident to everyone that the hotel accommodation in such a centre would have to be the very best. In that respect I think the city of Toronto has more to commend it than any other city. It would take a fairly good international exhibition to beat the one that is held in Toronto every year, and surely,
if the Dominion of Canada is to go into the exhibition business, it must do something which will exceed the results which are accomplished by any one city. The exhibition which is held at Toronto is looked upon as one of the very finest annual exhibitions in the whole world. I have travelled a good deal, and I am sure that there is not in the whole world an annual exhibition that equals the one held in the city of Toronto every year. I do not know whether the hon. member for Rouville has considered a celebration of any other nature which would be equally as good, perhaps less expensive and less liable to failure, than the one that he suggests. I quite agree with him that it is absolutely necessary that some kind of celebration should be held, but whether we are prepared to commit ourselves at the first blush to so large a project is a matter for consideration.
I have referred to the financial aspect of the matter, and to the location, which should be central. Another respect in which the province of Ontario has advantages in this regard is that it has the goods to show, so far as Canadian products are concerned. More than half the industrial products and forty per cent of the agricultural products of Canada are produced in that pro vince, so that we have a large supply of goods near at hand if the city of Toronto or some other central point be selected. Then, the transportation facilities would be a very important factor. The city of Toronto has a good harbour in the summer time; the lake travel is very pleasant, the people can be brought from the East and from the West not only by our railways but by handsome steamers that ply- at intervals across the lakes and up and down the river St. Lawrence. Those who visit Canada for the first time would have an opportunity of seeing some of the most magnificent scenery the world can afford. Unfortunately we in Canada who are born almost within the sound of Niagara Falls do not regard them with very much wonder; possibly, like the Irishman, our only wonder is that the waters do not fall up instead of down. In any case, we live so close to them that we do not appreciate their wonderful beauty. Niagara Falls can be reached from Toronto within two hours; you have also lake Ontario, the beautiful river St. Lawrence, the Muskoka lakes, and other points within one hundred or one hundred and fifty miles of the city-points of interest that cannot be rivalled, perhaps, in any other part of Canada.

Then to have the stuff to feed the people with is an important consideration. The high cost of living is increased when you place a large number of people in a city hr town that is incapable, in an ordinary way, of looking after their requirements. The city of Toronto is placed in the heart of a great agricultural district that could supply all the wants of all the poeple who would visit that city on such an occasion, without unduly raising the rates in the hotels. I think the idea which the hon. gentleman has advanced is a good one, but I feel that the exhibition part of it must be considered very carefully. If the Government decides to take up this celebration it must be well supported. Whatever is done must be done well. To attempt a great project of this nature half heartedly, or in such a way as not to make a success of it, is something that we cannot contemplate. We are all optimists in this respect, that whatever we take hold of we believe we are able to do and are prepared to do well. Therefore I approve the suggestion made by the right hon. leader of the House that it would be well if my hon. friend would consent to have the debate adjourned until further consideration can be given to the question; and, if it is in order, I would move now that the debate be adjourned.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I have listened to the debate, and it does not altogether commend itself to me. My view is that if this experiment of Confederation is to be celebrated at the end of its fiftieth year, that celebration should take the practical form of a revision of our Constitution. It is an old constitution now in many respects, and ought to be revised. For instance, our Parliamentary procedure needs revision. For fifteen years we have been passing laws for the Dominion of Canada and we have not yet found a way of enforcing federal laws. That is an important question. We are talking of a celebration; I would like to see the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation, if it has proved a success, celebrated by a revision of the Constitution, in the direction of its improvement and simplification.
At six o'clock the House took.recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Motion (Mr. Cockshutt) agreed to and debate adjourned.
[[DOT]Mr. Cockshutt.]


SOUTHAMPTON KAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. CAKVELL moved:: For a copy of all petitions, letters, telegrams and documents by any and all parties to and by the Department of Railways and Canals, or any other department of the Government, with reference to the Southampton Railway Company, also of all reports of engineers and recommendations regarding a subsidy to the said railway and of all Orders in Council granting same, and of all other documents and memoranda in the possession of the Department of Railways and Canals or other departments of the Government regarding the said railway.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention some important facts in connection with this case, which, in my judgment deserve more than a passing notice and which I think should be brought to the attention of this House, and through this House to the attention of this country. A great wrong has been done by somebody. A large amount of money has been taken from the public treasury which ought not to have been taken. I know not whether it be the fault of the Department of Railways and Canals as a department, or whether it be the fault of one of its officials or whether it be the fault of a combination of officials. I only know that a great wrong has been done, and if I accomplish nothing else than to make the matter plain before the House and the country, I shall feel that I have not spent my time in vain.
I learned of the existence of this condition of affairs through a lawsuit which was carried on in the courts of the province of New Brunswick in the month of January last. The case was tried in the city of Fredericton, the capital of the province, and lasted, 1 think, eleven or twelve days. ' The action was brought by a man named John E. Stewart against the Southampton Railway Company to recover damages resulting from the breach of an agreement. The agreement, dated the 10th of September, 1910, w'as between John E. Stewart, a landowner of the county of Victoria, of the first part, and the Southampton Railway Company, of the second part. The Southampton Railway Company agreed to assign, and did assign so far as they were able to do so, all bonds which thereafter might be guaranteed by the legislature of New Brunswick and all subsidies which they might obtain from the Parliament of Canada, entirely without condition simply to build the railroad according to the provisions that might be required by the legislature of New Brunswick in an Act thereafter to be passed guaranteeing the bonds.	The contract
remained in force for something like two and a half months, when the directors of

the company were called together. By a formal resolution they rescinded the contract and took it away from the contractor in as ample a manner as they possibly could. In the meantime the contractor had commenced operations, had spent some money, let a sub-contract to a man by the name of Claude McDonald-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not the original Claude Macdonell. The original Claude does not go into small things like this. Some differences arose between the company and the contractor. The company claimed that Stewart had obtained his contract by making fraudulent representations as to his financial ability. With that branch of the case I do not intend to deal, unless some hon. gentleman is curious enough to delve into it; that branch plays no part here. The question I want to discuss is whether or not the Dominion of Canada has been unfairly treated-I might almost go so far as to say robbed-by the machinations of this railway company and its friends. When the contract was taken away from Stewart he brought an action against the company for damages, the measure of damages claimed being the difference between the sum received by the company in the way of bonds and subsidies, and the amount for which the road could have been constructed by him according to the plans and specifications and conditions of this contract. While no plans and specifications were mentioned in the contract, specifications had been made by Stewart himself and an engineer in his employ and were in existence at the time the contract was signed. The road, according to his evidence, was to be built, and was built, according to those plans and specifications, the only difference being that the specifications had 'been modified to some extent in two or three places in order to reduce the cost of construction. Stewart contended that he could have made a large profit in building this road for the bonds and subsidies had he been allowed to do so under his original contract. The contract having been taken away from him, the action for damages was brought. The matter was delayed by the defendant just as long as it was possible. The writ was issued in the month of September, 1912. We did not get down to trial until January, 1914, because every device known to counsel was resorted to by counsel for the defence to prevent this matter coming to trial. Finally when all the technical and legal cobwebs were
brushed away, we got squared away in Fredericton in January last.
To show what rights this company had in this Parliament, I just wish to cite from Chapter 48 of the Statutes of Canada, 1912, that is, the Railway Subsidies Act. The Southampton Railway Company was included in that Act for a general subsidy not to exceed thirteen miles. Subsection 23 of section 2 reads:
To the Southampton Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Millville to a point on the St. John river near the Pikiok Bridge, not exceeding 13 miles.
And the general provisions of the Railway Subsidies Act provided that the Governor in Council might pay to any of these companies building a road which did not cost more than $15,000 a mile, the sum of $3,200 a mile as a subsidy; and for every $1,000 expended on the road per mile above the $15,000, $500 could be paid in the way of a subsidy. Figured out, that meant that when the road reached over a cost of $21,400 a mile, the double subsidy of $6,400 was available. I only mention this fact to make the argument plain.
In the 1911 session of the New Brunswick Legislature, as the Minister of Marine will remember, legislation was passed authorizing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to guarantee the bonds of this company to the extent of $10,000 per mile, and, in its 1912 session, this Parliament included the Southampton Railway Company under the general subsidy for a road costing $15,000 per mile. This company then had available the four per cent guaranteed bonds, principal and interest, of the province of New Brunswick, for $10,000 per mile, and they had a single subsidy of $3,200 per mile from this Parliament, making in all $13,200 per mile. Up to that time, it was never dreamed by any person that this road would cost anything more than $15,000 per mile, because all the men in the company put together, with the exception of one who was simply filling in as a member of the family, could not raise enough to buiid one mile of road. It was one of the most complete family compacts you ever heard of. It consisted first of Mr. James K. Pinder, a very prominent member of the Legislature of New Brunswick, a man who always has been, and always will be, I presume, a warm supporter of the Minister of Marine," and I am sure he will be proud to acknowledge him as such; Mr. John A. Stewart, the plaintiff in the suit, who was vice-president; James K. Pinder's son, George Pinder; Dr. McNully, who was James K. Pinder's son-in-law; Mr. Gilman,

an estimable old gentleman, 74 years old, whose daughter was the wife of George Pinder. So you see it was a complete family compact, outside of my client, the plaintiff. Stewart was the first president and managing director. After they quarrelled with him, he was relieved of the position, and Mr. Pinder was made president, but after a time I think he was relieved of the position and his son-in-law. Dr. McNully, was made president. I should have mentioned that there was another, a Mr. Guthrie, a legal gentleman of Fredericton, who is now a member of the New Brunswick Legislature, and who acted as the legal adviser and secretary of the company.
This contract was 'made before they had received the guarantee of bonds or the subsidy from this Parliament, but they had in their possession an Order in Council, passed by the Executive Council of New Brunswick in the month of March or April, 1910, agreeing to guarantee the bonds to the extent of $10,000 per mile under certain conditions, and that the Government would ask the necessary authority at the next session of the legislature to guarantee the bonds. They were attempting to build the road and finance it on this Order in Council. The road was to be between 12 and 13 miles, running from the Millville branch line of the Canadian Pacific railway in the county of York to the River St. John. I admit frankly that when the road was first thought of; when the scheme first originated in the brain of Mr. Pinder, while it was not perhaps a very good proposition, it was a great necessity at that time for the people of that part of New Brunswick.
I would have found no fault if the Minister of Marine had guaranteed the bonds of that road in 1909, because everything seemed clear; it was a feasible proposition and would have been at least a good fair business move. But in the year 1910 things had begun to change. A great agitation had started in New Brunswick to construct a road down the St. John river, popularly known as the St. John Valley railway. There is a distance between Woodstock and Fredericton of about 62 miles along the St. John river, which has been inhabited for over a hundred years, and it may seem remarkable that it has been left absolutely without railway communication. They have this branch of the Canadian Pacific railway about 13 miles away to the east, and they had another branch of the Canadian Pacific railway to the west, a little greater distance away, but there was this beauti-[ Mr. Carvell. ]
ful river valley without any railway communication. The idea at the beginning was that this branch road should tap the river St. John where it was crossed by a splendid highway bridge, pretty nearly in the centre between Woodstock and Fredericton, and in that way, that it would draw traffic both north and south, up and down the river, and that probably, with the local traffic along the line, there would be sufficient traffic to fairly well support the road. An agreement was afterwards made by which this road, when constructed, was to be operated by the Canadian Pacific railway and as a matter of fact the road is now being operated by that company, the Canadian Pacific railway paying to the province 40 per cent of the gross earnings with which to satisfy the interest on the bonds, and the balance, if any, is to go to the company. I am afraid it will be a long time before the company realizes anything over and above the amount necessary to pay the bond issue.
It was sworn at the trial that they were determined to start this road without the bonds, and without the subsidy, and without legislation of any kind, in order that it might be a means of checking the construction of the line down the river. Happily it turned out that their schemes were not well laid, and they were not able to defeat the greater project. I do say here, that in view of the fact that the greater project had to go on, it was poor policy, it was no business policy at all, it was practically squandering the amount of money for which the province of New Brunswick guaranteed these bonds, to guarantee them at all. I know the Minister of Marine may take issue with me on that, but I tried to make it plain that had the larger scheme not gone on, had the Valley laihvay not been built, then I would look upon this railway not only as a good business scheme, but a real necessity to give that portion of the province railway communication. It is only thirteen miles from the railway to the river; there is a branch of the Canadian Pacific railway on one side, and they have the Valley railway, which will be operated by the Intercolonial railway on the other, and no person would have to travel more than six or seven miles, in any portion of that territory, to get to a railway. It is a country not very well settled; it is not in a very high state of agricultural development; it is just the medium ordinary land we have in the Maritime provinces. I should mention that halfway between these two points, this Mr. Pinder, the politician of the whole scheme,

had a little sawmill, whose product might be 500,000 a year, and I doubt il it ever exceeded one million. He therefore would only have six miles to draw his lumber to the railway. The bonds were guaranteed later on, and after that, this Parliament granted the subsidy, which really is the matter I am now discussing.
I feel it incumbent on me to give a somewhat historical description of the railway, in order that the House may fully understand the true situation. The railway company, after they cancelled the contract with Stewart, made a contract with Mr. Binder, in which, as it appeared from the evidence, Mr. Pimder was given exactly the same rights and conditions as Stewart had been given in the former contract. Pinder was given all the bonds 'and all the subsidies, and was to build a road the specifications of which, as I understand it, were left entirely blank. Pander carried on the work which Stewart had commenced, and in the fall of 1911 the company let a contract to the firm of Wm. McDonald and Son, of Fredericton, who built the first section of tlhe road, which is six miles from Millville, on the Canadian Pacific line, to Binder's mill. The next contract was let in March, 1912, and they worked until some time in October, when the work was practically completed.
In looking around to find out what this road had cost, because that was the measure of our damages, I naturally thought that the proper person to look to was the man w(ho had built the road. Therefore I subpoenaed Messrs. McDonald and Son as my principal witnesses. A man by the name of Claude McDonald, with whom Stewart had 'entered into a contract, was continued, and did a certain amount of the work; I therefore subpoenaed him. Having subpoenaed Claude McDonald and William McDonald and Son, I thought that I had the men who had built the road.


John Dowsley Reid: Built six miles of the road.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The whole of it. Claude McDonald had a subcontract on the first six miles. Messrs. Wm. McDonald and Son, on their first contract, completed that six-mile contract, and on their second contract completed the road. I have the evidence of these gentlemen in the report of the stenographer of the court. Under the contract they were to do everything with regard to the road -except ito furnish rails, sleepers, bridges and right of way,
which, of course, were furnished by the company.
By every means in my power, I tried to find out from the company themselves what the road had cost; but this is the position in which I found myself. The company had contracted with Pinder to build the road, and Pinder was the company and the company was Pinder. They had given all the bonds and all the subsidies to Pinder. When I subpoenaed the company to produce their books and papers, they said that they did not have any. When I subpoenaed the company to produce their plans and profiles, they said that they did not have any. When I asked them to tell me what the road and bridges cost, they said that they did not know. When I asked them as to the cost of the rails and the sleepers, they said:	'We did not buy any; we handed
everything over to Mr. Pinder, and Mr. Pinder was the man who did all the buying.' When I put Mr. Pinder on the stand and asked him the question, he said:	'I do
not know; I have not any books and I have not any papers.' Mr. Pinder refused to tell anything. He simply said ' I do not know.' Therefore I was compelled to get the best evidence that I could elsewhere. I am going to give some of the evidence which I obtained, because in order that the Department of Railways and Canals would be warranted in paying this subsidy, this road must have cost $21,400 a mile on an average. If it had cost $15,000 a mile on an average, the department would have been justified in paying a subsidy of $3,200. For every thousand dollars a mile of cost above that, the department would have paid $500. Therefore I called as the first important witness a Mr. W. Henry Maxwell. Before I go into that, I think I had better read to the House a report made to the department by its officer, because it is upon this report, I understand, that the money was paid; it is this report which I am attacking, and.it is the people who are responsible for this report, whoever they may be, that I am trying to ferret out. Therefore, I think that we should have this report on ' Hansard.' My hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) was kind enough to send this to me when I wrote him as he knew that I would subpoena an officer of the department. It answered my purpose just as well as an officer of the department would have done. Therefore I have that part of the return already. The covering letter of this report is as follows:

Department of Railways and Canals.
Office of the Inspecting Engineer.
Ottawa, 4th November, 1913. W. A. Bowden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer,
Department of Railways and Canals.
Sir,
On the 23rd, ultimo, I inspected, on subsidy account the Southampton railway, accompanied by Mr. Pinder, M.L.A., President, and beg to report.
The line starts at a point on the Canadian Pacific railway, near Millville, N.B., and runs in a southerly direction to a point on the St. John river near Pokiok bridge, the length being 12.7 miles.
My report of October 14, 1912 contains a description of the various features of the line.
Since last report the following work has been done.
The banks have been widened and lifted where required and the road bed put in good shape.
Track is laid throughout with 56 lb. rails from the Fredericton branch of the Canadian Pacific railway. The rails are in good serviceable condition, equal in every respect to those in use on the Gibson branch.
Ballasting has been completed throughout to the full depth required by the contract.
The two steel bridges have been erected and all structures are completed.
A water tank of 10,000 gals, capacity has been erected at the south end, with gravity supply, there are also at the south end a neat station building, engine house, and turntable. A similar station building is erected at Pinder mile 7.
Herewith is a statement of the cost of the road amounting to $291,517 or $22,954 per mile.
I have to report the line as completed in accordance with the contract dated 14th May, 1912.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) E. V. Johnson,
Inspecting Engineer.
Subsidy Statement.
The line is subsidized by Act of 1912, Chap. 48 for a distance not exceeding 13 miles. The actual length is 12.7 miles.
12-7 miles at $6,400 per mile = $81,200.
This road will be operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Accompanying that report is the schedule of quantities, rates and prices, as follows:
Southampton Railway, from a point near Millville to the St. John River, 12.7 miles. Total Estimate Cost of Construction.
Description of Work.
Quantities.
Hate.
Amount.
Clearing	
Close cutting	
Grubbing	
Earth excavation	
Earth excavation in water	
Solid rock	
Loose rock and hardpan	
Overhaul	
Cedar timber in culverts	
Logs in cribs	
Timber in bridge floors	
Concrete pipe	
Riprap	
Concrete abutments	
Two steel bridge spans	
Rails and fastenings	
Ties	
Track laying	
Ballast	
Public road crossings	
Farm road crossings	
Fencing	
Gates	
Public road signs	
Telephone line	
Iron in drift bolts	
Iron iri screw bolts	
Cattle guards	
Station and freight houses	
Water station	
Turntable pit	
Sidings, frogs and switches .. ..
Engine house	
Right of way	
Superintendence and engineering
Acs.
C yds.

Lin. ft.. C yds.
Lbs.
Tons.
Miles.
C yds.
Rods.
Miles.
Lbs.
*	cts.	$ cts.	72	80	00	5,760	005	50	00	250	0028	150	00	4,200	00142,000	0	35	49,700	005,500	2	00	11,000	0012,800	1	50	19,200	0024,000	0	70	10,800	0075,000	0	01	750	00150,000	45	00	6,750	0050,000	35	00	1,750	0028,000	50	00	1,400	001,052	2	50	2,630	oo950	2	00	1,900	00020	12	00	7,440	00358,000	0	05	17,900	oo1,340	35	00	46,900	0037,500	0	40	15,000	0013	400	00	5,200	CO39,000	0	50	10,500	000	125	00	750	0040	50	00	2,000	008,320	1	00	8,320	0080	5	00	400	006	12	00	72	0013	250	00	3,260	002,000	0	05	100	00500	0	06	30	0012	20	00	240	005.000	003.500	004.500	00 4,825 002.500	008.000	00
14,000 00
291,517 00-
Ottawa, 4th November, 19.13
< Sgd V E. V. JOHNSON,
Inspecting Engineer.
[Mr. Carvell.1

Now, I have taken some time to put that on ' Hansard,1' but I had to do so in order to discuss this matter intelligently. I make the statement here to-night, and we have the proof in incontestable evidence, evidence that they did not attempt to rebut or refute, that the road did not cost $12,500 a mile. I am satisfied that the figures I am going to give as to its cost are above the actual amount in many respects. I gave the evidence so far as I could get it, but on a few of the items I had to take the estimates of engineers and practical men. On these figures, even with the most liberal allowance, we could not figure the cost of the road at above $12,000 a mile. Yet the engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals certified that the railway cost $22,954 a mile-practically $23,000-a mile. I tried to call the engineer who had charge of the road, but unfortunately the man got very ill the day the subpoena was served upon him and remained very, very ill until I .sent word by nis doctor that if he would come out and give evidence I would not ask him any questions about this report. Then the man got able to come to court. But when he got to court, he did not know anything about what anything cost on tne whole road; he had no books, no papers, no plans, no profiles, no specifications. , He did not even know how much money he had got from the contractor or how much he was going to get. He only knew that he was the engineer on tne work. But I was able to get one very valuable piece of evidence from him. I have here the estimates which he gave the contractors, William McDonald & Son, down to the 1st of October, 1912, and that was practically the end of the McDonalds' work. I have not the original here. I may explain, tnat there was a little legal difficulty between William McDonald & Son and Mr. Pinder. McDonald & Son. were suing Pinder, and the matter wa3 to be tried at the January sitting of the York Circuit, but I understand the case was settled amicably out of court. When I left Fredericton, I was not able to bring the original estimate because it was needed by Messrs. McDonald in the suit they were pressing. But I have a copy here whicn I think hon. gentlemen will accept as correct. It is made by myself, and is a verbatim copy of the estimates made by the engineer. And I did get the engineer to admit that it was his, which he could hardly have avoided admitting because every word and every figure of the original was in his handwriting.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the name of the
engineer?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. David W. Brown.
Now I wish to read this and place it alongside the other in order that-


Mr. McLEOD:: That is Pinder's engineer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is what he
said. There was no company's engineer, because the company had handed over everything it had to Mr. Pinder. Mr. Pinder was, to all intents and purposes, the company. I had great difficulty in getting the document in as evidence. I produced the document from Mr. William McDonald, but objection was taken on the ground that any evidence given by David Brown to Mr. McDonald against Mr. Pinder was not evidence as against the company because Mr. Pinder was not the company. But after I got Mr. Brown into court, I was able to get the evidence in. The work was in two sections, the first from Millville to Mr. Pinder's mill, and second from Mr. Pinder's mill to the river. I will read the wohle document: Southampton Railway.
Estimate of work done to October 1, 1912, by William McDonald & Son, contractors, between Southampton junction and station, 332.
First Contract.
Clearing, acre 1.9, $26	
$	49 40Grubbing, acre 10.35, $75	
776	25
Earth excavating, cubic yard 42,690,
.305	
13,020	45Solid rock, cubic yard 1,398,	$1.25	1,747	50Ballast, cubic yard 14,625, 50	
7,312	50Track laying, miles 6.7, $1.75	
1,172	50Raying pipe, lineal feet 122, 25c.	.	.	30	50Total to October 1, 1912 ..	.. 24,109 10Previously allowed	
22,675 25For September	
1,433 85
(Sgd) David W. Brown.
Chief Engineer.
Southampton Railway.
Estimate of work done to October 1, 1912 by Wm. McDonald & Son, contractors, between stations 322 and 668-50.
Second Contract.
Clearing, acre 4.5, $26	 $ 117 00
Grubbing, acre 6.82, $25	 853	50
Earth, cubic yard 87,279, 33c.. 28,802	07
Solid rock, cubic yard 2,825, $1.40	..	3,955	00Laying pipe, lineal feet 598,25c..	..	149	50Building culverts feet 224, 30c.... 67	20Track, laying miles 0.7, $250	
175	00Ballast, cubic yards 890, 50c	
445	00Force account for September ..	..	70	60Previous month	
240	20


John Dowsley Reid: How much work did the hon.
gentleman say was done in solid rock?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the first contract,
1,398 yards; in the second contract, 2,825 yards, a total oE 4,423 cubic yards.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that all the rock work
that was done?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all the rock
work that was done. I know my hon. friend is surprised that in the building of thirteen miles of road only 4,400 cubic yards of solid rock should be removed. But when my hon. friend remembers that this road simply followed the surface; that they .used seven degree curves when necessary; that only enough levelling was done to make ditches and a grade of one and one-half per cent, he can understand that there was no necessity of removing solid rock; if they came to a rock they simply went around it. That is why the road cost only $12,000 a mile. It surprised me just as it surprised my hon. friend; in fact, after my client came .to me, I hesitated more than a year before I would take his case. I did not believe it was possible to build that kind of road, but I went over the route myself, and was satisfied then that my client was right.
Bearing on this question of cost, we put in evidence two offers to build. One was an offer made by the firm of William McDonald and Sons to build the whole road complete, excepting rails, bridges and right-of-way, for $107,778. The other was an estimate made by Mr. Pinder himself-the figures are in his own writing-to build the road complete, excepting rails, bridges and right of way, for $107,509. Then there was another estimate from George McPhail, one of the most canny railway contractors in the Maritime provinces, who agreed to build the road, leaving out rails, bridges, and right of way, for something like $112,000. So that all these men-all practical men, who knew what they were talking about-said they could build this road for from $105,000 to $107,000, excepting rails, bridges and right of way. As a matter of fact, it turned out that the road was built for much less than that. Under the - evidence of Mr. Brown, the engineer, which I have read, William McDonald and Sons did all the grading on the first six miles, excepting that done by Claude McDonald, They put in all the concrete pipes and cedar culverts, laid the tracks, did the ballasting and everything to make the road complete on he first six miles for the magnificent sum of $24,109.10, or about $4,000 a mile. In addition to that Claude McDonald had done work on that six miles amounting to $6,400, which would add 
about another $1,500 a mile. According to these figures, all the grading, pipes, culverts, track-laying, ballast and everything of that kind for the first six miles would amount to about $5,500 a mile. McDonald and Son did all the grading on the. second six miles, excepting about one hundred feet, a fill just before the line comes to what is called the Naka-wick bridge. They did a portion of the track-laying and a portion of the ballasting; whatever it was, it amounted to $34,874. In other words, the McDonald estimates amounted to $58,983.17. It would take some time to read the evidence, and I will not attempt to do so, but McDonald swore-and my hon, friend will find his evidence on this point at pages 49 and 55 of the return which I have in my hand-that they could have completed this work-the grading, ballasting, and everything that was to be done-for $5,575. As I have said, Claude McDonald had done $6,400 worth; if you add these items together you get a total of $70,958 as the amount for which that road could have been built, in so far as the grading, ballasting, drainage and track-laying were concerned. In making up my estimate, I did not take the evidence of McDonald in full, because McDonald was claiming damages from Mr. Pinder on account of certain things he claimed he had done and had not been paid for. But McDonald had sued Pinder in the same court; they were simply quarrelling over a sum of $1,250.


John Douglas Hazen: What has become of that
suit?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It has been settled; I understand that Pinder paid McDonald about $1,250 and costs. I am not positive, but I think that is about correct. In- the conduct of this suit, Mr. Pinder was required to file in the court the particulars of his set-off against McDonald. Mr. Pinder ad-mittted that he had paid McDonald only $58,000 or $59,000 in cash, according to the engineer's estimate, but he claimed that McDonald owed him a . certain amount in the way of damages and other things, and he brought his account against McDonald- money, goods, damages and ail-up to $68,000. In making up the estimate as to the cost of the road, I took $68,000 as the amount which the road cost, that is, McDonald's share of it, although I know that the figures are at least $8,000 more than they should be. I am satisfied that with what money Pinder has since paid McDonald, it will not exceed $60,000

although I have placed the figure at $68,000. But, as I said before, I think $60,000 would be the outside figure. McDonald's work was not finished when he left. There still remained most of the ballasting and tracklaying on the last six miles, and about three hundred feet of a fill to be made before they came to the bridges. Mr. Pinder would not give us any information whatever as To the cost of this. He had no books and no papers. I never saw as blank a wall in my life in any court house as Jim Pinder was. He was there an absolute blank. But he brought a witness, a Mr. Jackson, a foreman from the Canadian Pacific railway, who had done a certain amount of the work, and taking the total time of the men Jackson claimed he had under him-and again Jackson had no books or papers-but taking the total number of days possible we figured out $12,000, and therefore we added $12,000 to this as the amount done by Jackson to finish up the road. We came next to the bridges. I want to admit that I do not believe that the estimate which I have placed on the bridges is high enough. I was unable to get any evidence from Pinder, but I did have the evidence of the plaintiff, who said that Pinder told him the bridges weighed 56,000 pounds each, and that they bought them from the Canadian Pacific railway at somewhere about $20 a gross ton. So, figuring this up, and allowing for the cost of erection, we put them at $2,500 for the two. I may say that the only items we have not covered by actual evidence are the cost of bridges and the turntable and water tank.


John Douglas Hazen: Is that $20 a gross ton delivered on the road?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is what
Stewart says Pinder told him and Pinder did not deny it. But I find I have not any other direct evidence as to the value of the bridges.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that 56,000 pounds each, or 112,000 pounds, supposed to represent the items of 358,000 pounds from the sale of bridges, two steel bridges, in this statement certified by Johnson?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is the same
item. The evidence is that there were two bridges, one a pony truss and the other a through truss. The pony truss was 74 or 75 feet long and the other 103 or 104 feet long. I want to be perfectly fair about this, because I have so much leeway in this that I could add in all the cost that 93
Johnson put on and it would not affect the thing	a particle.	Not	long	ago,on a railway train coming from St. John to Montreal, I met an engineer of the Canadian Pacific railway, a gentleman	well known to	many	ofmy hon. friends opposite, who knew something about this suit. He introduced himself to me, told me who he was, and commenced talking about the suit as he had seen it in the newspapers, and he evidently knew what	the bridges	cost.	From	hisstatement I	am inclined	to think the	two
bridges cost from $5,000 to $6,000. I thought at the trial that the amount we assumed was light, and I was glad to get this information. Therefore I am satisfied that that amount should be increased.
We come next to the rails and fastenings, frogs, switches, etc. I had a great deal of difficulty in getting at that because, as my friend the Minister of Marine will understand, my client was not, a millionaire and we did not feel like bringing the Canadian Pacific railway down from Montreal to give evidence in that suit. However, after a good deal of working, we got from the Canadian Pacific railway a letter which was used in evidence, and I think it will satisfy the House as to the 9 p.m. cost of the rails, fastenings, switches, etc. This is an original letter, signed by Mr. A. Harshaw, who, at that time, was superintendent of the Woodstock Division:
Woodstock, N.B., January 5th, 1914.
F. B. Carvell, Esq.,
Woodstock, N. B.
Dear sir,-Further to my memo. January 3rd regarding prices of rails and fastenings sold J. K. Pinder of the Southampton Railway Company, prices quoted are merely those used by our Company as a standard appropriate value of stock on hand and do not represent the actual value of the material. X might also add that the Accountant came across the official order, D 4890, issued by our general agent, Mr. Bender, quoting a price to Mr. Pinder of $25 per gross ton. If you were passing Mr. Allan will show you this order.
Yours truly,
A. Harshaw.


John Douglas Hazen: Was that letter put in, in
evidence?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, not exactly. That letter was submitted to counsel, Mr. Teed. Mr. Teed examined it and finally admitted it, which amounted to the same thing. I cannot say that the letter would appear on the records of the court, but the admission by the defendant's counsel would appear there.


John Douglas Hazen: I was curious to know how such a letter could be put in evidence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Simply this: admit it or we will bring the Canadian Pacific railway officials here to prove it. My friend, Mr. Toed, who is .always very courteous, willingly consented, and .admitted the letter and the memo, attached to the letter. The memo, is as follows:
Mr. F. B. Carvell,
Woodstock, N.B.
Dear sir,-The following is a memorandum of the rails and fastenings supplied J. K. Pinder, Southampton Railway Company, viz:-Rails, 9127 feet of 56 pounds at $20 per ton.
Not $25 but $20, and, Mr. Speaker, you remember the evidence admitted .by Pinder afterwards was that this was the price delivered on tihe work. (Reading):
24,348 feet 52 pounds rails $20 per ton.
55,443 feet 52 pounds rails at $12 per ton.
Fastenings, 3098 jjairs 52 pounds flsh plates at 111 cents per pair.
220 pairs 52 pounds flsh plates at 6 cents per pair.
In addition to the above, the following material was supplied from this district.
3 second hand frogs $20.
1	second hand frog $6.50.
3 frogs $21.
2	stub switches $30 apiece or $60 in all.
Yours truly,
A. Harshaw.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that give the number of tons?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, that gave the feet. I can tell my hon. friend that that amounted to about three-fifths of the whole, between three-fifths and three-fourths of the whole amount; and in making our figures we took the rest of them at 56 lbs. I do not know' whether the remainder were 56 lbs. or not, they were all second hand rails taken from branches of the Canadian Pacific railway, and, as you will see, considerably over one-half of them, nearly two-thirds of them, were 52 lb. rails, and we assumed anyway that the balance were 56, so at least it was stated. Figure that out and you will find that $28,000 would more than pay for the rails, fastening, frogs, switches and fish plates. The spikes had to be new, .and we had evidence that they would amount to about $1,700.
I come next to the right of way, because, as (I said, the right of way was in .addition to the .amount of these contracts. We had the evidence of Stewart that while he had the contract he made a contract with every owner of land along the right of way save five, and these averaged somewhere about $20 an acre.

We have the positive evidence of one man representing about two miles of road, and he put it at $2 or possibly $2.50 an acre. It was swampy land, with no timber on it, and practically useless. From the evidence which we were able to produce, $25 was the outside figure and we put it at that for the sake of the estimate. The road is only four rods wide, and there will be about 104 acres in the right of way. Roughly we put the right of way at $25 an acre.


John Dowsley Reid: That is supposed to
represent the $8,000 item?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. The next is clearing. I am glad my hon. friend is following because his engineer estimated that it was worth $80 an acre to clear this land. The evidence of the men who did the work- there is no guesswork about this-shows that about 40 acres of land were cleared at $25 or $26 an acre-altogether only $1,000. So his officer is only $4,760 out on that little item. The next item is sleepers. The evidence shows that there were practicaliy no first-class sleepers. The majority were second-ciass, and from 10,000 to 15,000 would be nothing but culls. They were made from any wood growing in the country, a few of cedar, and the remainder of spruce, hemlock, fir or anything at all that would make a sleeper six inches thick with a five-inch face. We had evidence after evidence that these sleepers would not cost thirty cents apiece, and some did not cost more than fifteen cents. However, we figured them at thirty cents, and figured at a sleeper every two feet, or 2,640 to the mile, gave $10,000 for sleepers. The telephone line was $200 a mile. I know something about telephone lines. My company builds telephone lines for $100 a mile, $200 is away out. Fences were put down in the officer's estimate at $1 a rod. I must read a little evidence on this question of fences, which shows the character of the official who was doing this important work for the Department of Railways and Canals, or ft shows that the official was told to do something which he ought not to have done. I do not know which it may be, and I am not much concerned. Perhaps the plainest evidence of the culpability of this transaction is in regard tc the fencing. Practically the first witness I called was H. W. Maxwell. My friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows him very well.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know him personally, but I know who he is.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is a brother of
David Maxwell and has been in the engi-

neering and contracting business all his life. H. W. Maxwell was the superintendent of construction of the first six-mile section during 1911, and was a sub-contractor on the second six-mile section in 1912, and therefore had a pretty good knowledge of the road. He gave his evidence, and between that and the close of the trial I got him to go over the road again. He spent two days critically examining everything, taking notes, and came back and gave evidence. My friend will find this question of fences on page 92 of the report. I will just read it to him:
Q. Describe the fencing? A. Starting at the terminal we found fencing on William Cronk-hite, it was No. 9 7-strand wire, nailed on posts, I should think the wire would cost about 22 cents a rod delivered. The posts are cedar running from 3 inches to 6 inches at the end. They are as small as 3 inches at the top end. These posts were not closer together than 30 feet. I find where they crossed one man they were over 60 feet.
Q. Taking the character of the fencing as you saw it, what would you say it would cost to build it? A. Forty cents a rod.
He was examined on that very closely, but he stuck to his evidence. He said any man could go there and see for himself. Two months after Johnson made his report, he said there were not more than seven miles of fencing on the whole road, a distance of thirteen miles. The fencing which he saw was posts three inches in diameter at the top end, and sixty-three feet apart. How an officer of Johnson's standing could report this fencing to be all completed and to be worth a dollar a rod passes my comprehension, but there is the evidence and there are the facts. We come next to the culverts, that is the concrete pipe. The evidence is that there was 720 feet of that. We had the evidence of one man that he would deliver them on the right of way for one dollar a lineal foot. That was W. H. Maxwell, who had been in the concrete business for very many years. He said a dollar a foot would be a good price. In addition to that we had the evidence of Mr. Stewart who went over the road and measured every culvert:


John Dowsley Reid: After it was completed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. Stewart found that there were even less than 720 feet-some 670 feet or 680 feet-but I took the outside figures.


John Dowsley Reid: Did Brown swear to that statement?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the only thing
Brown swore to, was his estimate which I 934
have read that there was in the first contract 122 feet of pipe; in the second contract 598 feet, which added together gives 720 feet. As I said before, Mr. Stewart measured it and made about 680 feet. That was so near the amount in the estimate that I took the estimate. We come next to promotion and engineering. I could not get any evidence from anybody as to what the engineering cost. Pinder had no books, and would not tell us anything. Brown had no books, and did not know how much he had received or was going to receive. But we did ascertain the number of months and the number of men on the work. Brown was there about four or six months, practically most of the time. He visited the place once a month after that for a time. They had a couple of young men acting as resident engineers and rodmen. Figuring the matter out the best way we could, we ' came to the conclusion that $2,500 would be more than Pinder paid for engineering, and therefore it went down in the statement to that extent. In addition to that I have allowed $2,000 for promotion expenses, that is, preliminary work, surveying, etc. That gives for promotion and engineering, $4,500, which I am satisfied is away above the actual money paid. We have the evidence of a number of men, as to what the turntable cost. The company would not tell what it cost, but taking the evidence of Maxwell and George Pinder, we find that George Pinder gave the lumber in it at a ccst of $20 per thousand, which I think was a fair price for the kind of lumber used. You cannot figure out more than $1,500 as the cost of that turntable, though it appears in Mr. Johnston's report as costing $4,500. I tried to get the invoices and I could not. The turntable was bought from the Canadian Pacific railway; it was a second-hand table, fifty-five feet long, set upon a concrete centre, with a pit lined on the inside with cedars, cut with a bandsaw, so as to make, the arc of a circle. We had a number of witnesses examined as to the amount of lumber in this turntable, as to what it would cost, and all that, and we figured it at $1,500 as the outside limit of the cost.
I come to something now which is extremely interesting from Mr. Johnson's standpoint, and that is with reference to the station houses. Mr. Johnson was there in November, and Mr. Maxwell was there about the middle of January, so that Mr. Johnson was there about two months before Mr. Maxwell, and Mr. Johnson reported that the two station houses were worth

$5,000. I am going to read the evidence of Mr. Maxwell, as to the dimensions of these station houses, and hon. gentlemen can form an idea as to what Mr. Johnson's judgment- is worth on a question of this kind. At page 88 of the return, I read:
Q. What else did you see?
A. A station house.
Q. Describe the station house; you are speaking about the one at the terminal?
A. Yes, the station is 33 feet long, 16 feet 7 inches wide, 10 feet high and posts, finished in three apartments, a waiting room, a little office, and a freight room. The little office and the waiting room are sheathed overhead, and on the walls; the freight room is not sheathed, finished on the outside, clapboarded and painted.
Q. That is at the terminals?
A, Yes.
Q. What other station houses did you find?
A. That is all, I found at Mr. Pinder's, that is a little smaller than the other. This was 25 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 8 feet high. It is subdivided just the same into three compartments.
Q. Did you find any other station house?
A. No.
No wonder the Minister of Marine smiles at this description. Two little station houses, one thirty-three feet long, sixteen and a half feet wide, and ten feet high; the other twenty-five feet long, fifteen feet wide, eight feet high, set upon posts, built of ordinary rough lumber, shingled on the outside and painted, two-thirds sheathed on the inside, and the balance an open freight shed, and Mr. Johnson says they are worth $5,000 to build them.


Mr. MACDONALD:: $5,000 each?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, $2,500 each. I am not a builder to any great extent, but I had very careful men go over the thing for me, and I was told that it was out of the question that they could possibly cost $500 each. One witness put them down as low as $350 each, but I will take them at $500 each or $1,000 for the two. I leave it to any gentleman in the House or out of it to figure it out, and if he can make them cost more than $500 each there must be something wrong with his figures. Next, we come to the engine house and the coal sheds. An officer of the department found that the engine house and the coal sheds would cost $2,500. Here again I will give the evidence of Mr. Maxwell as to their size, and the minister can figure out the cost himself:
I found an engine house, 81 feet long by 16 wide and 13 feet high. It was a pitched roof, shingled all over on the outside. I could not get in. By looking in the window I could only see a track and a walk on the side, not finished inside.
It was simply a shell, not finished on the inside, one thickness of boarding, ordinary 2x4 studs, and shingled on the outside, and Mr. Johnson says it cost $2,500.


Mr. CROMWELL:: Does that include the platform ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no platform about it; I am speaking of the little shed where they run the engine in at night; I think it holds two engines. In addition to that there was a coal shed, and, while I do not know Mr. Johnson includes that in his cost, it was 30 feet long by 12 feet wide by 8 feet high, set rough, not shingled, boarded on the outside, set on posts.
These are all the buildings which were found on that whole railroad, excepting two platforms, each about 100 feet long and six feet wide. That is all there is to it with the exception of the water tarik. I was not able to get any information as to the bridges and the water tank, but what information I had as to the bridges I have given. Mr. Maxwell says that the water tank was the best building he saw in the whole lot. He says:
The water tank is 18-7 by 27 on the outside, and 20 feet high.
Q. So far as you could say, what would it be valued at?
A. It was clapboarded on the outside and planed. I could not see through the inside; it is a very nice building outside.
Q. How did this building compare with the others?
A. The very best of all, a very nice building.
We estimated the water tank at $1,000, which seemed to be the outside cost from the best evidence I could get.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that represent the $3,500 on this estimate ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the $3,500 on this estimate. Then there are a lot of small items such as logs in cribs, $235, and lumber for building bridge floors.


John Dowsley Reid: There is an item of $1,750 for logs in cribs.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It ought to be about $225. Let me tell the minister that we had the man who actually counted the logs on the work, and he gave us the dimensions of the logs and the work done, and you could not make more than $225 out of that item.
I come next to the lumber and the bridge floors. Mr. Johnson estimated that at 28,000 feet at $50 a thousand or $1,400. There were only three or four pieces of hard

pine in the whole road; they got some old hard pine out of a bridge somewhere and used that as a sort of blocking under the coal shed, and these three or four pieces of old hard pine under the coal shed were the only pieces of hard pine on the whole road.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the bridge floors on the two iron bridges.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They are spruce.


John Dowsley Reid: He just says 'timber in
bridge floors.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know he does. He
puts them in at $50 a thousand. Those bridge floors are spruce. I will give the minister the dimensions of them. This is from the evidence of Mr. Maxwell:
Q. What kind of lumber was it? A. Spruce.
Q. What do you estimate the lumber in this, taking the cross ties at about 41 feet, every log a length of 70 feet, outside dimension? A. Yes.
Q. 100 would be 7,000 feet? A. Yes.
Q. Would 8,000 feet cover all the lumber in that bridge? A. Yes.
Mr. REID. That would mean 16,000 feet for the two.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, or 15,000 feet.
Q. What did you find at Finder's mill? A. A bridge 82 feet long.
Q. What lumber was there in that? A. 78 ties in that one, 8 x 10.
Q. Stringers? A. 6 x 8.
Q. What kind of lumber? A. Spruce.
Q. These ties are larger than in the long bridge? A. Yes.
Q. How long are these ties? A. 13 feet.
Q. Did you figure this out? A. I have not yet. I get 78, 13 feet long, 8 x 10 x 80.
Q. That would be about 7,000 feet. A. That is all there is.
Q. Longitudinal 6x8? A. Yes.
Q. Would 8,000 feet cover the lumber in that bridge? A. It certainly would.
This is a man who measured every tie, every timber, every stringer, every longitudinal, every piece of wood in the road, and he says 15,000 to 16,000 feet will cover every stick of timber in the two bridges. Mr. Pinder, a member of the company and a son of Mr. James Pinder swore that $20 a thousand would be a fair price for that lumber. At that price you have $300 for the timber in those bridges, whereas an officer of this department puts it at $1,700.
Then, the stone in the culverts, $1,000; platforms, $100. In addition to that, Mr. Pinder swore that before the Canadian Pacific would take this road over in the fall of 1913, they compelled him to do some extra work in the way of trimming, putting on a little extra ballast, cleaning out the ditches and putting the road in a little
better condition. He estimates that work at about $300 a mile. I have extended that and called it $3,900. Then he says that they also required him to furnish some extra ties for rotten ones that had gone into disuse. He estimates that he simply left on the ground about 1,500 ties. I extend that at 30 cents a tie or $450. In addition to that, he had to pay the Canadian Pacific $700 to get them to take the work off his hands. I put that down. If there is anything in tha world that could come into the construction of that railroad that I have not put down, I would like to know it. I have the right of way, the fences, the telephone lines, the grading, the culverts, the track laying, the ballast, the rails, the bridges, the ties, the station houses, the turntables the water tanks, the platforms, everything that was mentioned by any and every witness in the whole trial which lasted for twelve days, everything that any engineer could tell me, and I have sworn evidence of every item excepting the bridges and the water-tanks. If you add all these up, you will find the amount is $157,618 as the absolute outside cost of that road. That is tin cost under unbusinesslike principles or methods, with the construction extended over two years, when it might have been done in one year, done in every way possible to m ke it more costly than it ought to have been. Mr. Pinder, or rather his counsel admitted for him that they got $155,000 of bonds from the province of New Brunswick guaranteed at four per cent.
At this point I wish to show where they got the last bond guarantee. The first bond guarantee was $10,000 a mile. The next bond guarantee was for $2,000 a mile. My hon. friend the member for York, New Brunswick, Mr. McLeod, was a member of the Government of New Brunswick at that time. I do not accuse my hon. friend of being a party to this nefarious transaction. We sometimes disagree very seriously, but we do not disagree on this point. How in the world my hon. friend the member for York, New Brunswick, or any other member of the legislature could have voted for the legislation giving this man $2,000 extra per mile is something that passes my comprehension, unless he believed this old man or unless he did it wdthout having engineers' certificates, without taking the most ordinary precautions known to the man in the street. They set forth in the preamble of their legisla-

tion, chapter 46 of the statutes of New Brunswick in 1913, as follows:
Whereas, owing to the exceptionally heavy rainfall of the past year, to the scarcity of labour and the consequent increase in the amount paid for wages, to the increased cost of railway ties, and other material, on account of the unusual amount of railway construction now being carried on in the province, to the generally expensive character of the work, and to the unfavourable conditions for disposing of bonds in the financial markets, the cost of construction of the Southampton railway has been very largely in excess of what was anticipated ; and whereas it is deemed expedient to further aid in the construction of the said railway-
And so on. They therefore gave him $2,000 a mile additional, or $26,000. This legislation was not passed until March 1913. In the course of the trial this matter came up. This road was built under contract. Mr. Binder himself did rot do a yard of grading. Mr. Pinder sublet all the grad; ing, all the ballasting and track-laying to other people. I have here the evidence of the people who did the work.
On page 51 of the return in the evidence of Robert McDonald, is the following:
Q. And the contract for the second six miles was entered into the same month?-A. Yes.
This was some time in March 1912.
Q. Which price you have given us?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive any extra price or greater amount of money by reason of the weather conditions during the next summer?-
That is the summer of 1912, when the legislation says that there was so much rain fall.
A. We received a large price on our common excavation, on our rock and on our gravel, and on the track-laying.
That is the contract for a larger price, but the contract was made in March before they knew what the conditions were to be.
Q. Was that on account of weather conditions or on account of the contract you made in March, 1912?-A. For the simple reason that we found there was not enough in for the first figures, the weather had nothing at all to do with it.
Q. You made a contract regardless of weather conditions? A. Yes.
Q. If there were bad weather conditions what would it mean to you? A. We would be the losers.
The contractor had completed the road for the schedule price made by him in 1912. And the legislature resolved that on *account of the weather conditions in 1912 it would cost more to build this road, and

so they made this man a present of $26,000. There are a couple of other items to which I wish to call attention, and then I am through with this branch of the subject. The acting Minister of Railways will note that in this report of Mr. Johnson 12,800 yards of solid rock is allowed for. The progress estimates only show, as I have already stated, a little over 4,200 yards; that is all there was in it, all that Mr. Ptinder paid for. Mr. Johnson's report also shows 5,500 yards of earth excavation under water at $2 a yard, a total of $11,000. My hon. friend will be surprised when I tell him that there was not one yard of earth excavation under water, and not a cent paid for such excavation. This item is a pure fabrication on the part of somebody. Another item was 24,000 yards of loose rock and hard pan at 70 cents, making a total of $16,800. And, as I have told the minister, there was not a yard of earth under water nor a yard of loose rock ot hard pan on the whole contract. Here you have $27,000 added to the cost of this road which is absolutely false, an absolute fraud by somebody-and it is that somebody I *am trying to get at, or trying to get the minister after him. Now, I could refer my hon. friend to page 34 of the report, where he will find the following:
Q. What were you to get for the grading? A. 30 i cents a yard.
Q. What were you to get for the rock? A. $1.25.
Q. For loose rock and hard pan? A. I have not got anything for that yet.
Q. Was there anything in the contract for that? A. No, there was not.
Q. What did you get for the grubbing? A. $75 an acre, on the first contract no clearing, the first was force account, earth 30J cents cub. yards, no loose rock or hard pan, the grubbing was $75 an acre.
Q. Earth excavation under water? A. We had no price on that.
Q. Did you get any pay for it? A. Have not yet.
Q. No price for earth excavation under water, you did not get $11,000? A. No, we did not.
Q. Did you get anything for overhaul? A. No, we have not seen it.
Q. Was there any contract for overhaul? A. None yet.
There are three items-excavation of *earth under water, loose rock and hard pan and overhaul, amounting to about $29,000, *and there is nothing in the specification or *in the contract about the removal of a yard of that material, yet the Department of Railways and Canals have included that in the cost of this work for the purpose Of paying a subsidy upon it. One can hardly conceive it possible that an engineer of

the department could make such a report unless he was told to do so by somebody.
I have tried to discuss this matter calmly, in an almost judicial manner-and perhaps some of my friends opposite .are surprised that I can discuss such ,a matter in a noncombative spirit as I have done this evening. Well, I do not intend to change my tone now. I say I cannot understand how an officer of any department could send such a report to his chief unless somebody told him to do so. Now, I am going to say something of which I have no proof; but I can get proof. I do not wonder that the acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) looks at me. It will be remembered that there was an election in the county of York in December and January last. The sitting member is now Mr. Justice Crockett, and an election had to be held to fill his place. This Mt. Pindar was a member of the local legislature and a very prominent man in the county of York. He has been known for many years as the 'king of the Mackawick.' Now, this king of the Mackawick had one of two things in mind -either he must go into the New Brunswick government as successor to Mr. McLeod, or else he must come here to Ottawa to Tepresent the county. Things got pretty hot in the party caucus in the county of York. The newspapers stated about that time, and I have never seen it contradicted, that Mr. Pinder was told that if he would behave himself he would get a double subsidy for his road. Now, as I *say, I have no absolute proof-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let not the hon. member be too ready or I might be tempted to tell just what I do know about it. I will give it to my hon. friend privately if he wants it. The statement was made that I have just quoted and has not been denied. One fact is that Mr. Pinder had been trying to get this double subsidy and has failed. Another fact is that he got it in the month of November, 1913-$32,000 in hard cash that he was not entitled to and that he could not have got if this one monstrous report had not been made by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Pinder went to the convention and got up like a nice little man and' nominated my hon. friend from York (Mr. McLeod) as the most fit and proper person to represent the county in this House.


Harry Fulton McLeod: But it did not make any difference whether he did or not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But he did it. And he got his $32,000. These are the facts. Of course, it is open to my hon. friend to explain them his own way.


Mr. OLIVER:: They synchronized.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, we have to thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) for that word; it seems to fit so many occasions. There is the synchronism, and at is up to hon. gentlemen opposite to explain it as best they can. As I have said, in order that this man should get this subsidy the road must have cost $21,400 a mile. I have shown that the road never cost more than $157,615 altogether. To make it perfectly plain, I am going a little further, because there might be something to add to or take from the total value of the securities and subsidies. Mr. Pinder got, as I have said, $155,000 four per cent New Brunswick bonds. I realize that there would be some discount in disposing of the bonds.
He says that it cost him something like $9,000 to dispose of the bonds. He swore to that, and we were so glad to get him to swear to anything that we accepted it, but with a wonderful degree of mental reservation. The first $50,000 of these bonds were paid to him in April, 1912, when 4 per cent New Brunswick bonds ought to have sold at pretty nearly par, and the second $50,000 were paid to him in October or November, 1912, when, again, New Brunswick 4 per cent bonds must have sold at about par. The last $55,000 were delivered to him some time in the autumn of 1913, and I am willing to admit that probably he had to sell them as low as 90, and that he would lose about $4,500 discount. Then, he said he paid interest. I could not accept the amount of money claimed for interest, because we have in the evidence of Mr. McDonald, the man who built the road for him, the fact that at no time had Pinder paid him more than $15,000 or $20,000 before he got his bonds. After he got his $50,000 bonds he could pay all his indebtedness and have $10,000 or $15,000 left to put in the bank. There is no doubt about that; we proved it absolutely. Then he went on with the second contract and got the second lot of bonds. After paying all his liabilities, according to the estimates he would still have $10,000 or 15,000 left to put in the bank. At the- same time he got $48,000 in subsidies from the Dominion Government, and after paying for the rails he must have had a tidy sum left. Under any circumstances, he got from the Government more

than enough money to finance the road, and there could not have been the amount of money paid out in interest which he claimed there was. He would not produce his bank books, they went so far as to subpoena the banker, but they were afraid to put him in the box, and so we were unable to hear his testimony. Pinder may have had outside transactions; in two or three years he may have paid out the interest he mentioned, but we could not figure up more than Si,500 interest, and therefore we put it down at that. Then he says he paid interest on bonds amounting to $8,100. That, I believe, is correct. Add these together and you have 818,100. The cash received from the Government was $81,280, face value of bonds $155,000, a total of $236,280. Subtracting from that the discounts, interests, etc., $18,700, you have $217,580 net cash which this man received from the Government of Canada for a road which could not have cost him more than $157,615. I know this figure is thousands of dollars above what it actually cost him, but taking the figures which I have here to-night, a profit of $59,965 is left to Mr. Pinder.
I think I have submitted to this House tonight a state of affairs which calls for action of some kind. I think the acting Minister of Railways will agree with me in this. I am not making any charges now; I am not here for that purpose. I am not saying what became of the money, because I do not know. I do not believe that Pinder was allowed to put all that mon^ into his own pocket.' I know the men with whom he was dealing, and I want to tell the House that Mr. Pinder was just as good as some of the other men with whom he was dealing. I do not believe that the men who are running affairs in the province of New Brunswick to-day will allow Pinder to put $60,000 of this money into his own pocket, having passed legislation such as I have described, giving him these bonuses, first $10,000 a mile and then $2,000 a mile after the road was completed. Then there was at first the single subsidy from this Parliament, and later a double subsidy. It does not seem to be possible, but if it is, then I can only say that the King of the Mackawick is a much more wily politician than I gave him credit for, because he or somebody has pocketed $60,000 of good Government money for building a little tramway line less than 13 miles in length. I ask the acting Minister of Railways what he is going to do about it.'5 If he doubts

my evidence, I may tell him that I have produced nothing to-night that was not sworn to in open court in the presence of a judge and jury. I want to assure him that Mr. Pinder did not lack for counsel, because he had three of the best counsel in the province of New Brunswick, and everything was done which human ingenuity could devise in order to pull him out of this scrape. Not one solitary effort was made to prove that this road did cost more than I have estimated, excepting, perhaps, the evidence of Mr. Johnson, the Canadian Pacific railway man. With that exception, not a book, not a paper, not a plan, profile, invoice or letter was produced to show that this road cost more than we claimed it did. They simply said: we will give you no information about it; we will rest on the strength of the allegation that this contract was obtained by fraud, and if we cannot win upon that we cannot win at all. The jury disagreed. One of the questions of fact left to the jury was: was the contract obtained by fraudulent representations made by the complainant to the defendant company? Four of the jurymen said yes, and the others no. The result was a disagreement; a verdict was found for the plaintiff on a number of collateral items amounting to $162. The main question stands for trial later, and in all probability as soon as we get through the session of Parliament, we will have to get at it again and have it settled. But that was a matter between Mr. Stewart and the railway company; it now becomes a matter for the Minister of Railways, and I would like to know what he is going to do about it. I must have proved to him to-night, by the sworn testimony which I have produced, that a great wrong has been done. I do not say by whom; I do not say by the Minister, or by Mr. Johnson, although I do say he was the agent, but I do know that a great wrong has been done. As a matter of fact I am not sure that Parliament would not have been justified in paying him a single subsidy, because the statute reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may grant a subsidy of $3,200 per mile for the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of railway which have cost more on the average than $15,000 for the mileage subsidized.
Strictly speaking, therefore, the minister might have paid a single subsidy of $3,200 a mile for the road, even if it did cost an amount slightly less than $15,000 a mile-although it is always supposed that a road must cost that amount before such a subsidy may be paid. But the

moment you reach $15,000 a mile and the moment you pay $3,200, you have to have $1,000 of cost for every $500 of subsidy. If you divide the cost which I have estimated, $157,615, by 13 miles, you have about $12,100 a mile. This man got bonds and subsidies to the extent of $18,400 a mile on a road which cost him about $12,100 a mile -got it on the false and fraudulent reports of an officer of the Department of Railways and Canals. Something like $38,000 or $40,000 was absolutely abstracted from the revenues of this country, fraudulently and on false representations.
I would like to know what the minister will do about it. I think that not only should there be a Parliamentary investigation., tout that a Royal Commission should be appointed. This is a scandal so great that we ought to know the whole of it, we ought to know who is really at the bottom of this crime, because a crime it is. We ought to know whether E. V. Johnson is the sole culprit or whether he has wily associates. We ought to be in a position to investigate this thing to the very bottom. We ought to know who profited from the $40,000 taken from the coffers of this country unlawfully, illegally. I think that the minister is recreant to his duty, and, in the presence of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Marine, I say that I think the whole Government is recreant to their duty if they do not appoint a Royal Commission and have this matter investigated, to find out who is the culprit and bring an action against Pinder and the railway company for the restoration of at least $40,000 of this money, wrongfully taken from the people of this country by these false reports. I know by the report of Mr. Johnson that he was accompanied on his second trip by Pinder. I do not know whether he saw Brown or not but I believe he did. I cannot account for Brown's remarkable action on any other hypothesis than that he accompanied him.


Harry Fulton McLeod: Mr. Brown was with him on one trip.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was in the year
before.


Harry Fulton McLeod: Yes.
Mr! CARVELL: I have set out before the House the facts; I have brougnt in nothing except sworn evidence. I have shown that over $40,000 was illegally taken away from the people of this country, and I call on the Minister of Railways to take whatever steps may be necessary in order to rectify
the wrong which has been done and to place his department in such a position that there will be no repetition of such dishonest transactions as I have described to you here to-night.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish to say at the outset that there is no objection whatever to bringing down the papers asked by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Oarvell). I was glad to hear that the hon. member had no fault to find with the road. Neither had he any fault to fiud with the Government for granting a subsidy. The whole fault that he has to find in connection with this matter is because the subsidy has been paid on an amount that he claims was not earned. I am very glad indeed that this matter has been brought forward: If the statements made by the hon. member for Carleton are correct, then certainly Mr. Johnson has not done his duty as an inspector for the Railways and Canals Department. I would say that I listened to the hon. member throughout and I thought he put his case in a very fair and reasonable way, with one exception; that was that, he threw out an insinuation that in some way Mr. Johnson had done a wrong and that he had been urged in some way to commit this wrong. Now there is only ohe man that he could refer to and that would be the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane). Let me say that I take issue with the hon. member at once, and say that as far as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is concerned I believe that from the time the subsidy was voted up to the present time he knew nothing other than what the officers of his department certified to. I have before me the papers in connection with this matter. When I saw this notice on the Order Paper, I asked Mr. Johnson what there was in 10 p.m. connection with it so that I would be able to give any information required and to discuss it in a proper manner if the hon. member should make any remarks in connection with this order. Mr. Johnson stated to me, as has been proved by the certificates read by the hon. member, that he went over this road himself on two different occasions, that he gave it a very careful inspection ; and the statement as read by the hon. member for Carelton in regard to these items that go to make up the cost, Mr. Johnson assured me, in the office of the Minister of Railways and Canals, that he had gone over very carefully and that he

was quite satisfied that every one of them was correct and true. He gave me the following memorandum:
Ottawa, February 16, 1914. Memorandum re Southampton Railway
Company.
In reference to the estimate of cost of Southampton railway, the undersigned begs to submit that he obtained the quantities from Mr. Brown the engineer of the road, and, from an examination of profile and after two inspections of the road, is satisfied that estimate fairly represents the amount of work done and that the prices are fair and reasonable. Mr. Brown's first estimate, before the work commenced, was $242,508.60 or $18,654.50 per mile. As the work progressed it was found that the quantities and in some cases the prices had been underestimated and in October, 1912, the undersigned submitted an estimate amounting to $288,617, or $22,726 per mile. On completion of the work, when it became practicable to ascertain the actual cost, the latter was slightly increased, showing a cost of $22,954 per mile.
Respectfully submitted,
11. V. Johnson,
Inspecting Engineer.
This certificate shows that Mr. Johnson went over the road twice, and he states himself that he went into the matter very carefully. The hon. member has submitted a statement as I mentioned a few minutes ago showing the different quantities and cost in connection with this railway, and he makes several statements that are amazing to me. For instance, he has made the statement that of the earth excavation under water, 5,500 yards, certified to by Mr. Johnson, not one particle was done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.


John Dowsley Reid: I am very much surprised
to hear a statement like that. He also says that of solid rock excavation there were only 4,200 yards, while Mr. Johnson certifies to 12,800 yards. He also certifies to the right of way. Where Mr. Johnson has put it down at $8,000, the hon. member puts it at about $2,500 or less. My hon. friend also tells the House here this evening that the two steel bridges that Mr. Johnson estimates at a cost of $17,900 cost only some $5,000 or something like that. I did not take down the exact amount.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I omitted one item. The minister will find that abutments are put down at $7,400. I have sent out my extracts to ' Hansard,' but I think that was the amount. Cunningham swore that he got $3,101 for building the abutments.


John Dowsley Reid: All along the line, the hon. member has stated that Mr. Johnson's estimates were far in excess of the actual cost.
I do not know the exact rules which guide 
the inspector when he is inspecting railway work to see whether the subsidies may properly be paid. This is the first occasion since I have been looking after the Railway Department in the absence of the minister that I have had to discuss subsidies to railways. When I knew this matter was coming up I made inquiries of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways, Mr. Bowden. He has been there for six or seven years, and so far as I know, the Minister of Railways and Canals has the greatest confidence in him. The minister's predecessor, the hon. member for South Renfrew, also had the greatest confidence in Mr. Bowden, I understand. It was not only on Mr. Johnson's report that the minister acted. Mr. Johnson made his report to Mr. Bowden, his superior officer, and it was Mr. Bowden's duty to go into that report. On November 5, I find that Mr. Bowden made a report in connection with this matter as follows:
L. K. Jones, Esq., I.S.O.,
Assistant Deputy Minister and Secretary, Department of Railways and Canals, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-I have the honour to report on the result of an inspection made on October 23, 1913, of the Southampton railway.
Under the Subsidy Act of 1912, chapter 48, section 2, item 23, the right to grant subsidy to the Southampton railway was given, [DOT] for a line of railway from a point at or near Millville to a point on the St. John river near the Pokiok bridge: not exceeding 13 miles.'
A subsidy agreement was entered into on May 14, 1912, and a supplemental subsidy agreement on October 26, 1912. The actual length of the line is 12.7 miles and the inspection shows the line completed throughout in accordance with the requirements of the subsidy agreement. The estimated total cost of road is $291,517 or $22,954 per mile.
I wish to draw' the attention of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., to the clause which follows:
I certify that the line is completed in accordance with the requirements of the subsidy contract and that the company is entitled to payment of full subsidy of $6,400 per mile on 12.7 miles or a total of $81,280, less previous payments.
I am, Sir,
Your ohedien servant.
W. A. Bowden,
Chief Engineer.


John Douglas Hazen: Is Mr. Johnson, who made this inspection, an old official of the department ?


John Dowsley Reid: I was coming to that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Bowden's report is based on Mr. Johnson's report.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, Mr. Bowden knew nothing of this matter other than what Mr. Johnson's report told him, but unless Mr. MARCH 9, 1914
Bowden had confidence in Mr. Johnson, an official under him, I am satisfied he would never have signed such a report. On looking up Mr. Johnson's record I find that his position is that of inspecting engineer. He first entered the service of the Intercolonial railway on May 3, 1869 as a subordinate on surveys. That shows that he must have had experience in railway building. From that time he has done nothing but railroad work. He joined the Canadian Pacific engineering staff as assistant leveller in May, 1871. At that time the Canadian Pacific railway was being constructed under Government supervision by the Public Works Department. Mr. Johnson was transferred to that department in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway-draughting office in 1872 and remained with the Public Works Department until the Department of Railways and Canals was set apart in 1879. He was appointed assistant engineer of railways on January 1, 1900, and was appointed inspecting engineer on January 1, 1902. That is his record. He is an old official and I feel that having been so long in the department it would hardly be fair for me to censure him as he would deserve if the statements of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., were correct. I feel that 1 should be allowed to take up to-morrow with Mr. Bowden and Mr. Johnson, the whole matter as it appears in 'Hansard,' and I shall certainly demand from them an explanation. Perhaps they may be able to give me some light on this matter that will put an entirely different construction *on it. I certainly' hope so. I should be very sorry to think that Mr. Johnson after having been so many years in the service would certify to that statement, if it were *of the kind described by my hon. friend. I hope the hon. member for Carleton will withdraw the insinuation that the Minister of Railways knew anything other than that this w-as a fair and straight matter. The hon. member knows that the subsidy' granted by this Government, even the double subsidy of $6,400 per mile, was very much less than the railroad would cost, even at his own figures. Unless the minister knew about the guarantees having been given by the New Brunswick Government, he would feel justified in paying the amount, realizing that the cost would exceed much more than the subsidy called for.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So far as the Minister of Railway's is concerned, 1 do not think for a moment that Mr. Cochrane had anything to do with it, but the department
would know they could only pay the double subsidy if the road cost $21,400 per mile, regardless of where the money to build it came from.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that, but the minister .is responsible for the submission of the Order in Council bo pay the subsidy.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Theoretically, I admit
that.


John Dowsley Reid: The only information the
minister has as to that is what the chief engineer gives him. Mr. Bowden sends his memo, to the minister certifying that such a road has earned the subsidy, and on receipt of that memo, the minister makes out a certificate for the subsidy. That is all the minister knows about the matter, and that is all the Minister of Railways or this Government knew about this. I am glad the hon. member has brought this matter before the House. I shall take it up to-morrow with the officers of the department, and I shall go into it very thoroughly.
I trust this discussion will do good in the future, in reference to the inspection of lines for subsidies. I shall be only too pleased to bring down the return at the earliest possible moment.


Harry Fulton McLeod: I did not intend to take part in this discussion and the part I shall take will be very briefly done. I take it, from the very moderate way in which my, hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has placed this question before the House- and sometimes he is not very moderate- and from the language he has used, that he is not making any attack upon the Government. I have no brief for this' railway, and my hon. friend knows it. The hon. gentleman has said that Mr. Pinder received this subsidy ' in order that he might be good.' It was a matter of no importance to me-and I live in the same constituency with him and was his colleague in the provincial legislature for six or seven years-whether Mr. Pinder was good or not. It was a matter of no importance to me whether Mr. Pinder stood up in the convention and nominated me or not. The facts are that after he had received this isubsidy he came to me in my office and said he would like to nominate me, and I said: Very good, Mr. Pinder, I shall be very glad if you do so. There are hundreds of men in the county of York, carrying as much weight, whom I would have been much more pleased to have had nominated me, and whose nom-

ination would have been equally effective. So far as I know, and I think I do know, there was absolutely no arrangement whatever, except in the mind of my hon. friend, and no connection whatever between the nomination of myself by Mr. Pinder and the receipt of this additional subsidy.
I think I ought to say to the House that I am familiar, very familiar, with the facts laid before this House by my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell). I ought to say also, that I fully concur in many of the statements he has made. He has not been able to bring it home to the Government-I do not think he has attempted to do so-that any wrong has been done, or has been attempted to be done by the Government. I do not think my hon. friend attempts even to insinuate that Mr. Johnson, the engineer, has been guilty of deliberate wrong. But I say, and I think I ought to say, that Mr. Johnson, the engineer in this case, when he made such a report as he did make, made it having been deceived as to the actual facts of the case. I believe that that report is not, in all its details, a correct statement of the cost of the specific items that went into the construction of that road. I 'have kept pretty well in touch with, and I have been familiar with the construction of that road since its inception, and I say, from my own knowledge gleaned by living on the spot and by talking to the men whom my hon. friend has cited to-niglyt as having given evidence in the case of Stewart vs. Southampton Railway Company, I am in a position to know that many of these items are padded items, and these items whi h Mr. Johnson has accepted, and upon which, very properly, the Department of Railways, accepting his statement, paid the subsidy, are not true and correct .'statements jot fact in regard to what went into the construction of that railway.
I am not here to attack anybody, but in order that the House may know Mr. Pinder's attitude to-day, Mr. Pinder is held up as a wily Tory politician. Mr. Pinder has been for many years a member of the Conservative party, but I had occasion during this Session to go home to my constituency to take a hand in a contest in which a young man was nominated to fill the seat in the local legislature which I resigned to come to Ottawa. That young man was nominated at a regularly called convention of the Conservative party, and I had occasion to go home to fight for that young man, not against the Liberal party but

against a gentleman and a very reputable gentleman whom this same man Pinder was backing with all the power he had. Now, Mr. Pinder nominated me, and for many years he had a fictitious reputation for great strength in the constituency I represent, but we had a showdown on this occasion and we beat Mr. Pinder's candidate by 644 votes, notwithstanding that we had the Liberal party against us, and all that Mr. Pinder covld do, in addition to that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, not the Liberal party.


Harry Fulton McLeod: I think I know it better than my hon. friend does; I think I know the county of York better than he will ever know it. My hon. friend came into the county of York once, in a by-election some time ago, and he discovered that we beat his candidate then by 1,200 votes, although the hon. member spent some time in the county. I know the county of York; I have been over it every inch, and there are not many men in it that I do not call by their front names. However, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to enter upon a discussion; I merely desired to place myself on record as agreeing with many of the facts presented here to-night, and I believe that the Acting Minister of Railways will investigate this, and thoroughly investigate it, and if a wrong has been done he will do his best to set it right. But might I suggest that when he starts to get any money back from James K. Pinder, he is up against a real hard proposition.
My hon. friend .suggested a moment ago that there was $57,000 that did not go into this railway; that somebody had it in his pocket, and that he did not believe that James K. Pinder had it all in his pocket.
I do not know where the money has gone; but if Mr. Pinder ever got it, he has got it yet. I am going to be very fair to-night.
I do not believe that Mr. Pinder has got much of this money. Mr. Pinder is not a good business man. My hon. friend will admit that. Mr. Pinder built that road in a slipshod way. He did not take advantage of the conditions to build that road in the most economical way. I know that. I do not know whether Mr. Pinder has any money or not, but my hon. friend will not dare to charge against any man in New Brunswick or in Canada that he has received one dollar of that money wrongfully

from Mr. Pinder. If he could, he would, but he cannot. Nobody received any of that money wrongfully, and not one dollar of it went to any campaign fund. My hon. friend will not charge that it did.
I have said these few words frankly and fairly, not wishing to take part in this debate but simply wishing to place myself, as representative of the county of York, New Brunswick, in a proper position in regard to the matter, so that my constituents may take notice of the fact that I do not countenance anything of a public nature that I know to be wrong.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I have been in
Parliament long enough to know that it is not my province nor my place to make charges against any man unless I have the proof behind them, and I have been pretty careful in that regard. I have very strong suspicions of a good many things about that $60,000. I have very strong suspicions as to how this report was made to Mr. Johnson and by Mr. Johnson to the Government. I have very strong suspicions as to why the report was made as it was, and I have stronger suspicions as to why the last $3,200 was paid to Mr. Pinder. All these suspicions and all the statements and challenges made by my hon. friend from York, New Brunswick only emphasize the statement that I made .some time ago to the Minister of Railways that, if ever a statement had been presented to this House which demanded not merely a departmental investigation but an investigation by a royal commission, my statement to-night backed up by my non. friend the member for York, New Brunswick, was one. It is not in my motion and I cannot incorporate it in my motion; but, in the remarkable and frank corroboration of my statement by the hon. member for York, New Brunswick, in not only the insinuation, hut the statement that in his judgment Mr. Johnson is not the real sinner in this case, I think the case is doubly strong. Therefore I hope not only that the Minister of Railways will conduct a departmental investigation, but will%ppoint a royal commission and have this matter sifted to the very bottom.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. BRODER (Dundas) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to provide that no person, by himself, his agent or otherwise, shall manufacture, sell
or give away any cigarettes, cigarette papers or wrappers, or any substitute therefor, or shall be in any way concerned in such manufacture, sale or distribution, or authorize or permit the same; that no cigarettes, cigarette papers or wrappers shall be imported into Canada or entered for consumption therein, and that all cigarettes, cigarette papers or wrappers intended as such shall be subject to seizure by any officer of Customs or Inland Revenue, and that they, with the packages in which they are contained, shall be disposed of under regulations made by the Governor in Council; that penalties shall be imposed for the contravention of this Act, and the prosecution for any such penalty or punishment may be brought and prosecuted under the provisions of part xv of the Criminal Code relating to summary conviction.
He said:	The subject matter of this
resolution has had the attention of a good many people and of a good many countries for the last few years. It may be considered by some to be a very drastic proposal; but the reasons for its stringent provisions, to my mind, arise from the fact that nearly all the provinces have had laws proposing to deal in part with this question, and so far they have been very ineffective. It is difficult to say for what reason the provincial laws limiting the use of cigarettes by youths up to different ages, in some provinces 16, in some 15, in some as high as 18, have been ineffective, but the evil effects of cigarette smoking by young boys or youths under twenty are very well known throughout this country.
There is no principle so dear to the Britisher as that of personal liberty, but the question has come to this, whether on the part of the strong there should not be some sacrifice in the interest of the weak. I am quite aware that a good many reasonably fair minded men cannot go as far in their judgment as this resolution proposes to go.
We know that if one thing should be considered more carefully than another not only in this House but by every right thinking citizen it is the careful guarding of our citizenship. In view of the injury that is so apparently done throughout the whole country by the use of cigarettes, it is a question bow far this question of cigarette smoking should be curtailed by the goodwill and common sense of the people.
I do not wish to deal at great length with the question as to whether cigarettes hurt the young or the old, or this class or that; but I wish first to point out the appalling increase in the use of cigarettes in Canada and in other countries as well. Go into the United States and you will find that fifty years ago, so far as any records that can be found are concerned, the first


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: Does the mover of this resolution include pipe smoking in his resolution? From a word or two which he dropped during the course of his remarks, I fancy that he does. He says it is hard for the mother to chasten the children when the father sits in the corner smoking -not necessarily cigarettes. Whilst, of course, everybody agrees that the excessive use of cigarettes, like the excessive use of anything, may result in grave injury, I do not know that we are prepared to go as far as the words ' or any substitute therefor ' in the fourth line of the resolution. I have looked up the various authorities on the subject, and I find that the word ' substitute ' in this case certainly does not mean that what is used in the place and stead of the cigarette shall be in the form of a cigarette. It may be a pipe, and if these words refer to the pipe, then this is a very-serious resolution. I do not think the people of this country are prepared to abolish the pipe. In speaking about it to the hon. gentleman himself, I asked him, as I did not wish to take him by surprise, what he thought about it. Well, he said, if it means that, let it all go. He does not smoke himself, so he does not care, but I say that a great many people in this country are not injured by smoking; they enjoy their pipe, and would be greatly injured if they did not have it. Whilst it is a well-known fact that no athletic trainer will continue to train any one who smokes cigarettes, because of their effect upon the heart,

the same thing does not follow with regard to the pipe. Of course, the trouble in all these things is to find a point at which to stop. You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the Ten Commandments have gone by the board. The hon. gentleman does not refer to them; he does not think that the ten or even the eleven commandments are sufficient. For myself, I am inclined to think that the eleven commandments are enough. Whilst the Chinese and the Japanese, who have somewhat similar methods of enforcing their ideas, may proceed to administer five or six thousand blows with a bamboo for every infraction of an edict, are we to say that the whole principle of moral suasion should be abandoned in Canada because the moral ground in which the good seed is sown is so sterile that it is no longer fit and proper soil for the cultivation of good principles? Are we to have no other recourse but to put offenders in prison, hammer them, punish them or confine them? Is it no longer possible to show them the evil of their ways and to beseech them to be men, that they may exert that self-control which alone makes a man? or are they simply going about as trees walking, are they to be clothed in the garments of men, but not clothed and in their right minds. We are going to work up in this country, unfortunately, it seems to me, a lot of weak-kneed individuals, people who must be led around by the ear, or else they will not do what is right. I have the utmost contempt for the silly boy or girl who must be fed with a spoon or out of a bottle until probably he or she is twenty-one years of age. That kind of rot ought to be done away with, and if it is necessary to re-introduce the methods of our friend King Solomon, we will introduce them. But it cannot be said that all of the good women who are urging on the hon. gentleman who is the mover of this resolution, have exercised, in the matter of dress, an example of the self-control which we should have wished for; and I have no hesitation in saying that if they would reform themselves in that particular they would do as much good as ever they will do by asking us to give up our pipe and tobacco. These things can be carried too far. Mind you, I must not be construed as speaking in favour of the cigarette. I am well aware that it has done immense damage, and that possibly it may have to be repressed just as opium smoking in China has had to be repressed. At the same time we must not think that the panacea is to be found in universal repress-
ion; we must exercise some common seaise and some self-control if we are to evolve into the highest type of manhood.


Mr. C. J. THORNTON (Durham):: 

upon a person's chances in life. It saps the vitality necessary to success. I make that statement without any reservation. It blunts the sensibilities and deadens the thinking faculties. There are thousands of cases in which we know that to be true. It kills ambition and the finer instincts and the more delicate aspirations and perceptions, because it destroys the ability to concentrate the mind which is the secret of all achivement. The mover of this resolution pointed out the deteriorating effect of tobacco on the rising generation. If we want to make the people of this country strong, sturdy, and intelligent we must discourage by some means the use of the cigarette. I know of no habit that will decrease a boy's mental and physical forces so much as the cigarette. Magistrate Oraine of New York city made the following statement a short time ago:
Ninety-nine out of a hundred boys between the ages of ten and seventeen years who come before me charged with crime have their fingers disfigured by yellow cigarette stains.
. .	. I am not a crank on this subject,-
Note that. He is not a crank. He has scores of cases before him of boys charged with various crimes. He goes on:
I do not care to pose as a reformer, but it is my opinion that cigarettes will do more than liquor to ruin boys. When you have arraigned before you boys; hopelessly deaf through the excessive use of cigarettes, hoys who have stolen their sisters' earnings, boys who absolutely refuse to work, who do nothing but gamble and steal, you can not help seeing that there is some direct cause, and a great deal of this boyhood crime is, in my mind, easy to trace to the deadly cigarette. There is something in the poison of the cigarette that seems to get into the system of the boy and to destroy all moral fibre.
A case came to my notice a short time ago in which a boy in New York had robbed his mother and actually beaten her because she would not give him money to buy cigarettes. As further evidence of the deadly effect of the cigarette, I may cite the experiment of a chemist. Not long ago he took the tobacco used in an average cigarette and soaked it in several teaspoonfuls of water and injected a portion of it under the skin of a cat. The cat almost immediately went into convulsions, and died in fifteen minutes. Dogs have been killed with a single drop of nicotine.
Dr. J. J. Kellogg says:
A few months ago I had all the nicotine removed from a cigarette, making a solution out of it. I injected half the quantity into a frog, with the effect that the frog died almost instantly. The rest was administered to another frog with like effect. Both frogs
[Mr. Thornton.!
were well grown, and of average size. The conclusion is evident that a single cigarette contains poison enough to kill two frogs. A boy who smokes cigarettes, twenty cigarettes a day, has inhaled enough poison to kill forty frogs. Why does the poison not kill the boy? It does kill him. If not immediately, he will die sooner or later of weak heart, Bright's disease, or some other malady which scientific physicians eveywhere now recognize as a natural result of chronic nicotine poisoning.
There is no doubt that cigarette smoking has killed thousands of boys, and sooner or later it will injure seriously every boy who indulges in the habit. The bon. gentleman who moved the resolution, gave very plainly the reason why grown men are not affected, and it is that they have become mature, while the boy is immature. The boy will soon find that the cigarette is bad for his 'heart, as the doctors all tell

Another distinguished magistrate whose name I will not mention, says:
Yesterday I had before me thirty-five boy prisoners. Thirty-three of them were confirmed cigarette smokers. Today, from a reliable source, I have made the gruesome discovery that two of the largest cigarette manufacturers soak their product in a weak solution of opium. The fact that out of thirty-five prisoners, thirty-three smoked cigarettes might seem to indicate some direct connection between cigarettes and crime. And when it is announced on authority that most cigarettes are doped with opium, this connection is not hard to understand. Opium is like whisky, it creates an increasing appetite that grows with what it feeds upon. A growing boy who lets tobacco and opium get a hold upon his senses is never long in coming under the domination of whisky too. Tobacco is the boys' easiest and most direct road to whisky. When opium is added, the young man's chance of resisting the combined forces and escaping, physical, mental, and moral harm is slim, indeed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I take the ground with the mover of the resolution, and I take it very strongly, that if we want a sturdy and vigorous manhood in this country we have to do something to suppress this vice of cigarette smoking, which is sapping the energy of the boys and young men of this country. I do not know of any more effective way of calling the attention of the country to the injury that faces them in this direction, than the move my bon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) has made to-night. I have the greatest pleasure in heartily endorsing what he has said.


Eight Hon. E. L. BOKDEN (Prime Minister) :: Before the motion is put, I would like to say a few words. The subject which the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) has brought to the attention of the House this evening, is one that has been discussed

147b
on many occasions here. The evil which does undoubtedly exist, through the excessive use of cigarettes, particularly by those of immature years, has been placed before this House, in very cogent terms, on different occasions. The theory upon which hon. gentlemen chiefly relied in former years, was, that cigarettes, particularly imported cigarettes, were supposed to be impregnated or adulterated with drugs, and also, that persons who used cigarettes were in the habit of inhaling the smoke and in that way causing serious injury to the system. Another theory has been introduced tonight, which I have not heard before: that some peculiar combination of the paper and tobacco results in the creation of a byproduct which is very poisonous. Apart from these circumstances, I have not been able to see very clearly why it is that the smoking of tobacco when rolled up in a litle piece of paper is more harmful than if smoked in the form of a cigar or placed in a pipe. I have no douibt that there is a great deal in the theory that the detriment through inhaling is very great, and it may be, although I have no knowledge of the subject except what I have heard stated in tne House, that cigarettes imported from abroad do contain other deleterious elements than tobacco, such as noxious and harmful drugs. Representations have been made in this House, and they have been made to the Government from time to time since we assumed office, as to the very great evils which result to the youthful portion of the population of Canada from cigarette smoking. It is alleged, not only that it is very detrimental to the physical condition of young persons, but that it also does have a marked effect upon their mental and even their moral condition, through the deterioration of their physical condition.
I have taken the liberty sometimes of saying to those who have made these representations before me, that I am quite sure that paternal influence would be, or at least ought to be, of more value than all the legislation we could pass here, so far as young persons are concerned; and that if paternal and family influence were to-day of the same force which they exercised twenty-five, or thirty, or forty years ago, perhaps we would hear less now of the need of such legislation. I cannot say that anything that has been said in reply to that, suggestion from me has altered my opinion very much in that regard. It does seem to me that, at the present day, we are getting 94j
more and more into the tendency of having family discipline placed under the guidance of direct legislation, instead of under the exercise of paternal influence, which in the case of a great many members of this House would have stamped out the cigarette evil at a very early age, if it had made itself manifest. You may place all the legislation you like on the statute books of Canada, and you can never quite replace the force and effect of parental and family influence, whether in regard to the use of cigarettes or in regard to the use of anything else.
This subject was discussed twice in Parliament before-first in 1903 and then in
1907,	and the late Administration placed upon the statute book of this country, in
1908,	legislation about as restrictive as any one could desire, that is, short of an attempt to prohibit absolutely the importation, manufacture, and sale of cigarettes. The legislation was introduced by Mr. Aylesworth in the session of 1908, in the form of a resolution prohibiting any person under the age of sixteen years from purchasing cigarettes; and it also dealt with minors who should undertake to smoke or chew tobacco on the public street so as to create an offence in the view of persons passing by. The Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill was referred increased the age limit to eighteen, but it was reduced to sixteen by the Senate. The Senate also made some minor changes of another character in the Bill. The Bill, however, as passed was fairly drastic. It declared that:
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction in the case of a fust offence to a penalty not exceeding ten dollars, and in the case of a second offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty-five dollars, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars, who, directly or indirectly, sells or gives or furnishes to a person under the age of sixteen years any cigarette or cigarette papers, whether for his own use or not, or sells or gives or furnishes to such a person tobacco he knows or has reason to believe is for the use of that person.
There was an absolute prohibition of the sale of cigarettes to any person under the age of sixteen; not only that, but a prohibition of the sale of cigarette paper to any such person, and finally a prohibition of the sale of tobacco to any such person in all cases whether there was reason to believe it was for his use or for the use of some one else.
The second section of the statute to which I allude provides that:

It shall be the duty of any constable or person having the powers of a constable, or person authorized so to do by any by-law in that behalf made by any authority or person having power to make such by-law to seize any cigarettes, cigaarette papers or tobacco in any form other than cigarettes in the possession of any person apparently under the age of sixteen years whom he finds smoking or chewing or about to smoke or chew' tobacco in any street *or public place.
Just what the test should be with regard to a person who might be found about to smoke or to chew on the street, I do not know; but thr statute is in that form.
Then there was a penalty for juvenile smoking. The section is very long, and I will not weary the House with it, but the prohibition is very strict and the penalty severe. The chapter to which I allude is chapter 73 of the Act of 1908, and the section to which I have reference is the third section of that statute. In the fourth section there was a provision whereby, if an automatic machine for the sale of cigarettes or tobacco was found to be used by persons under the age of sixteen, authority was given to punish that offence and if necessary to confiscate the machine itself and all the tobacco and cigarettes in connection with it; and so on through many sections of the statute. It is a pretty strict statute on the whole and one which, if enforced, would largely prevent any great evil or detriment resulting throughout this country from the use of cigarettes or tobacco by persons under the age of sixteen years.
I have inquired of my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder), and of delegations who have pressed this subject upon the attention of the Government, as to why it is that any further legislation is required when there is already legislation on the statute book which, if enforced, would to a great extent do away with this evil. The only answer that I have received up to the present time, either from my hon. friend the member for Dundas or from any person who has come before me, is that the statute is not enforced. If a statute such as this, which is plain in its terms and which ought to be easily capable of enforcement, because it relates to matters carried on before the eyes of every person in the community, is incapable of enforcement for some reason or another, possibly for the reason that it is not properly supported by public opinion, I would like to know for what reason we should expect that a statute prohibiting the importation manufacture or sale of cigarettes would be enforced more effectively than the present
	/
statute. We have a boundary line to the south of four or five thousand miles; and I do not know hoiw many miles of sea-coast on both the east and the west; and if there is that desire on the part of Canadians, both young and old, to use cigarette's, which would seem to be manifest from the non-enforcement of this statute, and if public opinion is so lax -that .a statute of this character cannot he and is not enforced, I would like to understand for what reason and upon what principle anyone would expect that a statute isuch as my hon. friend from Dundas proposes would be any more effectively enforced. In respect .to matters of this kind you cannot depend upon putting words upon the statute book. Well, you say to me, we propose to do something more than place words upon the statute book; we propose to enact a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes, and we propose to enforce it. How do you propose to enforce it? How many thousand men would lit he necessary to have upon our southern boundary, upon all our sea-coasts, in every oommiunity, town, village and hamlet in this country, in order to enforce a law of that kind? Would it not be infinitely better to have upon the statute book of this country some moderate law capable of enforcement and really enforced, than to put upon the statute book a most extreme .and drastic measure of this kind and never attempt to enforce it at all, and, more than that, never be able to .enforce it at .all. That is the way the matter strikes me at the moment; and up to the present time, neither in this House nor outside of it, from delegations or otherwise, have I been able to hear reasons which I would regard as sufficient against those which I have placed in very brief form before the House.
However, the subject .to which my hon. friend has called attention is undoubtedly important, df it be true, as is alleged, that the use of cigarettes amongst very young persons, both boys and girls, is continually increasing, .and it may be necessary for legislation of some kind to be placed upon the 'Statute book. It may be necessary for us to place upon the statute book some provision which will assist in the enforcement of the present law which it seems to me is capable of redressing the evil in very great measure if properly enforced. I pass by for the moment the suggestion made by my (hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that the mere fact that cigarettes or tobacco may

be used to excess by some persons, or by persons of immature age, is not necessarily a reason why we should prohibit its importation or manufacture.
I venture to say that any person who is curious in such matters could go into medical works and bring to this House very good evidence indeed that thousands of persons in Canada to-day are suffering physically and mentally from the excessive use of tea and coffee; and yet I do not think it would be suggested that we should absolutely prohibit the importation into Canada of tea and coffee.
I am willing that this resolution shall have the fullest possible consideration by this House or by a committee, and if there is any means by which the evil that undoubtedly does exist-if the representations made to me are true-can be mitigated, then any legislation for the purpose of redressing that evil should be placed upon the statute book. But I should hope and desire, so far as I am concerned, that that legislation will be reasonable in its character and capable of enforcement. For I think that no law at all in regard to such a matter as this is infinitelv better than an extreme law placed upon tlie statute book without hope or expectation of reasonable enforcement. A moderate law', a reasonable law, that can be enforced and made effective in a reasonable degree in redressing the evil, is to my mind infinitely better than a law not enforced at all, and not supported by public opinion. I am perfectly willing that the proposal of the hon. member for Dundas shall be submitted to a committee of this House with full power to inquire into the matter. The subject could be submitted to the committee in one of two ways. The motion the hon. gentleman has suggested could be passed pro forma, the House reserving its judgment upon any Bill introduced thereon until after further inquiry; or, better still, the resolution might be amended to call for the appointment of a committee that, I hope, would go into this question in a serious way with a view to improving existing legislation. So, I would suggest to my hon. friend that the resolution he has proposed might be amended; and I would move that it be amended in this way^
That all the words after the word 'that' in the first line of the proposed resolution down to and including; the word 'provide' in the second line of the resolution be struck out and the following substituted therefor.
A committee of fifteen members be appointed to inquire and report whether it is expedient to enact as follows;
That no person, by himself, his agent or otherwise, shall manufacture, sell or give away any cigarettes, cigarette papers or wrappers, or any substitute therefor, or shall be in any way concerned in such manufacture, sale or distribution, or authorize or permit the same; that no cigarettes, cigarette papers or wrappers shall be imported into Canada or entered for consumption therein, and that all cigarettes, cigarette papers or wrappers intended as such shall be subject to seizure by any officer of Customs or Inland Revenue, and that they, with the packages in which they are contained, shall be disposed of under regulations made by the Governor in Council; that penalties shall be imposed for the contravention of this Act, and the prosecution for any penalty or punishment may be brought and prosecuted under the provisions of Part XV of the Criminal Code relating to summary conviction.'
And by adding to the proposed resolution
at the end thereof, the following words:
Or whether it is expedient to make any other amendment and if so what amendment to the existing laws for the purpose of remedying or preventing any evils arising from the use of cigarettes.
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation and to report from time to time.


Andrew Broder: Would it not be well to cover the ground of finding out why the present law is not enforced?


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is quite
covered by the words, ' to inquire and report, whether it is expedient to make any other amendment and if so, what amendment to the existing laws?' I think that is sufficiently comprehensive to authorize the committee to enter upon the inquiry that the hon. gentleman suggests.


Frank Oliver: I
feel very diffident about supporting any proposal that would tend to restrict the liberty of the individual. At the same time, all law is a restriction of personal liberty and the only question is whether the law operates for the benefit of the individual and the community or not. We already have the liberty of the individual restricted with regard to the consumption of intoxicating liquors; we have it restricted with regard to harmful drugs; we have it restricted with regard to much more trivial matters as anybody can learn, if the next time he rides in one of the Ottawa street cars he reads the signs and warnings displayed for the information of the public, based upon a city by-law passed, it is to be presumed, in accordance with the wisdom [DOT] of the electors and councillors of this fair city. So, the proposal of my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) is not objectionable because it is a restriction of individual

liberty. Our support or opposition to the measure must rest on some other ground than that. Evidence has been placed before the House to-night as to the harmful effect of the consumption of cigarettes and the growth of that consumption, and it is for each member to make up his mind as to whether the harm to the individual and the community is sufficiently great to warrant that measure of interference with personal liberty that would follow the passing of the resolution of my hon. friend or that might result from the amendment proposed. In regard to the reason why my hon. friend has proposed his resolution while there is legislation upon the statute book bearing upon the same question, I may take the liberty of suggesting to the House a possible reason for the course that he has taken. Under the legislation that is on the statute book to-day the enforcement of the law is difficult, because each attempt at enforcement may very well become the subject of proceedings in court. There might be a demand that evidence should be brought forward in support of any attempt to enforce the law. But under the provision that my hon. friend suggests, the evidence would be automatic; there would be no question of fact to interfere with the operation of the law. So that, provided public opinion was favourable to the enforcement of the very comprehensive proposal of my hon. friend, the terms in which it is worded would remove the difficulty that lies in the way of the law which is now on the statute book. The existence of the offensive article would be all the evidence necessary, and the difficulty of enforcement would be done away with. Under the present Act there are difficulties as to questions of fact; under the proposal of the hon. member for Dundas there would be no difficulties as to the question of fact, and it is, I presume, with this idea in view that my hon. friend has made his proposal. Of course his proposal is very comprehensive and goes much further than the statute. It is a matter for consideration whether the evil is sufficiently great to warrant that the law should be carried so far as the hon. gentleman proposes to carry it. For my own part, as I do not happen to use tobacco in any form, I would feel more delicate about advocating a course that would interfere with the right of any other man than if I were advocating a course interfering with action on my own part. To argue the question as a matter of right, however, it appears to me that it has been established that the cigar-
ette is an individual and national evil, and to my mind a sufficient case has been made out to warrant this House in adopting the resolution of the hon. member for Dundas as he represented it to the House.


William Findlay Maclean: Without going into the merits of the question raised in the resolution or in the amendment, there has been brought up an issue, to my mind, of much greater importance, to which I referred for a moment when I addressed the House this afternoon. It is this: What provision have we foj the enforcement of federal law? We have in this country a peculiar arrangement by which the enforcement of federal law, especially in criminal matters or in matters of this	kind,	is relegated
to the provinces.	If we are to pass
effective legislation, we must find a way to enforce federal legislation by federal machinery. In the United States they have a federal system similar to ours, and in all their legislation-take for instance the pure food legislation which has proved to be so beneficial-it is expressly stated that its enforcement shall be in the hands of the Attorney General of the United States. We have a very pleasant trick in this House of passing legislation for the improvement of society, but of making no provision for its enforcement, relegating that to the Attorneys General of the various provinces. We have been evading a grave responsibility which is placed upon this House. If we pass legislation of various kinds we must put in those laws provisions for their enforcement. We have to-day a statute creating a railway commission in Canada.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am afraid the hon.
member is drifting away from the question before the House.


William Findlay Maclean: I am arguing as to the enforcement of this proposed legislation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think any discussion of it3 enforcement will be a departure from the usual rules of debate in the House.


William Findlay Maclean: The right hon. gentleman referred to the enforcement of it, and the hon. member who introduced it said that the question of enforcement was really before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not understand
from a reading of the resolution that there is anything in it about who shall enforce it. It has regard to the appointment of a

commission of inquiry or to the making of a law.


William Findlay Maclean: As I understand it, the original motion was based on the idea of providing an effective enforcement of the law. If we are about to pass legislation and not discuss whether it is to be enforced or not, I am willing to bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, and refrain from going into the matter. I do think that the question of the enforcement of our laws is of the greatest importance, and that we must approach that question sooner or later and deal with it with regard to all legislation that we pass in this House.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and .motion as amended agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
Tuesday, March 10, 1914.