1914-02-17

FIRST READINGS OF BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 72, respecting The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 73, respecting The Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 74, respecting The Central Ontario Railway.-Mr. G. V. White.
Bill No. 75, respecting The Continental Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
Bill No. 76, to incorporate Les Soeurs de la Charite de 1'Ho.spital Saint Antoine de Le Pas.-Mr. Lavallee.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) presented a message from His Royal Highness the Governor General, signed by his own hand.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message, as follows:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the Address that you voted in response to my speech on the occasion of the opening of Parliament.
Arthur.
Government House,
Ottawa, 13th February, 1914.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie and Napierville) begs leave to introduce Bill No. 77, amending the Judges' Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, the Act which this Bill is intended to amend provides in its section 19,
that a judge after serving fifteen years on the Bench may be pensioned. The Bill which I now submit to the House provides that the word ' fifteen ' be struck out and words ' twenty-five ' substituted therefor.
Under sections 20 and 24 of the Revised Statutes, and section 25 of the Act of 1908, embodied in the statutes of 1913, it is provided that a judge after reaching seventy-five years of age, or serving during a period of thirty-five years, though less than seventy five years old, may retire, and that in either case he is entitled to a government pension equal to the salary he earned at the time of his retirement. The object of this Bill is to amend that provision, so that instead of drawing his full salary 'the judge thus retired shall in the future draw a pension equal to only two-thirds of the salary be was drawing at the time of retirement. Should the judge have served for a period of less than five years, the pension shall not exceed one-third of the yearly salary he was drawing, unless such judge has reached the age of seventy-five.
Under the new section 25 which I am moving, county judges having reached the age of seventy-five will be bound to retire.
Besides I am submitting to the consideration of the House a further provision which will come in immediately after section 27 of the Revised Statutes of 1906, which further provision is to the effect that any person drawing a pension under such Act who later on draws a salary in connection with some public office in the gift of the Dominion Government, shall suffer a reduction of such salary equal to the amount of such pension .
To conclude, a last section states that the provisions of the last section shall be applicable to whomsoever is drawing to-day such a pension.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have not had an opportunity to look fully into this Bill, but in my judgment it is one which ought to be introduced by resolution. I notice that it provides a pension, which, I take it, would be paid under different circumstances from those specified by the general law on that subject. If so, it could only be introduced by resolution. Before the Bill reaches the second reading I will look fully into the matter.


Mr. LANCTOT:: It is not to increase
but to reduce the pension.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be under different circumstances from those under

which a pension may be paid by law today.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN laid on the table of the House a statement of the population of Canada according to provinces and territories in 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911, according to the census returns. He said: I observe in this that the population of Alberta and Saskatchewan, within their present limits are now defined, as set out in the census of 1901, according to a compilation that has been made by the Census Department, is to be found in the Canada Year Book of the present year. Of course, they were not constituted as provinces at that time, but the population within their area is set forth.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN moved second reading of Bill No. 62, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons. He said:
I desire to offer just a few words upon the second reading of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced, I stated that it was precisely in the form in which the Bill of 1903 had passed Parliament. That is not precisely correct, because sections 7 and 8 as they appeared in the Bill of that time have been omitted from the present Bill. The reason for that is that those sections were repealed in the following year by a Bill which was introduced by Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick, Minister of Justice at that time, who in introducing the Bill made these observations:
. The object of this Bill is to correct two or three errors which, through inadvertence or oversight, crept into the Representation Act of last session. Sections 7 and S of the Representation Act slipped into their present position in the body of the Act through error. They are taken from the Quebec Act, Revised Statutes of Quebec, chapter 2, sections 67 and 68, which define the provincial electoral districts. The intention was to insert these particular sections 6 and 7 where they ought to be, in the Quebec schedule. They have been incorporated in the body of the Act, which would make them applicable to the whole Dominion. Of course, this is absolutely impossible under the system of dividing constituencies as they exist elsewhere.
As the sections had been repealed in the following year and were held to be inapplicable, for that reason they were not

included in the Bill which I introduced a week ago to-day.
Upon the introduction of the Bill, my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) raised a question as to the effect of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act, which is as follows:
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth par or up war!'.
And it has been suggested that in giving this section its effect there should be no reduction in the representation of the Maritime provinces and possibly of Ontario, under the results disclosed by the last census. I regret as much as any hon. gentleman in this House the necessity that the provinces mentioned shall lose representation in this House, and, as I assured my hon. friend from Pictou on the occasion alluded to, I would be only too glad if I could find such assistance or aid from this section as would do away with the necessity for reducing the representation as it is proposed in the Bill. I fear, however, that there is no such assistance to be derived; and the question as I understand it may be illustrated by a concrete example. Let us suppose that a certain province in Canada, to which is applied the unit of representation as defined by the population of Quebec, finds itself confronted with the loss of one or more members. It is necessary to consider the effect of subsection 4, to see whether or not there is any sufficient safeguard in its provisions. In order to avoid long and complicated fractions, let us suppose that such province finds itself in this position: that at the -last preceding readjustment the proportion which the number of the population of that province bore to the number of the aggregate -population of Canada was one-tenth. And suppose that upon the readjustment under consideration it is found that the proportion which the number of the population of the province bears to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at that readjustment is one-twelfth. The question then is as to the meaning and effect of subsection 4. If you reduce these proportions to a common denominator, you will find that at the preceding readjustment the proportion was six-sixtieths, while at the readjustment under consideration it is

one-twelfth, or five-sixtieths. As I understand the meaning and effect of the section, there is a reduction from six-sixtieths to five-sixtieths in the proportion which the population of that province bears to the aggregate population of Canada. Therefore, I would consider-and this is the view that has been taken on all occasions in the past, as I understand-that the proportion which the population of that province bears to the aggregate population of Canada has been reduced, in the suggested case by one-sixth, that is, from six-sixtieths to five-sixtieths. The argument, as I understand it, which has been put forward in contradistinction to that is this: that inasmuch as the proportion in question at the previous readjustment was six-sixtieths and at the present readjustment is five-sixtieths, the proportion in question has been reduced by only one-sixtieth; but I think that upon the slightest consideration it will be found that that contention cannot be sustained. At the former readjustment the proportion stood at six-sixtieths, at the readjustment in question it stands at five-sixtieths, and therefore the proportion, according to my view, has obviously been reduced by one-sixth or more than one-twentieth, and therefore the province finds no aid or'assistance in the provisions of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act.
I went into the general subject somewhat fully in introducing this Bill; therefore I do not find it necessary to add anything further at this stage.
Rt.   H@: Ere we come to a final conclusion upon the second reading of this Bill, perhaps it would not be inadvisable if we should endeavour to lay down the principles which should guide the committee which is entrusted with the'task of recasting the electoral map of Canada, so as to give each one of the provinces which now are a part of the Dominion the representation to which it is entitled according to its population ascertained at the last census. I shall be pardoned, although the article has been cited more than once, if I call the attention of the House to the provisions of. section 51 of the British North America Act which is the basis of all the dispositions which affect representation under our system. The language is somewhat peculiar, and I commend it to the attention of the House:
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and on each subsequent decennial census, the
representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules.
I need not cite the rules, but I call the attention of the House to these peculiar words:
The representation . . . shall be adjusted by such authority, in such manner and at such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides. ,
These words have been a puzzle to many of those who have studied our Constitutional Act. It has been difficult to ascertain from the mere context of the Act what was meant by the fathers of Confederation when they used these words: ' By such authority as Parliament from time to time provides '. The debates of the Legislature of Old Canada, when the basis of the Act was debated at Quebec, fail to give any indication of what was meant by its framers. Nothing that was said or written at the time discloses what was the inner meaning of these words. Although I have read somewhat extensively the history of that period, I have not been able to satisfy myself what was the peculiar object which the framers of the constitution had in their minds. Many have suggested -it has been suggested on the floor of this House more than once-that this clause of the Act meant that Parliament should create an independent body, say a c m-mission of judges, to make after every census the apportionment of the representation between the different provinces. Although this opinion has been expressed more than once on the floor of this House, up to the present time neither one party nor the other has been willing to part with the authority that is vested in this Parliament. Neither one party nor the other has been willing to transfer to any other hands than its own the duty and responsibility which devolve upon Parliament after all to determine what shall be the representation in this House.
We have had, since Confederation, four Redistribution Bills; this is the fifth. The three first were made under the auspices of the Conservative party, and the fourth was made under the regime of the Liberal party. Since my right hon. friend has adopted the principle which we laid down ourselves in 1903, I am anxious, at the present time, to avoid anything contentious; but I think I may say without any recrimination that, as a matter of history the three first redistributions, that of 1872, that of 1882 and

that of 1892, which were carried out by the Conservative party, failed to give satisfaction to the minority, and I think I am justified in saying that in many instances they failed to give satisfaction even to the whole of the Conservative party. The method which was followed was to bring in a Bill which was cut and dried and in the preparation of which the minority, tlie Opposition in this House, had no voice. They had nothing to do but offer criticism or approval; they were not allowed any voice whatever in the preparation of the measure.
When we came into office it became our duty in 1903, after the census of 1901 to provide for a redistribution of the representation. We thought it preferable to introduce a new system, and we presented a Bill with a schedule in blank, leaving to a Committee of the House the full work of preparing the map which it is the duty of Parliament to prepare. The committee was composed of seven members, and on that occasion, as on the present and similar occasions, of course, the majority must have the deciding voice. No one can object to that; it is a part of our parliamentary system. The system will work well if the majority on the committee will be guided, not by a desire to have an advantage over the minority, but simply by the principles of equity, justice and fair play. I am aware that in the committee which was appointed in 1903, there were sometimes very severe cleavages of opinion and some very hot discussions; but I think I can claim, to the credit of the committee, that when its report was presented to the House it was, after all, in the main, accepted as fair. So far as my recollection serves me, and I think I am right in what I now state, there were only two dispositions of the report which were very severely criticised. One was the disposition which had been made for the representation of the county of Hastings and the other was the disposition which had been made for the representation of the county of Waterloo. There was an animated discussion on the floor of this House. It was then my duty, my privilege and my responsibility to be the Prime Minister, and while I was not perfectly satisfied that the objections were well taken, I thought that it was better to err upon the side of generosity, and we accepted the views of the minority and amended the Bill accordingly. I think I can say-and I am in the judgment of the House in this-that from the day on which His Excellency the Governor General of that time gave his assent to that Bill down

to the present, there has been no serious criticism-indeed, no criticism at all-as to the fairness of the redistribution of 1903.
The same duties are now confronting the committee who are going to be appointed. 1 have every confidence that, following the precedent which was laid down then, they also will be guided by the spirit of fair play, justice and equity as between party and party. I know that upon the members of the majority of the committee there will always be, as there has been in the past, severe pressure, not so much from within this House as from outside of this House, perhaps, to have the scales weighted on the side of the majority rather than on the side of the minority. That is nothing but natural; but, I believe that events have justified our expectations, and that nothing is to be gained except by the application of the principles ot justice and fair play in the preparation of a Bill such as that we have now in hand.
In the work which is to be accomplished by the committee, I might say a word as to the principles which should guide it. My right hon. friend, in introducing the Bill, insisted upon the position which I have taken, both in opposition and in office, as to the guiding principle which, in my judgment, should be dominant; that is, the equalization of population as between constituency and constituency. My right hon. friend quoted some words which I uttered in 1892, when the Bill of that year was before Parliament, as follows:
But I fully recognize that in such a measure the guiding principle should he as far as possible to equalize the population in all the constituencies.
I have nothing to retract of those words. Nay, more, I am sorry that my right hon. friend did not quote to the House what I said further on that occasion, because I reproached the Administration that whilst laying down a principle they were not acting in accordance with that principle. This is what I said:
The hon. gentleman stated, also speaking in answer to myself, that he could not accept the proposal we had made for a conference, because he said I had laid down a principle which was an obnoxious one, and to which he could not agree; the principle, as he stated, I think, that the redistribution should take place so as not to disturb the equilibrium of parties. It may be, Sir, that my language was not sufficiently guarded ; but I certainly meant to say that in a redistribution measure the equilibrium of par-, ties should not be disturbed at the expense of one party by giving an unfair advantage to the other. So far I meant to express myself, and no further. But I fully recognize that in such a measure, the guiding principle should be as

far as possible to equalize the population in all the constituencies. This is the principle that was stated as the guiding principle of this measure in the speech in which the hon. member introduced it; yet this principle is not to be found anywhere in the four corners of the Bill.
I have nothing to retract from what I said there. That was the principle, which, when afterwards loaded with the responsibility of office, I endeavoured to carry out, and that is the principle which, as in 1892 and 1903 I affirm to-day. There is another principle of almost equal importance, and that is regard for the compactness of the constituency, and, as far as possible, for the county unit. Under our system, the county is the unit of population, so far as public life is concerned. Let me repeat: the county and the municipal organization in this country is the unit of population in so far as the public life of the country is concerned. The county is the basis of our judicial system; it is the basis of our municipal system; and our municipal system and our judicial system are in turn the bases of our public life, our political life, I may say our national life. The selectmen in every county have to meet several times a year for-the discharge of their judicial functions as jurors and their municipal functions as municipal councillors, and at these meetings they prepare themselves for the public life of the country. They discuss not only the matters pertaining to their Judicial or municipal functions, but naturally the larger questions which concern national problems. It is evident that this predisposes men to proper and safe judgment upon all matters of public interest. It seems to me obvious that if you interfere with the lines of the county unit, separate those who meet periodically for the discharge of their municipal and other duties, and provide that they shall only meet once in four or five years to decide on political questions, you detract from, rather than add to, their appreciation of public questions.
These views have been put before Parliament more than once since Confederation by the most eminent men we have had in this House. Mr. Blake made them the subject of many a pronouncement, and Mr. Dalton McCarthy, who was an authority upon such matters, not only spoke many times on the question, but moved the following resolution in which was embodied the principle which I now contend for:
That the distribution of seats of the members of this House should, so far as practicable, be based on equality of population, due regard being had to the community of interests existing in localities, a full and fair expression of public opinion and the permanence and stability of constituencies.
That the most effectual way of accomplishing these ends is to assume county and city boundaries as the natural limits of electoral districts, with equitable divisions thereof constituted with compactness as regards geographical position, and based on well-known existing areas where the population entitles the city or county to two or more representatives.
I am aware that the principles which 1 lay down cannot be applied mathematically. In the equalization of population it is not possible to have arithmetically the same number of people in each constituency. I am well aware also that you cannot with absolute rigour maintain the municipal boundaries; but I submit to the House that while it would be pedantic to assert that these principles have to be applied without any exception whatever, still reason and commonsense can be made to prevail. There are few rules to which there is not an exception; but the principles I now lay down ought to be the guiding principles for the committee in the discharge of the duty with which we now entrust them.
I am aware also that it has been stated in the press and in this House that our practice has not been in conformity with our precept in this regard. I have heard it stated that on more than one occasion we ourselves departed from the principles I have just laid down. I have heard it stated on the floor of the House that in the Bill of 1903 we departed from the principle of county boundaries in the case of Lavaltrie, Caughnawaga, Lacolle, Notre Dame de . Stanbridge, Notre Dame des Anges, St. Pie, St. Marcel. It is true that in the Act of 1903 the parish of Lavaltrie was taken from L'Assomption and placed in Berthier. It is true also that the village of Caughnawaga was transferred from the county of Chateau-guay to the county of Laprairie; that the parish of Lacolle was transferred from Mis-sisquoi to St. John-Iberville; that the parishes of Notre Dame de Stanbridge and Notre Dame des Anges were transferred from the county of St. John to Missisquoi; that the parish of St. Pie was transferred from Rouville to Bagot, and that the parish of St. Marcel was transferred from Bagot to Richelieu. But I say now that the transferring of these different parishes from one county to another county in 1903, far from being a departure from the county unit, was, on the contrary, in absolute conformity to the principle of the county unit, because these parishes, by the redistribution of 1892, had been transferred from the county to which they belonged to another county.

I should say here that our county organization in Quebec goes back to the year 1833. With a few exceptions which have taken place since it was constituted in the year 1853 by the Act 16 Victoria. By the Act of 1892 the parish of La-valtrie was taken from the county of Ber-their and placed in the county of L'Assomp-tion, with which it had not connection whatever. Lavaltrie continued to belong to the county of Berthier for municipal purposes,, for judicial purposes, and for electoral purposes, so far as the Quebec legislature was concerned. So that after 1892 the parish of Lavaltrie voted in the provincial elections in the county of Bel'thier and in the Dominion elections in the county of L'Assomption. In 1911 we brought back Lavaltrie to the county of Berthier, where it belonged. The same thing happened with the village of Caughnawaga. This village, by the Act of 1853, which is reproduced in the consolidated statutes of Lower Canada of 1861 was in the county of Laprairie, and in 1892 it was placed in the county of Chateauguay. In 1903 we brought it back to the county of Laprairie, where it belonged.
The same thing happened with the town of Lacolle. Lacolle always belonged to the county of St. John. In 1892, it was taken from St. John to Missisquoi, and in 1903 we brought it back to St. John.
The same thing happened in the case of Notre Dame de Stanbridge and Notre Dame des Anges. They belonged to the county of Missisquoi and they were carried over to St. John in 1892. We brought them back in 1903 to Missisquoi. [DOT]
The most glaring case of all was the parish of St. Pie. From 1853 it had always belonged to the county of Bagot. In 1892 it was taken from Bagot and put into the county of Rouville, where it had no business at all. In 1902 we brought it back to Bagot again.
St. Marcel in 1892 was taken from the county of Kichlieu and put into the county of Bagot. In 1903 we brought it back into the county of Richelieu where it belonged.
The parishes of St. Guillaume d'Upton and St. Bonaventure d'Upton by the Act of 1903 were placed in the county of Yamaska, Up to that time St. Guillaume and St. Bonaventure had always belonged to the county of Drummond. Why did we place them in 1903 in the county of Yamaska, where they now belong? The reason is this. As far back as 1872 an Act was passed by the local legislature of Quebec to detach these parishes from the county of Drummond and district of Arthabaska, and to

annex them for all purposes whatsoever to the county of Yamaska. This is the disposition :
1. From and after the first day of January, 1S73, the parishes of St. Guillaume d'Upton and St. Bonaventure d'Upton shall be detached from the county of Drummond and district of Arthabaska, and shall be annexed to the county of Yamaska for all electoral, municipal, registra tation and other purposes.
Mark the purposes:
For all electoral, municipal, registration and other purposes.
From the first of January, 1873, the two parishes of St. Guillaume d'Uptoii and St. Bonaventure ceased to belong to the county of Drummond and were annexed to the county of Yamaska. From that time, these two parishes voted in the provincial elections in the county of Yamaska, and continued to vote in the Dominion elections in the counties of Drummond and Arthabaska. Following the principle of county unit, the legislature of Quebec having thought it proper to annex these two parishes to the county of Yamaska, to which they belonged geographically much more than to the county of Drummond, we thought it equally right that these two parishes should belong to the county of Yamaska also for federal purposes.
The parish of Ste. Flore has also been mentioned. As to this, I have not the same information, but I understand that the parish of Ste. Flore was in 1903 detached from the county of Champlain and put into the county of St. Maurice. I do not understand why it was in the county of Champlain, because the county of Champlain is bounded on the west by the river St. Maurice, and Ste. Flore is to the west of the river St. Maurice, so that between Champlain and Ste. Flore there is the river St. Maurice, and naturally, geographically and for the sake of compactness, Ste. Flore has belonged to the county of St. Maurice.


Mr. PELLETIER:: There was another parish left west of the river-St. Jean des Piles.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I understand that. I have not been able to refresh my memory as to why that was done, although I know that it was done. I know that the committee made a suggestion which was corrected by the House, but, so far as I remember, Mr. Monk, who was a member of the committee, did not object at the time. I speak subject to correction, because I have not had an opportunity of looking again into this point.

We have endeavoured to follow the principle of county unit in every case. Of course, there may be exceptions to all rules. If there is such an exception, it is the only one on which I have been able to refresh my memory and, even if there is such an exception, it would only go to maintain the principle for which I have all along contended and for which I still contend, that we should always preserve the county unit.
The task of the committee is not an easy one. The committee will have these two principles to work upon: first, equalization of population between constituency and constituency, and, secondly, maintenance of county boundaries. I have no doubt whatever that occasions may arise when these two things may clash, and then the committee will have to come to some decision as to what to do under such circumstances. In the majority of cases, however, there ought to be no more difficulty in maintaining the principle in 1914 than there was in 1903.
There is another principle which must also be taken into consideration, and to which my right hon. friend alluded when he introduced this Bill, that is, that the unit of population cannot be the same in urban as in rural constituencies. It has always been admitted, in 1872, in 1882, in 1892, and in 1903-that the unit of population cannot be the same for cities as for rural constituencies. It is useless for me to dilate upon the reasons why this should be so, because the principle has always been admitted by both sides of the House. Therefore I am satisfied that, on this occasion as on previous occasions, the committee will have to adhere to that principle, and to say that in the cities the unit of population must be much larger than in rural constituencies. Without going into all the reasons, there is one supreme reason, namely, that in a country like Canada, where there is a very large territory with a sparse population, if you were to give the same unit of population to cities and counties, in rural constituencies you would have such a large area of territory as to be almost impossible to control or to cover. This is quite sufficient to justify the principle which has been adopted on every occasion on which we have had redistribution.
My right hon. friend, in this Bill, has refrained from making one provision, the absence of which seems to me a weakness in the Bill, and, I cannot but think, also a weakness on his part. He refused to
determine whether or not the Island of Prince Edward is to lose a member. He left that blank and referred it to the committee for determination. I have to represent to my right hon. friend that that is a matter upon which the committee cannot have any jurisdiction; it is a matter on which this House has no jurisdiction. Parliament in this matter is not a free agent; the whole question is simply a question of arithmetic. The very argument which my right hon. friend makes to-day in answer to the suggestion offered by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is an answer for the action-or rather want of action-with regard to Prince Edward Island. The right hon. gentleman stated categorically that he would like to give more representation to Nova Scotia than is given under this Bill, and I have no doubt that he did spend many an hour trying to escape the neces- [DOT] sary result of the census, the loss on the part of Nova Scotia of two members. That is quite natural. I have had in my day the same problem to deal with; but we had to come to the conclusion that we had no discretion in this matter-that Parliament must simply carry out the constitution as it stands. But when my right hon. friend leaves it to the committee to determine whether or not Prince Edward Island shall lose one member, what will he say to my hon. friend from Pictou or any other member from Nova Scotia should he suggest that it be left to the committee to determine whether or not Nova Scotia shall lose two members? What will he say to a member from New Brunswick should he ask that the same privilege be accorded to that province? What would he say even to the great province of Ontario, which under this Bill must lose four members, should a representative of that province ask why Ontario should be treated differently from other provinces? I say in this matter jurisdiction is not with the Prime 4 p.m. Minister, nor myself, nor the Committee, nor even Parliament; it is a matter of the law and the constitution; the provision of that constitution must be maintained whatever the consequence. Therefore I regret that my right hon. friend has introduced in his Bill a principle-no, I cannot call it a *principle, but rather a vicious feature- which might land him in very serious difficulties were its necessary implications followed to their logical conclusion.
Having taken this exception to the pro-

visions of the Bill of my right hon. friend -and it is the only criticism I have to offer-I will submit just one suggestion upon which I believe we can find it more easy to agree, and that is that the committee should be composed, not of seven, but of nine members. Under former redistributions the West had not the importance that it has since taken on. We have two more provinces in Confederation than we had even in 1903. We have four natural units of population-the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the provinces west of lake Superior. I would suggest, and I hope my right hon. friend will receive that suggestion favourably, that the committee should have nine members, >so that we on this side may have four, one from each of these great sections of our country.
Having said this much, I have nothing . to add at present. Of course, I am glad my right hon. friend has taken the course of referring this matter to a committee. The work, then, is no longer in his hands, or in mine, or even in those of the House. The committee will have to seek our ratification of their work. I have every hope that the two sides of the House will be able to reconcile their differences, and that all members will be inspired by the sincere desire to make this Bill what it ought to be, a law to carry out the spirit of our constitution, and that spirit is that our system of representation should be so framed that, as elections take place from time to time, the results may be, as far as possible, an accurate expression of the public mind at the time, regardless of who wins and who loses.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I
think the importance of this measure warrants the attention of this House to a little greater degree than would be given if the present debate were to close at this juncture. My right hon. friend who leads the House has proposed, to submit to a committee the task of filling the schedule in the Bill which at present is blank. The task thus referred to the committee is one of very great responsibility, and involves the recognition of certain rights which it is well, I think, that the House should in some degree define before the committee enters upon its duties. My right hon. friend and leader has directed the attention of the Prime Minister to a very important provision in the enacting clauses of the Bill in regard to the province of Prince Edward Island, and the effect of 
that provision upon other provinces which might be affected by the comparison of population provided for under section 51. Perhaps it would not be out of place -to look for a moment at what rights and powers Parliament has in this matter, and what special limitations are laid down in the British North America Act with regard to this whole question of representation. The first section to which I will refer is section 40, which begins as follows:
Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, shall, for the purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts as follows:
And the special electoral districts in Canada in 1867 are set ont in detail in the Bill. The - language of this section is important, because, unless there is some limiting clause to be found in sortie other portion of the Act, the phase 'until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides' under the 'implied powers' principle in the interpretation of constitutional laws, means that the powers of Parliament would he enlarged, and would extend not merely to increasing and reducing representation in this House, but to dealing with cases where specific provinces that have not kept pace with the rest of the Dominion in the increase of population.
However, there" are other clauses which deal with this matter which must be looked at. If you come to section 52 of the British North America Act, a section which is but very seldom referred to in the consideration of this question, you will find that there is a certain limitation upon the general power given in section 40 in the following language:
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.
Interpreting that section, it will be found that in addition to section 40 there is this limitation, that Parliament can increase the total of its representation if you have regard to the proportions provided in section 51 of the Act; but it cannot decrease the total number of that representation by any special Act of Parliament unless that decrease is brought about as a result of the application of section 51 of the Act. The power, therefore, to increase the total representation of this Parliament exists in Parliament; but the power to decrease that total representation does not exist unless

it is worked out as a result of the application of section 51.
We come now to section 51 of the Act, which is the governing clause so far as the right of Parliament to deal with this question is concerned, having regard, to the general provisions of section 40, and we must move within, and can only move within, the power conferred and the limitations laid down under that particular section. One does not need to refer to this sub-clause of the Bill, you have the number for Quebec fixed at 65, and thereby determine the electoral unit for the whole Dominion. You ascertain what the representation of each province in the Dominion is by dividing that electoral unit into the population of the respective provinces. When you come to subsection 4 of the Bill, you come to the saving clause which is intended to prevent the loss of representation by the application of the electoral unit to the population of each province; and unless you can work out under the provisions of subsection 4 of section 51 of this Bill some right by which the provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island on this occasion will be saved the loss of their representation, it is impossible for a committee of this House or this Parliament, as a matter of law, to give to any one of those provinces any more representation than what you can obtain by working out this plan. If the right does not exist under subsection 4, it is not of much use for the right hon. gentleman to submit a Bill in blank and send it to a committee and ask it to be filled in, because the action of the committee would be wholly illegal and improper.	So would the action of this
Parliament if we undertook to give to Prince Edward Island or to any other province a greater number of members than the number ascertained by the application of that section. I say that with the greatest possible regret, for the reason that I am convinced that a province like Prince Edward Island, maintaining its individual entity as a province, with all the paraphernalia of government which attaches to a province, occupying the insular position which it does, having its peculiar rights on account of that peculiar position, would naturally ask for some recognition of its peculiar rights in the parliaments of the Confederation. But if we can find no power to give to that province the representation which it now enjoys, it is impossible for us to give it to that province in 54
any other way. That this has been recognized by Parliament in the past to be an absolute rule will be found in the Act of 1892, which was the last Act introduced by hon. gentlemen opposite when they had to do with the question of representation in this country; and if you look at the preamble of that Bill you will find a declaration made by Parliament that the question of representation of those provinces had been fixed and determined unalterably in the following language;
Whereas by the census of the year 1S91, and in accordance with the British North America Act, 1867, and certain other Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of the Parliament of Canada, the province of Manitoba is. by its present population entitled to seven members in the House of Commons, the province of Nova Scotia to twenty members, the province of New Brunswick to fourteen members, and the province of Prince Edward Island to five members respectively.
There you have the legislative declaration of the fact that the number of representatives of these provinces which then constituted the Confederation had been definitely and positively determined as the result of the then last census, and that it was not for Parliament to alter or to interfere with the result of the calculation. That was a legislative declaration made in an Act of Parliament in 1892 and it stands to-day as a matter of law and constitutional practice and of right, as positive and certain as it did at that time. So I submit it is impossible for us, much as we regret it, to consider under the law the possibility of filling in the words of this Bill so far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned, with any larger numbers of members than what she may be entitled to under the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act.


Mr. CARVELL:: You have as good a
right to make it six as four.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend suggests that once you open the door, once you exercise the authority of Parliament to determine the representation outside the provisions of section 51 generally, there is no limitation to the extent to which * that right might be exercised and no limitation to the number of representatives which might be given to each province. If you come to exercise the right conferred by section 52 of the Act of increasing the number of representatives generally, whatever power may be inferred from that particular clause can only be exer-



cried under and by virtue of the powers conferred by section 51. It has always seemed to me an anomaly, with the greatest possible deference to the distinguished public men on both sides of the House who, on previous occasions, have taken the position to refer to the provinces of the Dominion the question of considering the amendment of this representation question. There is no more argument, either from constitutional reasons or practice, why you should summon the representatives of the different provinces of the Dominion to consider the question of remodelling section 51 of the British North America Act than that you should summon them when you want to have legislation which might be deemed to be an extreme exercise of the federal power so far as the provisions of section 91 of the Act are concerned. In 1867, by virtue of the Imperial Act, there was committed .solely and entirely to this federal Parliament the duty of determining this -question of representation, and if we are to follow the view which has -been lately taken by Lord Haldane, in an Australian case, only a month ago, as to the method in which the Canadian constitution should be interpreted, a view which in some degrees, so far as the Privy Council is concerned, is a novel one in that he declares categorically and definitely that the constitution of Canada is not a federal constitution in the proper sense of the term not as the Australian constitution is, the absolute power of dealing with the whole -question of representation was committed to this federal Parliament; and the provinces and provincial Governments have nothing whatever to do with it except on the most theoretical principle. If you apply that theoretical principle in regard to section 51 of the British North America Act you must apply it to every other section where the exercise of powers by the federal Government is provided for. Why do I make that proposition? For this reason, that I wish to make a suggestion to my right hon. friend that if he desires to help the smaller provinces of the Dominion-and I am free to -say that I believe he does,-an opportunity arises for him to do so because of the anomaly in regard to representation which arises in connection with this province of Prince Edward Island, to which he referred the other day. By the provisions of this Bill, the province of Prince Edward Island will have
three representatives in this House, while it has four representatives in the Senate. New Brunswick will have eleven representatives here, while it has ten representatives in the Senate, and it is not too violent a presumption to make that perhaps at a very early date there may arise conditions under which that representation may -still further be reduced. You would then have a condition under which these smaller provinces would have a l-arger representation in the Senate than in the popular branch. That is certainly an anomaly which was never contemplated by the fathers of Confederation or by the leading men of those smaller provinces when they gave up their individual identity in order to become merged in the greater federation. It seems to me. that if my right hon. friend is really desirous of assisting the smaller provinces, he should proceed in the only method in which he can legally proceed, by moving an Address to the Imperial P-a-rl-iament, asking them to amend the British North America Act, so that for any province of the Dominion of Canada there shall not be, at any time, a less number of representatives in the popular branch than in the Senate. I think that is a proposition which would not be unfair or unreasonable, and having regard to the many considerations which might be urged on behalf of the smaller provinces, it seems to me to be a* proposition which -might very well receive the approbation of the whole House. I have- dealt at some length on this point because I contend that Parliament should not send out to this committee the task of dealing with this question of representation in any elastic or uncertain way, so far as the question of numbers is concerned. The status of that committee, their powers, and their limitations should be definitely recognized by th-is House, and at this stage, so that there may not be any attempt by the committee to exercise any unconstitutional power or to proceed beyond their authority in dealing -wit'll this question.
My right hon. friend was good enough to refer to a question to which I called his attention on the introduction of the Bill, when I was unable to plaee fairly before the House a point that is held by a good number of hon. gentlemen here and by quite a number outside the Ho use to be an important one; that is, in regard to subsection 4 of section 51. My right hon. friend has answered the point which was raised at that time. The popular view in regard to subsection 4 is that the clause was to apply only in cases where there had been a certain

percentage oi reduction in population. The percentage contemplated by the state is one intended to be made between two fractions, the numerator of the fraction being the population of a particular province ten years ago and the denominator being the population of the Dominion at that time. You take similar fractions for the last census and you make a comparison between the two; the question then is, whether or not that section is to be interpreted by ascertaining whether the difference between these two fractions is less than a fraction of one-twentieth, or whether it is less than one-twentieth of what the original fraction was. That may seem a little complicated, but that is the way in which one would put the question as a matter of accuracy. After deliberation I am inclined to agree with the interpretation put upon this by my right hon. friend. In ordinary language the subsection reads, unless the difference between these two fractions is ascertained at the then latest census, to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upward. Does that mean one-twentieth part of the fraction which	was	made	by	a comparison made with the population of the province ten years ago, or is it the fraction, one-twentieth, without relation to that? I am inclined to say that I agree with the right hon. gentleman in the view he takes of it. I submitted [DOT] the proposition because the suggestion had been made to me by a gentleman of another chamber who felt this question of representation, its reduction and	the	status	of	the smallerprovinces-as	all	must	feel	who giveany thought	at	all to	the	matter-to
' be of very great importance. So much for that phase of the question, but I submit that we should have from the Minister of Justice who is the official adviser upon these questions, a statement as to whether or not he agrees with the view put forward by my right hon. friend and leader, in regard to the power Parliament has to interfere with the scale of representation definitely and positively laid down under section 51 of the Act. My right hon. friend in introducing this Bill, outlined certain principles which he thought should guide the committee, and as the House after this second reading will have heard the last of this question of representation until that committee reports, I think the lines upon which they should act with regard to matters of policy should be very carefully considered. The Prime Minister mentioned that the committee which dealt with 54*
this question in England were affected by certain considerations: first, equality of population; secondly representation in borough divisions of a population of an urban character; thirdly, compactness in respect of geographical position and fourthly community of interests, and in suggesting to this committee what their motive should be in dealing with this question, he suggested that they should have before them, first, the observance of municipal boundaries. That idea is one which has been accentuated by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and although in times gone by battles waged in this House around the question of municipal boundaries, it is gratifying to-day to know that both parties have come to realize the importance and necessity of having regard to municipal boundaries when delimiting constituencies for the federal Parliament. The second principle which he thought should be regarded, was that of equality of population which of course was one which had to be considered in connection with the observance of municipal boundaries; the third, a greater unit for city constituencies than for country constituencies without fixing any definite percentage and, fourth, a community of interests and geographical contiguity. The Prime Minister indicated that these suggestions come within what his views are to the lines within which the committee should act.
It seems to me that there are some considerations further than ' that which ought to be regarded. We should have regard to the permanence and stability of existing constituencies. Where you have a constituency in which men have resided for long periods of time, where their municipal interests are bound up together, where their business interests centre around certain villages or towns iD a particular community, and where, for a long period of time, public men on both sides have been wont to deal with the necessities and interests of a particular class of people, it seems to me that we should not lightly interfere with settled conditions of that kind. That proposition seems to be one the wisdom of which is so patent that I am quite sure the Prime Minister will agree with me as to its desirability.
But a difficulty will arise, as it always has arisen, in this way: Where, as a result of the increase in the population of existing constituencies additional members have to be provided for, how are you

going to proceed? Take the situation in the new provinces of the Northwest, where we have ten, and ten and seven members respectively? Take the two great provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta where the additional representation created by this Act will necessitate the breaking up of constituencies which are represented in this House by hon. gentlemen- On what principle are you to proceed in that particular? Where you do not have to interfere with the representation of any particular province by increase or diminution, where you have county boundaries and existing conditions, there is no special warrant for the committee undertaking to interfere with those conditions as far as representation is concerned unless there is some great disparity in the unit of representation with reference to a particular constituency. The discharge of such a task ought not to be a very great one, but when you come to deal with the problem of increased representation, where you have to take existing constituencies and break them up in order to provide for representation throughout the borders of a once great constituency represented by one member, on what principle are you going to proceed? In the Northwest, unfortunately, to-day, we have not municipal government throughout the rural districts. We have not, therefore, that guiding spirit of municipal institutions that we have in the eastern portion of Canada. It .seems to me that the prime consideration that ought to exist there in regard to the determination of the question is unity of interest and the geographical position of the new constituency as it is to be formed. There is no use in creating a constituency an indefinite number of miles in length, in which the people at one end never see the people at the other end from one year to another. What a farce it must be, as a matter of representation, for an hon. gentleman in this House to represent a constituency in which these principles of community of interest and geographical connection have been disregarded for some other considerations. I hope that the committee, in dealing with this question, will not be affected by political considerations, but will be guided by the lines laid down so well by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the Opposition.
Another principle arises where you have districts which are divided by stretches of water or other natural or geographical barriers which prevent a community of interest and that intimate connection

which one part of a constituency should have with another in order to have that proper touch between the representative and the people. I venture to point out that the situation that exists in our own province affords a particular exemplification of the principles that I want to deal with. There we have the island of Cape Breton which historically at one time had a separate existence from that of the province of Nova Scotia. It is not connected with the mainland in any way. A stretch of water runs between the Island of Cape Breton and what is called the mainland of the province of Nova Scotia. There we have had within the last fifteen years what might be called a displacement of population. The development of the steel and coal industries in that island has resulted to a very great degree in the farmers leaving their farms in the country, or the young men leaving the old people on the farms, and going off to work in these industrial centres. As a consequence the population of the island of Cape Breton has not been diminished. They have had four representatives in this House, and I would submit that there is an idea strongly held that as you have this natural barrier which prevents this island and its people from having direct communication with the mainland, the entity of the island of Caps Breton should be recognized and that the four representatives of that portion of the province should be maintained there. You can go to other portions of the Dominion where you find natural barriers and where it is not easy to divide one class of people from another. These should be arranged so that you would not have a mixed constituency in which one portion of it would have no interest whatever in the men who happened to live across the barrier. That proposition seems to me to be self-evident.
I was surprised that the right hon. Prime Minister did not state to the House that he was considering the question of proportionate representation. I do not propose to argue that question at very great length, but inasmuch as public men have from time to time during the last ten or fifteen years in this House and elsewhere discussed this important question, it seems to me that on the present occasion some pronouncement should have been made by the Prime Minister with regard to it. I invite the attention of the Prime Minister now to this matter.
I hope also that the Prime Minister will respond to the suggestion of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in

regard to increasing the numbers of the committee, not for any reason other than that I think the public interest would be served and that we would have better results. It might be urged that if you have nine members on the committee you are more apt to have complicated questions arise than if you have only seven. I recall that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister ten years ago suggested to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that the committee should be made up of four from each side of the House, which would have made the membership of the committee eight. The request of the leader of the Opposition to make it nine seems to me a natural one in view of the fact that we have in these two new provinces and in the country extending from the Great Lakes to the Pacific Ocean, a body of men interested in this country whose representation in this Parliament will exceed the representation that some of the provinces of the Dominion had at Confederation and for some time afterwards, and will exceed what they now have.
In no spirit of contention, but simply with the idea that under such an arrangement this problem may be worked out upon the lines which I apprehend the Prime Minister would like to have it worked out upon, I have ventured to put forth these suggestions. If the committee is to partake of the nature of a conference with the idea of devising an equitable scheme of representation, then my right hon. friend will have an easy task in so far as representation problems are concerned in this Parliament. The ideal, I think, should be that the committee, in discharging their duties, should act as conferees. If, on the other hand, you are going to have this condition in the committee, that merely on account of the fact that you have a preponderance of members on the committee who are going to exercise their authority in regard to any hard and fast scheme, the whole object of the committee will be at once nullified.
The Prime Minister, on the motion for the first reading, declared his satisfaction wijh the methods pursued by the committee appointed ten years ago. If these rumours, which we hear now and then, as to the studious efforts of certain gentlemen in parcelling out constituencies in certain provinces of the Dominion, are correct, and if these gentlemen are to produce before the committee a hard and fast scheme, by which the considerations which
have been discussed on the first and second readings of this Bill are to be ignored, then I say to the Prime Minister that he can hardly expect that this committee can, in any sense, be called a combination of conferees in the public interest. Rather, it would degenerate into a combination in which the majority would rule, if they were permitted to rule. The Prime Minister himself, in dealing with this question, has approached the consideration of it in a very fair spirit, and has indicated the lines upon which the committee should act. I trust that spirit may be maintained.
A suggestion was made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) ten years ago, as to whether this committee should not have power to send for persons and papers. I do not know what form the resolution to be moved by my right hon. friend in regard to the appointment of the committee will take, but if the committee should proceed upon the lines of being conferees in the public interest, there may be no necessity for this special power .being delegated to the committee. Of course, hon. gentlemen on this side of the House should reserve the right to come to Parliament and ask that this power be granted should occasion arise.
It is to be hoped that in dealing with this question the policy which was inaugurated ten years ago-a policy which has been followed to a wider extent in England-will dominate the deliberations of the committee to which this Bill is to be referred. The party advantage which may momentarily be obtained by an unfair redistribution is one which ultimately does not bring that satisfaction or that result which men in public life should aim at. We on this side of the House, as our right hon. leader has said, hope that the Government will implement, in the appointment of the committee, and in the conduct of its deliberations, the generous assurances which the right hon. the Prime Minister has given us in moving the first and second readings of the Bill.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Prince Edward Island):: There is no doubt whatever that the delegates from Prince Edward Island who negotiated the terms upon which the Island came into Confederation, were convinced that they were getting for that province in this House of Commons six representatives for all time to come. There is equally no doubt, that the sub-committee of the Privy Council, with which they

negotiated these terms, were under the same impression. An examination of the Confederation documents and of the negotiations at that time, will convince any person of the fact as I state it. I am satisfied that the Prime Minister recognizes this fact, and I am satified also that several members of this House are equally convinced. Unfortunately that provision was not put in the terms of Union, and so we have to abide by the British North America Act as it exists. If the purpose of the Prime Minister in leaving the Prince Edward Island Schedule in the Bill blank in the reference to the committee, is because he thinks the committee is a better body than this House to examine the documents and to come to u decision, and if, should the committee recommend, after consideration of the matter, that Prince Edward Island should have four or six representatives, it is the intention of the right hon. gentleman to petition the home Government to so amend the British North America Act, then I can understand his course in thus referring the matter to the committee. But, if on the other hand, the committee should make such a recommendation, and the right hon. gentleman does not intend to carry it out, then I can hardly give the Prime Minister credit for sincerity. However, I will take the more honourable view, and I will suppose that the object of the Prime Minister in submitting this matter to the committee as he proposes, is to take the necessary steps to carry out the recommendation of the committee, in this respect, if such recommendation should be made.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The committee may or may not find it necessary to look into these matters to which my hon. friend (Mr. J. J. Hughes) has referred, but I would like to point out to him that I have tried to find in ' Hansard ' any record of protest from gentlemen representing Prince Edward Island on the two former occasions When the representation of that province in this House was reduced. I may not have covered the whole ground in my search, but so far I [DOT]have not been able to find any such protest. If there has been any such protest in this House on these former occasions, it might be well to place it before the committee. If there was no protest, why was there not a protest?


James Joseph Hughes: As I understand it, when the first reduction was made in accordance with the census of 1891, Sir John Thompson, then Minister of Justice,

gave it as his opinion that under the British North America Act, the provisions of Which would have to be carried out, Prince Edward Island would have to lose a member. Several eminent jurists have given expression to a similar opinion. The province brought its case before the Supreme Court of Canada, and afterwards before the Privy Council, and the decision was against the contention of the province. If no protest was entered, I presume it was because of that. However, on two different occasions in this House, once when a petition was going to the home Government to have the British North America Act amended with regard to the increased subsidies to the provinces, I thought it a good time to have this amendment made, if it were to be at all, and I presented my views to the House, and the hon. gentleman will find them in ' Hansard.' I presented the case then, and I need not go over the arguments now. I thought I made out a fairly good case, that the intention of both parties to the terms of union when the province of Prince Edward Island came in was that it should have a fixed number of six members. We stayed out of Confederation for six years on that point. Finally we came in. I have not the arguments here, but they can be easily obtained.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer briefly. It affects myself in a personal way to a great extent. When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill on the 10th of this month, he stated that the hon. member for Kings-that is myself-in 1903 had argued both strongly and forcibly against claims put forward by Prince Edward Island with respect to representation. I was somewhat surprised to hear the Prime Minister make such a statement, because I had no recollection of ever having done so, and I could not find in ' Hansard ' of 1903 where I had done so. I asked him to point out the place in ' Hansard ' Yesterday, before the Orders of the Day were called, he told me that I would find my remarks to which he had referred on page 10,909 of ' Hansard ' of 1903. In order that we may clear up this question, I think I had better read the statement that the Prime Minister made in reference to myself when he introduced this Bill. This was the paragraph in his speech:
It has been noted that in 1882 the Redistribution Bill did not diminish the representation of the province of Prince Edward Island, although according to the census of 1881, Prince Edward Island was at that time entitled to no more than five members. At first I was very much impressed by this circumstance, but I

observed that in a speech made by the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island,^ in 1903, who argued strongly and forcibly against the claims put forward on behalf of the province at that time, he attributed this result to the fact that there was no previous census with which the census of 1381 could be compared for the purposes of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, and probably that accounts for the result in 1882.
I would gather from that, that the Prime Minister stated really that he did not apprehend the meaning of subsection 4 of section 51 as fully as myself. Of course, that is a very high compliment for the right hon. gentleman to pay me, because I am not at all learned in the law, and I always understood that my right hon. friend was a distinguished member of the Bar. However, if he wishes to pay me that compliment, I will accept it and I can only say this, that there are many subjects on which I am much better informed than I am on legal questions, and I would be glad to give my hon. friend information at any other time on any other subject. I have turned up page 10,909 of ' Hansard ' of 1903, and I find that my speech on that occasion was very short, exactly one page of ' Hansard.' Mr. Hackett, the member for West Prince, P.E.I., had been speaking and had pointed out that in 1882 the Government led by the Right Hon. Sir John Macdonald had not decreased the representation of Prince Edward Island, although according to population it was entitled to no more than five members at that time, whereas it had six. He said that Sir John Macdonald was entitled, so far as Prince Edward Island was concerned, to a great deal of gratitude for not decreasing the representation. He also stated that this Parliament had the power to give Prince Edward Island its original representation of six members. That was an extraordinary statement to make. Although I was not learned in the law, I knew that this Parliament had no power to give to Prince Edward Island six members or any more than it was entitled to under the provisions of the British North America Act. As my statement was very short, I will read it so that there will be no misunderstanding as to what I said in regard to the matter. This is what I said:
I have listened with some surprise to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett), in view of the fact that some ten years ago, when the last Redistribution Bill was under consideration and when the representation of Prince Edward Island was first reduced, my hon. friend and his political associates in Prince Edward
Island did not raise a solitary objection. At that time there were two Conservative representatives from the county of Kings in this House, and neither of them raised any objection. My hon. friend at thac time, though not a member of this House, was an influential man in the riding which he now represents and took an active part in politics. At that time not a meeting was held in the hon. gentleman's constituency, net a resolution was passed, no objection was raised, no protest was entered against the reduction of the representation of Prince Edward Island. Now, why bring it up at this late date? In my opinion, the proper time to enter a protest was when the representation was first reduced. But the hon. gentleman's political friends were then in power, and perhaps it was not thought to be good, political tactics to briflg up the question at that time.
As I listened to the hon. gentleman's remarks this evening, I could not help thinking what an opportunity he lost when he failed to go before the Supreme Court and argue the case of Prince Edward Island when this matter was submitted to it for decision. He made a strong argument here to-night, and it is a pity this argument was not presented when the Supreme Court was considering the case. If there had been any constitutional objection to my hon. friend appearing before the Supreme Court on account of being a layman, I am sure jf he had given his views to the counsel who was representing Prince Edward Island, that gentleman would have been very glad to present them before the court. The hon. gentleman says that in 1881 the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald allowed Prince Edward Island to retain its original representation, though the population of the province did not entitle it to to that representation. The reason of that was, I think, because the census of 1881 was the first Dominion census that was taken after the Island entered Confederation, and consequently there was no previous census with which to compare that one, so far as Prince Edward Island was concerned. Therefore, no one could tell whether the twentieth part saving clause would protect the province against any reduction in its representation. That, I think, was the reason why the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald at that time did not reduce the representation, at all events, it would be a good and sufficient reason. But in 1891-92 when the next census was taken the representation of that province was reduced. At that time, I think, Sir John Thompson was leader of the Government-if not, he was Minister of Justice-and he declared there was nothing in the constitution to protect ithq province against a reduction in its representation. As I have already pointed out, the Conservative representatives in this House at thac time, the Conservative party and the press of Prince Edward Island-everybody acquiesced in the reduction that then took place. Therefore, I think it is altogether too late for my hon. friend and his political associates from Prince Edward Island to try to make political capital out of it at this time. We have to abide by the constitution under which we live.
I regret as much as any man can regret that the delegates at the time that the province of Prince Edward Island joined the union overlooked this important point, and did not provide against the contingency -that has since arisen. I also regret that a reduction has taken

place in the representation of the other Maritime provinces, because it will weaken the voice of those other provinces down by the sea to that extent in the great counsel of the nation.
In view of the fact that the highest constitutional authorities in Canada nave declared that the law affords the Maritime provinces no protection against a reduction of their representation, that there is nothing in the British North America Act that will preserve their original representation, I believe, however, that if the matter were properly presented to our friends from the other provinces they would agree to a change in the British North America Act providing that the representation in none of the provinces should be reduced beyond the representation they possessed when they originally entered Confederation. I believe that if the members from the other provinces would agree to that, it could be carried out, and possibly and probably that will be done before the next decennial revision takes place. That is the only way, in my judgment, that this matter can be accomplished. I cannot understand what my hon. friend had in view in bringing up this question to-night, unless it were to try to make political capital out of it. As I say, we have to bide by the constitution under which we live, and in view of the fact that this question has been argued before the highest court in Canada and decided against us, I am sure my hon. friend has sense enough to know that nothing he could say this evening would affect the issue in any way. He has merely brought up the matter again for the purpose of seeing it ventilated in Prince Edward Island, and giving the Conservative papers down there something to talk about, and an occasion to raise some objection to the present Administration.
Now, Sir, I have read every word that I uttered on that occasion, and I say that there is not a sentence, not a line, not a word, not a syllable in that speech to justify the right hon. Prime Minister in saying that I argued against the claims put forward by Prince Edward Island. Of course, under the circumstances, I believe the right hon. gentleman made a mistake and that the idea must have been suggested to him by somebody else. If he has read my speech, I am sure he will have come to the conclusion that there is nothing there to justify the charge he made against me. He has misrepresented me. And I would ask him, and expect him, to say that he was mistaken, or misinformed, and, as an honourable man and Prime Minister of this country, to withdraw the statement. That is due to his position.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I think we can all compliment the House on the fair way in which it has approached this measure. I shall ask for the attention of hon. members for only a minute or two to mention one or two points that, I think, should be stated, before the Bill goes to the committee. In the first place, I sympathize with what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. 
Macdonald) says about proportionate representation. I listened very carefully to what the former Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said with regard to municipal representation and preserving municipal bounds, but to my mind more important still is the representation of the minorities and of great classes that now are not represented. Proportional representation is now widely agitated and the system is well developed, but it has not quite found expression in our law. I do think that we should make the effort in the direction of proportional representation so as to secure the representation of minorities in this House. Take, for instance, the city of Toronto, where I live; we have now eight members for the city and the county of York. But there are substantial minorities in that city that are not represented here. There is a great labour vote in Toronto, yet Toronto does not send a labour representative to this House. A feature of representation in England is the strength of the labour representation in the House of Commons. If we had proportional representation recognized in this country-


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL:: What about the Liberal vote?


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman can deal with that. But perhaps proportional representation would secure some representation of the Liberals in this House, and, if so, the hon. gentleman should give me encouragement in this matter.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman said there were important minorities not represented here, and I said that the Liberals of Toronto form one of those minorities.


William Findlay Maclean: Then, proportional representation would give them what they desire, and I should expect the Liberals to uphold that principle rather than the principle of municipal bounds. We should seek, not to give fair representation to municipalities, but to give fair representation to the political thought of the people.
As to this complaint of the smaller provinces as to reduction in their representation, if I had my way I would greatly reduce the number of members in this House, in the Senate and in our legislatures generally. I believe we should have better legislatures and a better Parliament if our numbers were smaller. While I regret that some of the provinces have to accept a reduction-Ontario being one of them-it becomes the duty of those provinces to im-

prove their representation if they possibly can. If the Maritime provinces wish to be strong in the Confederation-if I may be pardoned the suggestion-I think there ought to be a Maritime union into a single province. The Maritime provinces would be stronger in this House and in their influence in the country than they are to-day, divided into three provinces and with this question of representation, and especially this question of reduction in representation, coming up every ten years.
For forty-six years the experiment of Confederation has been going on, and it has succeeded in a remarkable degree.
But that constitution, which was written nearly fifty years ago, could not 5 p.m. foresee all the difficulties and circumstances that would develop. Probably the time has come, or will be here when our next Parliament sits, when Parliament should give attention to a constitutional revision to deal with the questions that have been widely discussed and that must be settled. Probably that would be the time when the smaller provinces could present their claims for better representation in this House. Certainly, the time will come when the Senate of this country must be reorganized. With the province of Prince Edward Island represented by four members in the Senate and only three here, it is clear that there is an unfair condition of things, and that unfairness should be removed. I trust that in the next Parliament some proposal for a conference of the provinces on the subject of constitutional revision will be made and a number of anomalies and grievances-and there are not many-will be removed, or at least an attempt made to remove them. I believe that when that takes place the smaller provinces can have any fair grievances brought before this Parliament and before the Imperial Parliament for cure-In the meantime it seems to me tliere is nothing to do but to respect the constitution and carry it out literally. The people of Ontario, as far as I can speak for that province, will stand for the reduction that is coming to them. The province has been greatly increased in its territory, yet the representation has to be reduced, and we abide loyally by the constitution as it should be carried out. We also are glad to see that the great provinces in the West are having that increased representation which is coming to them. If there is a place where proportional representation could be tried it is in the West. I do not say that
we could put it in force on this occasion but there is no reason why proportional representation should not be attempted in some constituencies, and in that way we might bring about what this law should bring about, a better representation of the political thought of the people, rather than a representation of people who seem to think [DOT]together municipally. That is no great bond in regard to politics. Our effort should be to get in this House a fair representation of the political thought of all the people of the country.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) :	Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has followed the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) in the discussion of proportional representation. I am not sure but that there is a good deal in his contention. If I remember, a few years ago something of this kind was tried in Toronto but it was withdrawn.


William Findlay Maclean: It was not broad enough.	.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Probably it was not
broad enough. It should have extended outside of Toronto.


William Findlay Maclean: Or to the whole city.


George Perry Graham: There is a good deal to be said in favour of minorities being represented. As a matter of fact, the minorities under our system are not represented as they should be. A difference of one voter in a constituency may make an entire difference of the thought which the member pretends to represent. He comes here as representing the thought of the whole constituency, but he does not do anything of the kind. I am rather inclined to believe, with the member for Pictou and the member for York, that there is a great deal in the contention that proportional representation might be tried at least in a portion of Canada with no detrimental result to any one.
Mr. BURNHAM Has the hon. gentleman looked into the fact that there may be a variety of different opinions in any constituency, and if he is going to give representation to those opinions he might have not one but five or six candidates.


George Perry Graham: They would work out
their own salvation on that line whether they were one or ten. Generally speaking, the voters in a riding are divided largely into two classes and they culminate their

views in the discussions between the two great parties; but if there be some other wing of the people who have something else in their minds, 'they ought to be represented in this House; and under proportional representation it would be possible to work that out.
Now as to the question of the smaller provinces, I do not propose to speak* for Ontario, I am speaking now for myself. Possibly the members for Ontario may agree with me largely. The basis of our representation is supposed to be population. That decision was not arrived at without a good deal of discussion, thought and hard feelings on many sides; but finally the representation of the Dominion of Canada in this House is supposed to be by population, and to change that must be to change the foundation in that respect of the British Noith America Act. The Confederation itself was based on compromise. No country has ever achieved great success in any departure from existing conditions without both, schools of thought compromising to some extent, without, as we say, giving and taking. As Confederation was based on compromise, I would have no hesitation, if it could be worked out, either by a change of the British North America Act or otherwise, in allowing the smaller provinces to maintain their present representation, or even to have the representation which they had at the time of Confederation. This is not Prince Edward Island, [DOT] or Manitoba, or Quebec, or Ontario, Nova Scotia, -or New Brunswick; this is Canada, and what is best for Canada as a whole we, in each part of Canada, ought to try and work out, regardless of whether it harmonizes entirely with our own beliefs or not. But, coming back to representation, there is something wrong with our basis o-f representation, so far as minorities are concerned. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), the other night had a grievance from Quebec as to the number of me nbers in this House on each side. He contended that, according to the votes oast in 1911, there should be a difference of only one, thirty-two Conservatives and thirty-three Liberals; whereas there was quite a large discrepancy between the number of Conservatives and the number of Liberals returned to this House. I was struck with the figures and commenced figuring to see if the basis of the whole fabric of representation was not wrong. I took the Dominion of Canada and the vote cast in Canada in 1911. The total number of votes cast was 1,307,528. For

the Conservatives there were cast 669,594, and for the Liberals 625,103, and for the Independents 12,831. The difference in the Dominion of Canada between the votes cast for Conservatives and for Liberals was only 44,491-and that included Toronto. The average vote oast in each constituency was about 6,200. If we work that out as did the Postmaster General, in this House at the present time there should be 114 Conservatives and 107 Liberals, or a majority of just seven. That is worse than my hon. friend found in Quebec.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If the hon. member takes the figures of the elections of 1908 for t'he whole Dominion of Canada, I would like to know What the result will be.


George Perry Graham: I will give them to my hon. friend when the Bill comes back. As this redistribution is on the census of 1910 the figures before that would not be conducive to the enlightenment of the House.
Take my own province of Ontario-and it, I think, will show that the hon. member for South York is right in saying that minorities are not properly represented under the present system-and with such an injustice done to the Liberal party by a Liberal Government you can see that there must be something wrong with the system. I almost hesitate to trust ourselves even to that committee under that system. Take Ontario, the total vote oast was 480,572. Of these 269,930 were cast for Conservatives [DOT] and 207,078 for Liberals, a difference of 62,852. Let me see how it worked out. We have in this House 72 Conservatives and 14 Liberals. There was more difference than that before the South Bruce election, but at the present time it is 72 to 14. If we worked this out according to my hon. friend's figuring, there should be from Ontario 38 Liberals and 48 Conservatives, a difference of 10 instead of 58. I applied the figures of the Postmaster General for the whole of Canada to our own province to show that there must be something wrong with our system if it is not applicable to present-day conditions.
I recognize that the work of the committee will be arduous. There will be many differences of opinion, but I urge them-and I feel confident they will do it-to take all possible pains to see that, while county boundaries are maintained so far as possible, the people of the Dominion of Canada are given the right to be properly represented according to their views, and according to population, whether it be in condensed centers or rural districts.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, Prince Edward Island):: I was pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. friend from South Renfrew with reference to the representation of the . Maritime provinces. I agree with him that, under present conditions, it would he proper for this Parliament to restore to the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island the representation which they had at Confederation. In 1864, when the first conference in regard to Confederation was held in Charlottetown, at which representatives of all the provinces were present, a programme was drawn up but was not agreed to at that time. The conference was adjourned to Quebec, and the programme again submitted, but the delegates from Prince Edward Island did not see fit to agree with the programme as regards their representation. It gave them only five representatives in a House of, I think, 194. They thought that they would lose all their influence if they agreed to any such programme, and in consequence they did not enter Confederation in 1867. The Dominion of Canada, in order to round out the Confederation, wanted Prince Edward Island to come in, but the Island held out for six members. Their population did not justify the Dominion granting them that number; it only justified the granting of five members. But at last, on the 9th of July, 1873, Prince Edward Island was granted six members and came into Confederation. The question of redistribution has been before Parliament on many occasions. The first redistribution was made in 1881, when Prince Edward Island, though only entitled to five members, was allowed to retain her six. I wish to impress this upon the House, because at that time it was well known that Prince Edward Island had not the population to justify the granting of six members. When my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. J. J. Hughes) made his address before this House in 1903, he made the statement attributed to him by the leader of the House:
The hon. gentleman says that in 1881 the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald allowed Prince Edward Island to retain its original representation, though the population of the province did not entitle it to that representation. The reason of that was, I think, because the census of 1881 was the first Dominion census that was taken after the Island entered Confederation, and consequently there was no previous census with which to compare that one, so far as Prince Edward Island was concerned.
I think that was a lame excuse from the hon. member for Kings. He is a man
well informed on public affairs and when he made that speech in 1903 he knew well that a census was taken in Prince Edward Island in 1871 and that a report of that census was in the lit rary of this Parliament. He knew that, when he made the statement that there was no census of Prince Edward Island to compare with the Dominion census of 1881. He made a statement which he knew was not in accordance with the facts. The census of 1871 gave the papulation of Prince Edward Island as 93,698.


James Joseph Hughes: I was out of the
Chamber when my hon. friend was referring to me but I understand that the hon. gentleman has said there was a Dominion census before 1881. He must know that statement is incorrect.
Mr. A. A. MoLEAN:	I made no such
statement. I said that there was a census of Prince Edward Island before it entered Confederation; that the report of that census was in the library in 1903 when the hon. member made his speech, and that the report of that census could have been compared with the Dominion census of 1881. But instead of the hon. member getting that information from the library and giving it to the House, he found fault with the Conservative members who represented the province in the Parliament of 1881. In 1892, he also found fault with the manner in which the Prince Edward Island representatives conducted this busi-' ness of representation. At that time the province was very ably represented on the Liberal side. Sir Louis Davies represented one of our constituencies. He sat in this House during the discussion, but not one word was said by him, or by any other representative with regard to representation in Prince Edward Island. I do not know why, and I do not suppose the hon. member for Kings knows anything more about it than I do. No reflections need be cast on any one for having neglected to do his duty as a representative of Prince Edward Island at that time. After the Redistribution Act of 1892, the people of Prince Edward Island began to agitate for the restoration of their original representation, and in 1902 they forwarded a resolution, passed by the legislature of the province, to the Dominion Parliament protesting strongly against the reduction in representation. That resolution is to be found in the journals of the Prince Edward Island legislature. It placed the matter clearly before Parliament.

The resolution is a very long one. I do not intend to read it at the present time. I may have another opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the House before the debate closes. This resolution was moved by the Hon. Mr. Peters, at that time Premier, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Rogers, and adopted by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island. In it all the different stages by which Prince Edward Island was admitted into the Union are described. It sets forth that the terms and conditions upon which Prince Edward Island entered the Dominion of Canada were expressed in addresses from the legislature of the then colony, and amongst these conditions was the following:
That the population of Prince Edward Island having increased by 15,000 or upwards since the year 1861, the island shall be represented in the House of Commons of Canada by six members ;-	,
Here is a matter which should receive the consideration of this House when it is dealing with the representation of Prince Edward Island. Why was it that the number six was put into that address ? It was because the population of Prince Edward Island had increased by 15,000 or upwards since the year 1861.


An hon. MEMBER:: What date was that ?


Angus Alexander McLean: the most she was entitled to during that period would be four members. And yet, Prince Ed.ward Island came into Confederation under the same moral agreement as did British Columbia. Then, when Manitoba came into Confederation, Manitoba was conceded four members when her population was less than one unit, entitling her at most to only one member. There was a further provision in the Manitoba Act that after the census of 1881 the representation of the province should be readusted under the terms of the British North America Act. The census of 1881 showed that Manitoba had a population of 62,260, which would have entitled her to three members, but in that redistribution Manitoba got five members and not three.
The question of the representation of Prince Edward Island has been before this House for a great number of years. It was discussed in 1903; and in 1905 and 1907 resolutions with respect to the matter were moved. I believe that every hon. gentleman who heard these discussions was convinced, that morally and equitably, Prince Edward Island was entitled to have her original representation restored. If a wrong has been done Prince Edward ' Island, this is the time and the place to right it, and I trust the committee, which will be appointed under this Bill, will have power to consider the claims of the province and to make a recommendation in accordance with them. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said that the committee could not deal with this matter, but I take it that this House can delegate to its committee any powers it wishes to. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition, thi3 afternoon, pointed out, that at one time it was proposed that the redistribution of constituencies should be submitted to a committee of judges, and consequently the right hon. gentleman evidently believes that under the British North America Act Parliament could delegate that power to the judges. If that be so, why cannot Parliament delegate equal authority to one of its own committees. Section 51 of the British North America Act provides:
On the completion of the census In the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and on each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner, and from such time, as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides.
This Parliament can, therefore, readjust, by such authority and in such manner as it may deem fit; and consequently this Parliament can lay down rules for the guidance

of its committee. That committee can make recommendation that Prince Edward Island is equitably and honestly entitled to six members in this House, and that recommendation could be inserted in the Bill. I have no doubt that the Imperial Parliament would, on the petition of this Parliament, if that were necessary, amend the British North America Act so as to give proper effect to the terms, in this respect, on which Prince Edward Island entered Confederation. As this matter will be discussed again during the session, I shall have something further to say on it.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester, N.B.):: I have so many times spoken on this question in previous parliaments and in this, that I feel embarrassed in having again to address the House. I agree very sincerely with the suggestion of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister should withdraw the suggestion of referring the representation of Prince Edward Island to the committee. It is not with pleasure that I, or any other of the Maritime province members, look upon the reduction in the representation of our provinces, in view especially of the immense preponderance of representation that is bound to come from the West. At the same time I for one have always taken the ground that in this country we must adhere to the fundamental principles of the British North America Act. Whenever we undertake to deviate from those principles, we are always in danger of making our position worse than before.
While I agree with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in standing firm by the principles of representation as outlined in our constitution, even for my sister province of Prince Edward Island, I do so because I believe that this Parliament has no power, as has been so clearly put by my right hon. friend- the leader of the Opposition, to deal with this question, and the committee therefore that would be appointed by this House has still less power to deal with this question. If we have no power in our hands, we cannot convey any power to the committee in respect to the matter. I believe that my right hon. friend the leader of the Government in making that suggestion has been carried away by sympathy for the Maritime provinces, more particularly for the smallest of the Maritime provinces. I wish to commend to him the words of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition to-day, that he will consider again and withdraw this recommendation which may perhaps only be useful in maintaining an agitation for representation

to which we have no right, and which can be given to us only by change of the constitution, and this Parliament has no power to change the constitution except by reference to the provinces and that cannot be done to-day.
We had a convention of the provincial premiers in October last, and the question was submitted to them. No understanding has so far been arrived at. They decided to leave the matter where it was, and therefore we should do the same until a new convention is held and then, perhaps, they may arrive at a unanimous decision. It would only be then that we could apply to the Parliament of Great Britain for a change of constitution. This cannot be done now and the country cannot wait until we have a change of constitution.
For my friends from Prince Edward Island I have the greatest possible sympathy. I am in the same position as they are, but perhaps I might be of some use to them in giving them the advice which I have given them in the past, that between the Maritime provinces, in order to strengthen our position in this Parliament, we have other means at our command. Therefore, we should direct our energies to those means that are practical and possible. We should unite the three Maritime provinces, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia into one province. This matter has already been brought up. It was brought up before Confederation, as my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows very well, and Confederation was helped along by the idea of bringing the Maritime provinces together into one province. We would then be represented in this House by as large a number of members as any of the other provinces of the West are today. Possibly under the sympathetic views of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, we could give Prince Edward Island the four representatives which her people would like to keep to-day, because in the united province we could distribute our representation so as to give that island the representation which the people would like to keep while maintaining our dignity as well. My hon. friends from the Maritime provinces would willingly go into such a question again. I would suggest that we try to bring into Confederation Newfoundland with whom we have the same interest in every respect. Then our representation would be increased by say ten or twelve more, and we would be as strong a province as regards representation as any province in the Dominion.
As to what has been said about representation, it is very well known that the fathers of Confederation from the Maritime provinces would never have consented to representation by population unless the Senate had been constituted as a compensation for the representation in the House of Commons, and unless that representation had been made permanent and effective and proportionate. Therefore, the constitution of the Senate, in so far as it is made to represent the smaller bodies of Confederation, to represent the smaller provinces as well as the smaller bodies in every province concerned has not been made on the principle of the American Senate or of a similar body in any other country. It was made to meet the circumstances of Canada as a whole, as it was to be with that growing preponderance from the West. This Senate, therefore, has one chief object in view, that is, the protection of minorities. When I speak of minorities, I mean smaller provinces as well as minorities in the different provinces. Therefore, we cannot say tnat tnere is an incongruity in the fact that, after this redistribution of seats in the House, perhaps the province of Prince Edward Island will have as large a representation	in the Senate	as it has	in	theHouse of	Commons. If	the people	of	theMaritime	provinces do	not exert	themselves more than they	have done	in	the
past to keep their population at home, the time may come when New Brunswick and Nova Scotia may be represented in this House by fewer representatives than in the Senate, where for each of these provinces we have ten. In my opinion, the fathers of Confederation, knowing that this great development was bound to continue for centuries to come, were well aware that nothing would induce the people of the Maritime provinces to stand here only on representation by population. If we were to commence again to-day, I for one would not consent to see New Brunswick or the other Maritime provinces come into this Confederation under the principle of representation by population if we did not have some other means of security for the future.
It is said that the province of Prince Edward Island is under peculiar circumstances; and that when she came into Confederation, after having refused to do so for a certain number of years, she came in under the expectation that she was to be represented by six members in the House of Commons in perpetuity, and that the

representation would not be decreased no matter what her population might be in proportion to the population of the other provinces. On this point I entertain a different view. It may seem strange that the representatives from Prince Edward Island, after having opposed Confederation for a certain number of years, came in under the terms of the British North America Act; but I claim that if they did come in that Act, they came into Confederation conscientiously, and that the Government of that day that brought Prince Edward Island into Confederation did it conscientiously also. In the debates of the first days of Confederation much more will be found to justify my position than to justify the position taken by my hon. friend (Mr. McLean). The reason why the Government of that day did not feel justified in bringing Prince Edward Island into Confederation, except under the terms of the British North America Act, was that the same Government had committed the	error-perhaps	in good	faithof bringing British Columbia into Confederation in 1871 with .six members, though its population did not justify so large a representation, and of giving it a right to retain that number of members for all time to come. That was discussed in Parliament at the time, and I can say that it was because the Government of that day saw that they had made an error that they were determined not to repeat that error when Prince Edward Island came in. For authority I give you the very gentleman who in New Brunswick had been the strongest opponent of Confederation, particularly on this very point sf representation. I speak of the gentleman who was the first representative in this House of the county which I now have the honour to represent, Hon. T. W. Anglin, who for four years enjoyed the dignity which is now yours, Mr. Speaker, as President of this Chamber, and whose son now adorns the highest tribunal of this country. He was one of the great factors in the discussion which resulted in the decision of New Brunswick in favour of Confederation, and it was this very question of representation which caused him to oppose Confederation. He wielded a powerful influence, having a great newspaper at his command, the Freeman of St. John, and was besides a recognized authority on these questions. But, while he opposed Confederation, yet, when the final decision was reached, he was willing

to stand by the terms of the constitution. But for that very reason he was determined to see to it that it was maintained for British Columbia as well as for the Maritime provinces.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65, respecting the MeClary Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Bill No. 66, respecting the Patent of the National Wood Distilling Company.-Mr. Clements.
Bill No. 67, to incorporate the Norfolk and Elgin Railway Company.-Mr. Marshall.
Bill No. 68, respecting the Western Central Railway Company.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 82, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, resumed.
Onésiphore Turgeon: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock, I was commencing to endeavour to demonstrate to this House, in reply to the hon. member for Prince Edward Island who had just taken his seat, that the Parliament of Canada, in 1871, committed an error in respect to the constitution when British Columbia was admitted into this Confederation with a representation of six members, which was not to be decreased, but was to be increased according to the terms of Confederation. The wording perhaps did not strike the attention of many members of Parliament or other people in Canada, but it was an infringement on the principle of representation by population, and if it was allowed to pass, no doubt it was with the expectation, justified in the hopes of every man in Canada, that the province of Nova Scotia, with her immense territory and her immense resources of every nature, would certainly be able to keep her representation in comparison with the other provinces. Meanwhile let me say to my friend from Prince Edward Island that, in my opinion, and in the opinion of any member of high authority in this country at the time and ever since, those six repre-

sentatives of the province of British Columbia, while they were talcing their seats in this House until that province acquired a sufficient population to allow it six seats in this House, were taking their seats unconstitutionally, and had virtually no moral right to be in this House. If I had had time to make some researches, 1 am sure I could quote eminent constitutional authorities to sustain this statement. Meanwhile I sympathize with my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island, who finds it hard that that province, coming into Confederation after British Columbia with the expectation in the minds of the people that their representation of six would not be diminished in the future, must submit to a reduction of representation. The terms of the Act bringing Prince Edward Island into Confederation leave no doubt as to the intent and spirit of the constitution itself when it reads that Prince Edward Island, having increased her population to such a number, should be admitted to Conferdation with a representation ot six members bur to be. readjusted according to the terms of Confederation. If the word ' readjusted ' had been used in the statute of British Columbia instead of the words ' to be increased according to the terms of the British North America Act, there would not have been any difficulty as to British Columbia. It is no doubt owing to the debate which took place in this Parliament on the bringing of British Columbia into Confederation that the Government in 1872 was more particular in not repeating the same error they had made in the case of British Columbia, and then, too, the principle of representation had been sustained by the representatives of the Maritime provinces, those who were here, ready, as I am to-day, to submit to the circumstances into which our constitution may bring us, with more or less representation in the future. I quoted my predecessor in *office, the Hon. Timothy Warren Anglin, who represented for fourteen or fifteen years the county which I now represent. I may also quote the name of Sir Albert Smith, who was a strong opponent of Confederation, but who strongly supported, the terms of Confederation after the provinces had been admitted, and who, although from the Maritime provinces, took the stand that I take to-day, that if we want to perpetuate the good will of the people of the different provinces and to work for their future happiness and for ours, we must stand by the principle of representation by population, 55
even if it involves a sacrifice on the part of some sections of the country. In a country like ours, with a territory stretching from ocean to ocean, with a population which is increasing by a million every year, so that in a few years we will have fifteen millions to twenty millions of people, we cannot expect that everybody will be equally satisfied, owing to the great diversity of interests that must exist in different sections of the country. For the sake of the future happiness of this country, we of the Maritime provinces are prepared to make sacrifices.
It is not merely the number of representatives that makes for the happiness of this country, but the good will of all. When I stand here to-day, begging, as I might say, not only my colleagues from the Maritime provinces, but the people at large, to stand by the terms of Confederation, I am consistent. That is the stand I have always taken. My first public act almost was to stand by the terms of Confederation under the most difficult circumstances. In 1873. by a iudsment of the Privy Council, the Catholic minority in the province of New Brunswick were told that we had no constitutional rights as to separate education. Young as I was, I was one of the first of the Catholic minority in the province of New Brunswick to stand by that judgment and to appeal to my people to stand by it, and direct our energies through other channels for the redress of our grievances. I took the same stand not very long ago, when the question came up of increasing the provincial subsidies. If my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition were here, I would recall to his memory that at that time I wrote him a letter telling him that I would be only too glad to see more money given to the provinces for the construction of roads and for educational purposes; but I pointed out that the money would have to be distributed according to population, and under the sole control of the provinces. I had a satisfactory reply from my leader, telling me that he held the same views, and he asked what I thought of a conference of all the provincial premiers. I replied mat I was perfectly agreeable to such a conference, and that I would adhere to whatever conclusion they reached; and to-day I take the same .stand.
Let me tell my right hon. friend that I am not alone in the province of New Brunswick in holding these views. Men ..who have devoted many years to .the



study of conditions in this country, men of high attainments and independent of politics, hold the same views, and I would be derelict in my duty if I did not take this oportunity of expressing my views and of begging the Prime Minister to withdraw, for the sake of Prince Edward Island, the suggestion he made to the committee. I fear that its effect would be to stir up a useless agitation. I, for one, hope that the members of this House will always be animated by a spirit of justice. I expect that every member who may come in from the far West will, when he enters this sanctuary of the Canadian people, be animated by a sense of justice and chivalry for the poor and weak. No Canadian wants charity, we want justice. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, in the words of the late D'arcy McGee, who compared Canada to a tree, carrying in its growth the true spirit of British institutions. It has already expanded and covered Canada from coast to coast, and in the course of a few years it will extend over the shores of Newfoundland. To repeat his own words, ' And of that tree every Canadian is always sure to get his fair share of the shelter and the shade.' With that hope, I call upon my right hon. friend to withdraw his suggestion to the committee. I thank you for your kind attention.


Rt.   H@: I have only a few words to say in speaking in reply on this Bill. My right hon. friend, in the course of his observations, did not take any pronounced exception to the principles which I had submitted for consideration in introducing the Bill. He went somewhat at length into the question of the extent to which county boundaries had been departed from in the readjustment of 1903. It is neither necessary nor desirable that I should go into that question at length to-night, because it will be a proper matter for the consideration of the committee. The right hon. gentleman dealt only with the province of Quebec. If he had taken the province of Ontario and some other provinces, he might have found a good many illustrations in addition to those with which he has favoured the House. In the province of Ontario I recall that the municipal boundaries were departed from in the case of the county of Carleton, the city of Ottawa, the county of Russell, the county of Fron-tenac, the city of Kingston, and I think also in the case of the county of Leeds; and in addition to that in relation to the territorial district of Nipissing. In the

province of Nova Scotia the county of Cape Breton was divided and a part of it added to the adjoining county of Victoria. In saying this, I do not at all intend to suggest that great consideration should not be given to the question of county boundaries. I only desire to repeat that, in connection therewith, another principle must be taken into account-the equalizing, to as reasonable an extent as possible, of the population within the various electoral districts which are to be established in Canada.
The right hon. gentleman was more or less exercised because I had left a blank in the Bill with respect to the representation of Prince Edward Island. But, in discussing that question, he did not even allude to the matters which I thought worthy of consideration by the House and by the committee, namely, the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island has alleged, and still alleges, whether rightly or wrongly, that there was an unfortunate mistake made in drawing up the terms of Confederation in that regard. Nor did he allude to what I thought was proper for the consideration of the House and the committee-the question as to whether or not it is a desirable thing that any province in Canada should have a smaller representation in the lower House than in the Senate. Nor did he pay any attention whatever to the suggestion which I made, that the population of Prince Edward Island, being almost entirely a rural population, it would be entitled, if situated in any other province in Canada, to have a representation of at least four members. Both he and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) seemed to be more or less disturbed about some proposed attempt to depart from the compact by which the various provinces were given representation upon a certain basis. My hon. friend from Pictou, as well as the right hon. gentleman himself, sought to enlighten me as to the capacity of this Parliament to deal with the question under consideration. I am not disposed at the present moment to debate the legal question, but it might be worth while, in passing, to allude to the fact that upon a strict application of the 51st section of the British North America Act in 1882, the province of Prince Edward Island would then have had its representation reduced to five members.
I did allude to the consideration put forward by my hon. friend from Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes), but I alluded to it as a consideration present

to the minds of those who framed and introduced that Bill, and not as a legal ground which would have justified them in concluding that upon strictly legal considerations the province could have retained its membership. Given in the first place the unit fixed by the population of the province of Quebec and applying that unit to Prince Edward Island, you would thus find that the representation of that province must be reduced. Then when you came to seek relief from that result by reason of the provision of the 4th subsection of the 51st section of the British North America Act, the reason suggested by the hon. member of Kings would not justify a departure from the result arising from the first part of the section. If the conditions demanded by the provisions of that subsection were not capable of being invoked, the subsection could have no operation. However, that is by the way. I did suggest, in regard to Prince Edward Island, that at least that province ought to have the right to be heard, and I venture to propose that the province shall have the right to be heard before that committee, notwithstanding the apprehensions which have been expressed with very great eloquence and earnestness by the hon. member for Gloucester, New Brunswick (Mr. Turgeon). I am afraid that my hon. friend is of too timorous a frame of mind altogether, because no one is disposed to rush into an attempt to depart from the compact which was entered into at the time Prince Edward Island was brought into Confederation. The questions which have been presented for our consideration speak for themselves.
If my right hon. friend, who leads the Opposition, is somewhat exercised about my own attitude in this regard, I would like to tell him, if he were present, that if there has been any departure from the compact made between the original provinces in 1867, when a certain basis of representation in this Parliament was fixed, it seems to me that my right hon. friend is the only one who is to be credited with such a departure. When we, two years ago, in pursuance of a resolution passed by this House some years before, added a very large territory to the province of Quebec, we made two provisions which were fair, on the one hand, to the province of Quebec and, on the other hand, to the Maritime provinces and all the other provinces of Canada. We provided, by the terms of the Bill which at that time was 55J
passed by Parliament, that if there should be in the additional territory a population entitled to representation in this House of Commons it should receive that representation. That was fair to the province of Quebec. We also provided that, for the purpose of fixing the unit which should determine the representation of the Maritime provinces and the other provinces of Canada, the population within that added territory should not be taken into consideration. That was fair, as I say, on the one hand, for the province of Quebec, and it was absolutely fair, on the other hand, to the people of the Maritime provinces and the other provinces of Canada.
When my right hon. friend added 250,000 square miles to the province of Quebec in 1897 he took no such course as that. He enlarged the geographical unit upon which depends the representation of all the other provinces of Canada by about 250,000 square miles, and if there should be one person for every four square miles of territory inhabiting that added territory, the result would be that the unit which determines the representation, and will determine the representation of the Maritime provinces and of the province of Ontario for all time to come, would be increased by no less than one thousand. Every hon. gentleman in this House will understand that that would make a very material change, and would, I believe, if it were acted upon at the present time, change the representation of more than one province in Canada in the measure which we now propose. Therefore, in view of the fact that my right lion, friend has expressed so keen an anxiety that we depart in no measure whatever from the compact which was entered into at the time of Confederation, it would have been well for him at the time he made that change in 1897, to have had regard to the same considerations which affect him so deeply to-day.
My hon. friend from the county of Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has alluded to the methods by which the British North America Act has been changed in the past, or may be changed in the future, namely, by an address to His Majesty's Government asking that a certain change should be made in the Constitutional Act which is the charter of the people of this Dominion. That is one method; but perhaps my hon. friend from Pictou is not aware that other methods have also been established on more than one occasion since 1867, and that there have been occasions when legislation has been passed by

this Parliament admittedly, or probably, beyond the jurisdiction of this Parliament, accompanied with a stipulation that it should not be put into force until after an Act had been passed by the Imperial Parliament confirming the provisions which were therein set forth.
My hon. friend from Pictou also made certain observations with regard to the principles which should govern the committee. I would like to say, in so far as these are concerned, that while some of the principles which he laid down would be entirely desirable if they were practicable, I do not for a moment think that they would be practicable as determining the conclusions of the committee; nor are they	in force to-day in half
of	the	constituencies in Canada.
When the hon. gentleman expressed not only the importance but the necessity of having all the people within a constituency in direct relation with each other m a business way and otherwise, he certainly must have known that no such desirable result is possible. In my own county it is not possible; in his county I do not think it is possible; and there are many other constituencies in Canada in which such a result could not be obtained. At the same time, in so far as it can be obtained, I find no fault with the suggestion of my hon. friend.
In regard to certain observations addressed to me by my hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. J. J. Hughes) and in connection with which I am the innocent cause of that hon. gentleman thinking it necessary to read to the House the whole of a very excellent speech which he delivered in 1903-1 beg to say to him that it is not by any means my desire to misrepresent him, and I am perfectly willing to leave his speech and my observations to the judgment of the members of the House. The hon. gentleman may have one opinion in regard to his observations and I may have another, but I can assure him that my opinion is as sincerely held by me as his opinion can possibly be held by him. I do not know of one argument that has ever been raised against the claims of Prince Edward Island which was not embodied in the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. J. J. Hughes) in 1903. If he is able to state now one single argument ever put forward against the claims of his province which he did not put forward in that speech, I will yield the floor to him and let him state what it is. That his province was debarred by reason of

acquiescence, he emphasized over and over again.


James Joseph Hughes: Did I make one statement that was not correct, according to the British North America Act?


Mr. BORDEN:: I stated that my hon.
friend had argued against the contention of Mr. Hackett, and I said he had argued strongly against it. The hon. gentleman himself will not deny that he argued against the contention of Mr. Hackett, and if I do him the compliment to say he argued strongly, surely he ought not to find fault with me.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the right hon. gentleman say that I made one statement contrary to the proper interpretation of the British North America Act?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend did not
confine himself to the British North America Act; he put forward the theory of acquiescence. He said Prince Edward Island could not make any claim now because of acquiescence, and in the concluding part of his speech he said that Prince Edward Island could not raise its claim now because of the lapse of time. Further, he put aside the contention which had been raised then, and is still raised, that there had been an actual mistake as between the two contracting parties in 1873, and he declared that the resultant condition was due simply to the fact that the gentlemen who represented Prince Edward Island on that occasion were guilty of an oversight. He did not contend that there had been a mistake, but that there had been neglect and forgetfulness. Under the circumstances, I do not know how I could have criticised the observations of my hon. friend, if I alluded to them at all, except as I have done. My hon. friend certainly argued against Mr. Hackett; he will not deny that, and I thought he argued strongly against Mr. Hackett; but if he desires me to withdraw that, and to say that he tried to argue strongly but argued weakly, I will let the matter go at that.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has referred to the number of the committee, and has made an appeal to us to increase the number from seven to nine. Hon. gentlemen on the opposite side were content, and we were content in 1903, to have a committee of only seven. The argument is put forward that inasmuch as there are nine provinces now, the committee should consist of nine, there having been only seven provinces in 1903

and seven members on the committee. Perhaps hon. members who have not looked at the record will be a little surprised to learn that although there were seven provinces in 1903, only three of those seven provinces were represented on that committee. Ontario had three members: Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Hyman and Mr. Haggart; Quebec had two members: Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Monk; the Maritime provinces had one member: myself; and the Northwest Territories had one member: Mr. Davis. The provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, were not represented at all on that committee. If we are going to have every province in Oanada represented on both sides it would involve a committee of 18 or 20 members, and I do not suppose anything like that is suggested.
I am disposed to give the subject every consideration, although I think my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition will agree with me on reflection that for the purposes of a conference, as it is called, of this character, the smaller the number of the committee, within reasonable limits, the better. That is my idea, and for that reason I acquiesced in the proposal of the right hon. gentleman in 1903. Still, when such a suggestion is made by our friends on the other side, it ought not to be lightly dismissed, and for that reason I will not give a definite reply to-night, but at the conclusion of my observations I will move the adjournment of the debate in order that I may on Thursday or Friday next- in the meantime having conferred with my right hon. friend and possibly some other gentlemen on the other side of the House- be able to say whether a committee of seven members or nine members is really most likely to be the more effective. It is my desire, as far as may be reasonably possible to meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite in this matter. What I have said is only with the view of pointing out that there was no attempt in 1903 to represent the various provinces of Canada on that committee. The only object which governed the constitution of the committee in 1903, was to have four members from one side of the House and three members from the other side, who would be able, conferring with each other, to present views which would represent the opinions of the two sides of the House in regard to matters of a possibly controversial character, and to endeavour, by reasonable compromise, to
reach an agreement, if possible. If that was the object in 1903, I cannot at the moment see the advantage of increasing the committee from seven to nine members.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I
do not think the increase in membership is suggested with the idea of having a member from each province, from each side of the House, which would be absurd; but does not the right hon. gentleman see that in our general rough division of the country we have the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and the West, and the idea in the minds of some of us was that if local knowledge were required as to the various districts, it would be a little invidious to make a distinction against the West as between the other geographical divisions of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: I realize the point of view of my hon. friend from Red Deer, and any observation of his is always entitled to careful consideration. I would like to point out to him that the only two provinces established in the West at that time, Manitoba and British Columbia, had no representation upon the committee. So far as our side of the committee was concerned, we had absolutely no representation upon it in respect of either British Columbia, Manitoba or the Territories. As a matter of fact, the constitution of the committee in 1903 was rather curious, as it turned out in the end. Mr. Monk and Mr. Haggart, who were associated with me on the committee, were not perhaps as attentive upon it as I was myself, for the reason that Mr. Haggart did not desire very much to deal with details apd Mr. Monk confined his attention almost entirely to the province of Quebec, which was arranged between himself and Mr. Fitzpatrick without any great difficulty, as I understand. The result was that, outside of the province of Quebec, I had imposed upon my feeble shoulders the burden of every province in Canada so far as the Opposition was concerned.


Michael Clark: I hope my right hon. friend is not vindictive.


Robert Laird Borden: Not at all. I cannot say that I enjoyed the task very much, because the session lasted for seven months and thirteen days. We did not get away that year until the 24th of October. I found it necessary also to give a good deal of attention to a very important measure which was introduced that year, known as a Bill to establish a National Transcontinental railway. Between the Redistribution Bill

and the Bill to establish a National Transcontinental railway, I am free to say that the session of 1903 made upon me a profound impression which I do not think will ever be obliterated.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I would like to make a suggestion. Does my right hon. friend appreciate the difference between this year and 1903, in respect to the number of constituencies in v estern Canada that will have to be dealt with now and that did not require to be dealt with in 1903? I simply present this suggestion a-s something that may have weight with my right hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate the difference 'between 1903 and the present year, not only in that respect but otherwise, and I will give to this suggestion of my hon. friend the best consideration that I can.
I have nothing further to add except to say that, when my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) makes those remarkable calculations with rega d to the majority which is represented by a certain number of persons in Parliament today, every hon. member knows that calculations of that kind do not amount to much and that one could make an endless variety of such remarkable calculations by taking up a certain number of constituencies in one or other of the provinces of Canada. As a matter of fact, in 1908, my hon. friends on the other side of the House, although 1 aving a maiority of something over forty in this House, had a minority, if I am not mistaken, of the popular vote. That does not really amount to very much in our system of popular government because, where the majorities on one side are very large and on the other side happen in many cases to be narrow, the result which I 'have just indicated may be very easily brought about, and no way of avoiding it can be reached unless we adopt the proposal of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), that we should enter into one of those elaborate schemes for proportionate representation.
I remember having given some consideration to that subject some years ago. It was very strongly advocated by Earl Grey when he was Governor General of Canada, and I think he still continues to advocate it. But I am bound to say that under the system of party government, it seems to me-as I told Earl Grey at the time, although I was then in Opposition-to involve very considerable difficulties, because, if you had exactly the same proportion of representation in Parliament as would be determined
r.Mr. Borden.]
by popular vote, you never could have a working majority in the House of Commons. Previously to 1908, my hon. friends on the other side of the House, as I calculate, would have had, according to the popular vote, a majority of only three and a half in this Parliament.


George Perry Graham: And one middle bencher.


Robert Laird Borden: One middle bencher;
and every one of us knows that it is necessary and desirable, whether one party or the other be in power, that a reasonable working majority should be on hand. I do not very well see how we could carry on our system of party government without that. I do not intend, however, to discuss the subject at length. It is sufficient to say that we are prepared to give it consideration, but I do not think we shall attempt to put it into force at this readjustment. Perhaps in the course of the next decennial census we may have further light on the subject. Further con-isideration in the meantime might bring about changes of opinion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You had better not
give any assurance as to the future.


Robert Laird Borden: No. I will leave the
number of representatives on the committee in abeyance for the present. I move that the debate be now adjourned.


Onésiphore Turgeon: In the apparent determination of my right hon. friend to submit the question of Prince Edward Island to the committee, and in the event of the committee allowing the four representatives to the province of Prince Edward Island and thereby reversing the decision of the Privy Council, which has pronounced upon the matter, would my right hon. friend be at once ready and willing to give the four representatives to the province of Prince Edward Island?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has mistaken me. I am not submitting any decision of the Privy Council to the committee, and, with respect to what I shall do, I will remind my hon. friend from Gloucester that I have just been cautioned by my hon. friend from Westmorland not to make any promises as to the future.


George Perry Graham: What day will the committee be named?


Robert Laird Borden: I will propose to resume the adjourned debate on Thursday, and then the committee will be immediately constituted. In the meantime I

will take the opportunity of conferring on the matter with the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.
Motion of Mr. Borden agreed to, and debate adjourned.



BRANTFORD PUBLIC BUILDING.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Foster for Committee of Supply:
Mr. NESBITT:: I would like to discuss
for a few moments the questions which I placed on the Order Paper the other day and the answers given to the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these questions answered and disposed of? If this is an anticipating of questions on the Order Paper, it would not be permissible to discuss them now.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They were answered, and it is the answers I wish to deal with.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this were held to be referring to a past debate, of course, it would not be in order; otherwise it would be permissible. The rule is that answers given by ministers of the Crown are given in the exercise of their best judgment and must be accepted as given.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The answers are perfectly plain, but I wish to make some comment on them. The questions and their answers are as follows:
1.	What stone was specified to be used in the Brantford public building by the architect?
2.	Was it to be Canadian?
3.	What was the estimated value?
4.	From whom was it purchased?
5.	From where was it purchased?
6.	Who was the contractor for cutting the stone?
7.	Where was his home when contract was made ?
Mr. Rogers:
1.	Georgetown, Ontario, was specified.
2.	Yes.
3.	No detailed estimate was made for the stone.
4.	The stone used was Berea, Ohio, sandstone, as the price quoted by the contractor in his tender was considerably lower than the price for Georgetown stone and this tender was accepted.
5.	Berea, Ohio.
6 and 7. The cutting of the stone was included in the contract awarded to P. H. Secord and Sons, Limited, Brantford.
One would almost wonder if all the loudmouthed protestations of loyalty to imperial trade and of desire to patronize home manufactures on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite were merely for the purpose of
deceiving the people. In the last election, from end to end of this country, there were protestations by our friends on the other side that we should trade within the empire and should patronize home manufactures. This referred even to the conduct of private individuals in the carrying on of their business. But here we find the Government itself declaring in the first place by their specifications for a public building that Canadian stones should be used, and then going outside and buying-from whom? From the Yankees, the very people to whom we were going to be annexed to if private individuals bought from them, the very people to whom we were going to be made an adjunct if we even trade with them. It seems almost impossible to believe that our friends opposite should stoop so low as they proclaim it, as to buy from people like the Yankees. And, above all, where do you suppose this building was constructed? Why, in the riding of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), the lord high chancellor of the doctrine of patronage of home manufactures. And at that the earthquake did not come until the other day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is the evangel of
imperialism.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why, he is the John the Baptist of the movement. But that is not the worst of it. I understand from a very reliable person who visited the works that the foreman employed on the stone-cutting -and employed in contravention of the alien labour law-was a Yankee, and that some of the other men employed on the work were Yankees. In Brantford! Think of it!
Now, that is the farcial side of the question, but there is a serious side. The answer to question No. 4 says that the stone used was Berea, Ohio, sandstone, as the price quoted by the contractor in his tender was considerably lower than the price for Georgetown stone, and this tender was accepted. Mr. Speaker, there is a rule of commerce throughout Canada, an absolute rule, that when tenders are called for on specifications, and the specifications are afterwards changed, every man who has tendered is allowed to amend his tender or new tenders are asked for under the new specifications. In this particular instance, the stone specified was Georgetown, Ontario, which was dearer. Now, some of the tenderers complained that somebody had the inside tracks with this Government, and that somebody must have been

the lowest tenderer, considering that he was allowed to use Ohio stone in place of Georgetown stone. The first aspect of the question to which I referred may be merely an illustration to the Canadian public that the loud protest of hon. gentlemen opposite were merely for the purpose, if I may say so, of deceiving the public. But this is a serious question. In private life no honourable individual or corporation would permit the changing of specifications for one tenderer without giving every tenderer the same opportunity. And as to the cutting of the stone, surely there could be found in Canada a foreman capable of overseeing this work. Has it come to this, that we Canadians not only cannot build battleships, but we cannot cut stone ?	1
merely give these answers to the House as they were given to me. I asked the questions purely to get at the truth of the rumour in our section of the country that these facts as they have been given by the department were the real facts in this case.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. gentleman for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) himself admitted that he tried to be farcial, and I am sure that in that respect, if in no other, he succeeded in his remarks. But he has said that there is a serious side to this question which he has brought before the House, and it is on that serious side that I propose to say a word or two. He make the statement that somebody must have the inside track with the Government and that this accounts for the condition of which he complains. As far as I know, no man has an inside track in the letting of contracts in connection with the Public Works Department of Canada. In respect to the contract as let for the building of a post office in the city of Brantford, I have to say that it was let upon the merits of the tenders as put in according to the terms of the specifications and conditions under which the tenders were to be received. The facts are that we had, I think, two or three tenders for that work. Secord & Company tendered, according to specifications with the use of Georgetown stone, for $273,108; and with the use of New Brunswick stone for $259,980. The Schultz Bros. Company, Limited, tendered, according to the specifications with the use of Georgetown stone, for $273,908; and with the use of New Brunswick stone, for $247,718. The specifications were followed absolutely and correctly. The specifi-
.
cations contained the following clause in respect to stone:	[DOT]
The facing stone (excepting granite) on elevations from top to base course to top of coping, tower, pent house, sills to all windows, lintels to all windows and doors, copings, band courses and where coloured umber to be approved Logan stone from Georgetown, Ont., or other approved stone of equal quality, to the entire satisfaction of the chief architect.
We have here the facts of the case. When the tenders were received it is true that Secord and Company tendered for $244,000 under the suggestion of using American Berean sandstone, a stone which has been used to a very large extent in the Dominion of Canada. It is the stone of which the post office and the Bank of Montreal in the city of Ottawa are built. When it became a question of whether we should accept the tenders of the Georgetown stone or of the Berean stone I at once said to the Deputy Minister of my department that we must, if we possibly could, use Canadian stone. But, on a consideration of the question, it was shown that there was a difference of $28,000 in the cost of this stone. The chief architect, who was to be the judge of the matter, was appealed to and stated that in his opinion the Berean stone was fully as good as, if not better than the Georgetown stone. That was the simple and the only reason why the tender was accepted for Berean stone for the construction of the building in the city of Brantford in preference to the stone first specified, known as Georgetown stone.
This is simply a recital of the facts in order that the hon. member for North Oxford may not be carried away with any misunderstanding of the true conditions of the letting of the contract and of the tender which has been referred to in respect of the construction of the post office in Brantford.
I say that the contract was let in accordance with the recommendation of the chief architect of the Department of Public Works. The chief architect of that department is a man known, I think, to every hon. member of this House; and I am sure that no hon. member would say that I would be justified in paying $28,000 more for Georgetown stone when the chief archi- , tect said that the Berean sandstone was really a better stone than the Georgetown stone and could be secured at a cost of $28,000 less to the people of Canada.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: I quite agree with the Minister of Public Works that in letting contracts, either in that department or in the Department of Rail-

87a
ways and Canals, so far as my experience has gone, and I have had some considerable experience, there is no one who has inside information; and I quite appreciate his other statement, that the chief architect of the Department of Public Works is one of the best men we have in the public service in Canada. I have known him for a good many years and I am not so much criticising the, position which the chief architect took in allowing American stone to be used in this contract as I am criticising this particular phase of it, that I do not think the Government should allow American stone to be used at all. I do not think the department should have specified Georgetown stone. We have in the Niagara district limestone quarries, the Queenston quarries and the Beamsville quarries and the Thorold quarries, which produce the finest stone that this or any other country can produce. It has been used to build and construct the heaviest work that has been constructed in Canada and. it can be procured at a cheaper figure, I believe, than the Georgetown stone can be procured, and just as cheap as the Ohio sandstone can be procured. The Government specified Georgetown stone and consequently the men who are interested in the, Queenston, Beamsville and Thorold quarries would not tender, although they might have been able to supply the stone at as low a figure as it was supplied by the contractor who got his supply from the United States. It is that phase of it that I desire particularly to criticise, namely that the Government should not specify any particular class of stone except as to it being a good quality of limestone such as would be approved of by the chief architect of the department, whether Georgetown, Beamsville or Queenston stone. And when we come to the point of stone-cutters, we have in Niagara district the best stone-cutters the world can produce. I would call that to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and of the Government generally, that if they want stone-cutters all they have to do is to come to the county of Welland and they can get the best stone-cutters the world can produce. Or they can come to the county of Lincoln. I see my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) smiling at that. He has stone-cutters in his constituency, and I am surprised that he has not made something of a disturbance in regard to this.


Robert Rogers: I would like to draw the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that this was a contract let to Secord & Sons. They had a perfect right to employ whom
they wished so long as they did not violate the Alien Labour Act.


William Manley German: It has been suggested
that the Government allow the Alien Labour Act to be broken so that these stone cutters could come in. But I wish to call the attention of the minister to this one fact which is within my own knowledge: it is absolutely impossible for a Canadian to go into the United States and to get such a contract as that; they would simply be barred out, and I think it is time we began to bar the people of the United States from coming over here and using American stone and American stonecutters on a Government building. We are just as capable of doing the work as the people of the United States. It may be said that this is political talk and for effect generally, but I do not wish it to be so considered. I believe that we in Canada are capable of doing our own work, and of doing it as efficiently and as cheaply as it can be done, and I, for one, am prepared to stand by the principle that we should keep Canada for the Canadians in that particular and use our own stone and our own stone cutters even if it costs a little more. I do not wish to insinuate that any contractor had any inside information or that he could possibly have got any inside information from the department.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: I think I know a little about this question, and I would like to say to my hon. friend that he is barking up entirely the wrong tree in his attempt to fasten any wrong-doing on the Public Works Department in connection with the Brantford public building. If we had got one-quarter as good value from the contracts let by the Government my hon. friend has supported so-vigorously, he might have got up and criticised this question. He has shown a lamentable want of knowledge of the facts. The Minister of Public Works has made the facts plain. In the first place the specifications called for Georgetown stone or other of equal quality. What are the facts in regard to Georgetown stone? The minister has shown that the building would have cost $28,000 more, if it had been built of Georgetown stone instead of the stone . selected. Another point was, that the Georgetown quarries could not turn out enough stone for that building even if we got the whole output for two years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why was that stone specified if you could not get enough of it?


William Foster Cockshutt: When the specifications weTe made out, it was not known that we could not get the Georgetown stone. We understood that there was a very large deposit of stone, and that there would be no trouble as to the quantity; but when the tenderer examined the quarry he found that he could not get enough stone to complete that building even if he used the whole output of his quarry in two years.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend said that the specifications called for Georgetown stone or other of equal quality. I was only going by the answer I received from the department, which specified Georgetown stone and says nothing about 'other of equal quality'.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am speaking by the book.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Which book?


William Foster Cockshutt: The book is the specifications as written.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then the answer is untrue.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am giving what I know to be the facts. The specifications called for Georgetown stone, or other of equal quality. Then it was found that the Georgetown stone would cost $28,000 more. My endeavour was to have Canadian stone used in the building, but my hon. friend who has to account to the public for the expenditure of money was of the opinion that $28,000 was too much to pay for one building, as between Canadian * and American stone. There were three or four tenderers, and I may say to my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that the contract will stand thorough investigation as to its straightness. No insinuations which he has made are worthy of consideration. The lowest tenderer-a man who is doing an honest and good job-got the work. My hon. friend has made an endeavour to appeal to labour and has named the foreman. I am not in a position to give the nationality of the foreman stonecutter, but I can tell my hon. friend that ninety-five per cent of the stonecutters on that job are British subjects.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not say they were not.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend just picks out one man on the building. Surely if these American come here to settle they have a right to work. I

visit the building almost every day and, as I said, my hon. friend can rest assured that 95 per cent of the stone-cutters on that building are Canadians and British subjects. Mr. Secord, the contractor, is doing the best work ever seen in the city of Brantford, and he is giving 100 cents on the dollar on that job. The whole matter from start to finish is being conducted in the most thorough manner. The site was purchased from the city of Brantford and the property is today worth more than double what was paid for it. I do not mean to say that Brantford intended to be over-liberal but they sold the property on which this building stands to the Government, so that the public might get the benefit, if there was any benefit in it. The building is being rapidly pushed to completion in a way that could not -have been done if we had chosen Canadian stone. I brought to the attention of the minister various Canadian stones, and it was found that every one of these would cost considerably more than the one chosen, and some of them would have to be transported some thousands of miles. It is a lamentable fact that within a distance of one hundred miles of Brantford you cannot find a first class stone in large quantities, and I say it with all deference to the constituency that has been mentioned by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German). If he has a good kind of stone there I would like him to name one first class building in which it has been used. I do not know of one, and I have looked at several public buildings and endeavoured to come to a conclusion as to the best stone. I think the Government ought to be upheld because they have saved the country $28,000 by using this particular stone. The Chief Architect said that this stone was equal to the best, and therefore I think the criticism of my hon. friend from North Oxford is entirely aside from the question. The whole matter is just as honest and above board as any contract ever let by any Government, and if he has any doubt about that, I would be willing to have the most full investigation in regard to the whole matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is rather
an interesting thing to see my hon. friend rushing to the defence of the proposition that you can get better stone in the United States to build Canadian buildings with than you can in Canada, and get it cheaper. If my hon. friend has attempted to prove anything in the remarks he has made, that

apparently was the object of his ambition. It means that when the Minister of Public Works came to ask for tenders for this work, he apparently was not aware of the fact that somewhere else in this country there was some stone other than the Georgetown quarry stone. All over the country there are quarries producing stone of a most admirable quality, such stone as the large banks and the great commercial buildings are being constructed of in different cities in Canada. Why did the Minister of Public Works confine the tenders for this particular building to a stone that he knew the quarry had run out of?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, because the
hon. member for Brantford says so.


William Foster Cockshutt: I did not say so.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend from Brantford did not say anything of the kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What did the hon.
member for Brantford say?


William Foster Cockshutt: I will tell the hon.
gentleman.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am dealing with
the Minister of Public Works. What did the hon. member for Brantford say?


Robert Rogers: The hon. member for
Brantford said that it was impossible to get the stone out as quickly as it would have been required for the construction of the building at Brantford.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Did the' Minister
of Public Works, or any of the officials of his department, know when they made that a condition of the contract, that they could not get Georgetown stone?


Robert Rogers: Apparently they did not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, then, the result is that we have the fact established that the Minister of Public Works specified and prescribed as the one and only stone that could be placed in this building, a stone coming from a quarry in regard to which they had made no inquiries whatever to find out whether they could get any stone or not. The hon. member for Brantford tells us that this stone which was stipulated as the only stone which could be used came from a quarry where you could not get it inside of two years.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman
does not want to misrepresent me.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


William Foster Cockshutt: I did not say that. I said that the tenders called for Georgetown or some other stone of similar quality. Why does the hon. gentleman leave out the latter part of it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For the very good
reason that the hon. member for Brantford is not the Minister of Public Works in this Government, and that if any member of. this House wants to get a statement as to what was prescribed and approved of for this work, he does not go to the hon. member for Brantford to find out, but he goes to the Minister of Public Works, who, in response to the question of my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who wanted to know what stone vras specified, answered that stone of the Georgetown quarry was specified. What is the use of the hon. member for Brantford coming here and, in order to extricate himself and his friends from a difficulty, telling us that this statement of the Minister of Public Works is absolutely incorrect? Contractors were told:	You
can put no stone in that building but Georgetown stone. The Minister of Public Works has told us that the stone that he specified was the Georgetown stone, and when he found that this stone which had been specified came from a quarry could not produce any stone for two years, what did my hon. friend do? These gentlemen, who did not want any truck or trade with the Yankees, said:	You cannot get any
stone in Canada; Canadian stone is no good, except this stone that you cannot get out of the Georgetown quarries within two years; we will not bother looking up and down the country to find whether there is any stone to be got in Canada, but we will take Ohio sandstone; that is the best of all; it is better than any Canadian stone, and besides you can get it cheaper. We, on this side of the House, are all good enough Canadians to say to the Minister of Public Works: If you had used stone from any other Canadian quarry, even if it had cost a little more than Ohio sandstone, we would not have complained about it. We would give the minister some credit for realizing that Canada had some natural industries that deserve to be patronized. It was not necessary, especially in the case of a public building belonging to Canada, to blazen it abroad and to tell the men who are connected with the construction of public works in the country: If you want to erect a public building for the

Canadian Government, you must not buy Canadian stone for the purpose of doing it.


Mr. BURNHAM:: What about free food?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend, the alarm clock, is starting again. However, it has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to the House and to the country that, in the estimation of this Government, Canadian stone is no good when you can get American stone to be used in public buildings.


Mr. HENDERSON:: I just desire to say that Georgetown is in the county I represent. I know the quarry referred to. The demand for Georgetown stone is certainly very great, and I am not surprised that this contractor could not get a sufficient quantity of stone in time to finish his contract from that quarry on account of the large demand for Georgetown stone. I will undertake to say that there is no better quality of free stone in the province of Ontario than is taken out of the Georgetown quarry.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is better than American stone?


David Henderson: It may be far superior, but, unfortunately, Mr. Logan,, whose name is given as being the proprietor of the quarry, was not able to supply the stone in sufficient quantity at the time it was needed. That does not say one word against the quality of the stone; nor yet does it say one word against the quantity of the stone. There is a mountain of this stone right where the quarry is. If the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) wanted to erect a very large building within a reasonable distance of the quarry I have no doubt that an abundance of stone could be obtained provided sufficient time was given to take it out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why had you to go to the States to get it?


David Henderson: Well, now, the hon. gentleman had better be patient. I think he has had that fully explained to him. There was a limited time to get this stone. I never heard anything of this matter before, but it appears that the Georgetown quarry was not able to supply this stone in the quantity that was wanted and in the time provided for in the contract. There is no evidence that the Georgetown quarry could not have supplied the stone if a reasonable time had been given or if they had had sufficient notice. I see the hon. member for West Lamhton (Mr. Pardee) smil-

ing. The post office in his town is built from stone taken from the Georgetown quarry. The post office was built by the Government that he supported and I will undertake also to say that he does not find any fault with it and that he will not say that the stone taken from that quarry is not of the best.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: We do not say that there is anything against the stone.


David Henderson: The hon. member for Pictou tried to give a black eye to this stone. The hon. gentleman does not know this quarry. It is being worked all the time full force and were it not for the terrible demand for Georgetown stone I have no doubt that this building at Brantford would have been built of Georgetown stone. The hon. gentleman must take all these circumstances into consideration. The Georgetown quarry is no one-horse affair. It is not limestone. It is the best quality of free stone. It is not like the limestone that they have in Welland county. It is a very fine quality of stone and as evidence of that let me say that a building was erected in my county during last year and the cut stone required for that building was taken out of the Georgetown quarry. It was approved by all parties and it also had my approval. It had the approval of everybody that looked at it. It was pronounced by everyone as a very superior quality of stone.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why was it not put in the Brantford building?


David Henderson: How many times does my hon. friend want to know that ? I said that the men who are running this quarry, if they had sufficient notice, might have been able to supply the stone necessary; but owing to the tremendous demand for Georgetown stone, they could not get it out on time. The hon. gentleman had better take a run up to Georgetown and see the immense quantity of the superior stone that is being shipped from there, and then we will hear less complaints from him. I could not sit quietly in my seat and hear the hon. gentleman speak in that way of the quarry-


Mr. BRODER:: That you represent.


David Henderson: No, but in the
county I represent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was the member for Brantford, and not I, who reflected on the quality of the stone.


David Henderson: I listened to the hon. gentleman from Brantford, and I did

not hear him cast any reflection on the quality of the Georgetown stone. It has been said that the American stone has been obtained for less money, and I am not doubting that, because I do not know anything at all about the matter; but I do know that if Georgetown stone is not a better stone than the American stone, the demand for it would not be so great as it is. You must take into consideration the superior quality of the Georgetown stone when you remember the demand there is for it. I have no brief from Mr. Logan to praise the quality of this stone; I know it is a hard quarry to work, but I know they dig an immense quantity of stone out of it, and I do say it is stone of a very superior quality.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: I do not think I am making any mistake when I say that the Georgetown stone is of superior quality, and it would have been just as well for the hon. member for Pictou if he did not cast any reflections on it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What I said was, that it was better than the American stone.


David Henderson: The member for
Brantford has told us that 95 per cent of the men who work on that building are Canadians, and I have no doubt he is quite correct, as he usually is, in any statement he makes.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: You mean he is as correct in that as in any statement he makes ?


David Henderson: No, I said he is as correct in that statement as he usually is in any statement he makes in this House. Hon. gentlemen opposite having cast reflections on the Georgetown stone, I trust they are now satisfied that it is stone of a very superior quality.


Mr. PARDEE:: The hon. member for
Halton (Mr. Henderson) seems to be somewhat perturbed for fear we will not think the Georgetown stone is a stone of excellent quality, but he need not be alarmed on that score, because I can tell him that the Sarnia post office is built of Georgetown stone, and as he has invited hon. members to look at that stone in its natural state in the quarry, I invite them to come and see the finished product in the Sarnia post office. A remarkable fact about all this is, that it was well known, or it ought to have been well known when the specifications for the contract were prepared, that tlie stone could not have been obtained from Georgetown for two years. My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) says the manager of the quarry told him that.


David Henderson: I never said anything of the kind.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Well, it was so understood then.


David Henderson: I do not know how it could have been understood.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. member for
Brantford said the stone could not be obtained from Georgetown for two years.


David Henderson: I think it was the hon. member for Pictou who said that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I never said anything of the kind.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Well, it was said, whoever said it, and it is not denied there is enough stone at Georgetown to supply the contract on the specification which called for that stone. But when the Government knew they could not possibly get the stone from the Georgetown quarry, there was nothing in the world to prevent them asking for tenders from some other Canadian quarry. Instead of that they rushed off to the United States to get the stone. No doubt they went to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), who was most anxious to have a public building in his constituency, and they said to him: we cannot get the Georgetown stone for two years, but we will get you stone from those terrible Yankees. And, you can imagine the hon. member horrified to think that the Yankees were to be traded with, but at the same time saying: if that is the case, I want to please my constituents, I want to be a good fellow, go ahead, never mind the other Canadian quarries, buy from the Yankees, it will do just as well. That is really the whole story. My hon. friend from Halton says there is a mountain of stone to be had at Georgetown, but it was not to be obtained for this Canadian public building. It is like the cry: water, water all around and not a drop to drink. . There was a mountain of stone there but the Government could not get it, and hence it was that, presuming the .Georgetown quarry could not supply the stone, instead of asking for new 'tenders, and giving other Canadian quarries a chance, this Government that two years ago was howling from the house tops: have nothing to do with

the Yankees, said: we will give no other Canadian industry a chance; we will give our wicked friends in Ohio the opportunity to supply this stone, and, anyway, we will get it cheaper there than in Canada. Well, I wonder how it would be with regard to ploughs. I do not think my hon. friend would for a moment stand for that. He would say: you can buy the stone from the Yankees, but keep your hands off me when it .comes to ploughs. The whole story is summed up in this: that the member for Brantford, finding he could not get Canadian stone to have the building erected speedily, went back on all the tenets he preached in September, 1911, and said: I will -swallow myself to this extent, and I will have just a little to do with the Yankees, if it helps me, the member for Brantford.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The discussion on this subject is a unique commentary on what transpired in this Parliament in 1903 and 1904, with respect to the Transcontinental railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific. I remember how some hon. gentlemen opposite sat up nights trying to work some section into the Acts whereby the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the Transcontinental Commission would be prevented from using any foreign or American -material in the construction of that railway. There are to be found to-day clauses in these Bills which prohibit the use of material other than Canadian, where it is possible to secure it. We hear a different story to-night. The hon. gentleman from Halton seems to think there is only one stone quarry in Canada, and I take his word for it that the Georgetown stone is splendid stone and that there are mountains of it there, but I would remind him that there are other productive quarries in the Maritime provinces and elsewhere. He told us that the Georgetown quarry was not by any means a one-horse affair, but he succeeded in convincing the House that those who operate it are operating it as a one-horse affair, or eke they could have produced stone enough to build one public building in the city of Brantford. I think my hon. friend in that way deprecated the quarry in his constituency. Why did not my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works turn his eye towards the Maritime provinces? If he wants splendid quarries, he will find them there. He will find evidences of those quarries and samples of the stone from them in the municipal building in the city of Toronto; he will find sandstone from Nova Scotia and

New Brunswick, and from the county of Westmorland, in that splendid building in the city of Toronto and in other splendid buildings. I think the stone would be sufficiently good to be used even in a public building in the city of Brantford, represented by my hon. friend. But, no! they must go to Berea, and the justification of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is that private individuals have done so; that the banks, railway corporations and other corporations of the country in the construction of great buildings in our large cities have bought stone from Berea and other sections of the state of Ohio. True it is, but a party that fought night after night and complained because there might be a danger of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company purchasing material for the construction of its railway outside of Canada, a party that took up the time of this House complaining because of the employment of engineers who were American citizens in connection with the survey of the transcontinental line of railway, a party that took that attitude and then take the attitude that they are taking to-night, surely should be condemned and their attitude is its own condemnation.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Foster for Committee of Supply:
Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to an Order of the House passed on the 20th of January, 1913, for the return of certain papers in connection with the officials of the Dorchester penitentiary, as to their appointments and promotions. It is not a very long return, but it has not yet been furnished. That is a grievance that I think I have a right to place before His Majesty before we resolve ourselves into Committee of Supply to furnish money for the purposes of government.
I want to call particular attention to the fact that certain information for which I have asked during this session, in fact at the beginning of this session, from the Department of Railways and Canals, has been withheld and is not forthcoming. It is very important for this House, in the consideration of certain questions, to have the full facts of what is known as the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement. It cannot be a very long document, and the papers in connection with it cannot be very voluminous. This document was promised by my right hon. friend the leader of the Government in October last to a deputation

which interviewed him from the city of St. John. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) promised his friends in the city of St. John that a copy of that agreement would be sent forward. They have not received it. This House ordered that we should have a copy, and it has not yet been brought down. I think that I have reason and hon. members have reason to complain of the very serious delays that are occurring with respect to information that is sought for from the Department of Railways and Canals. Questions that were on the Order Paper at the opening of the session have not been answered up to this moment, questions that are important, questions that do not require a lengthy answer. Perhaps the information may be in Moncton, but that is no excuse or justification. There is a private wire between the Department of Railways and Canals and the railway offices in the city of Moncton; the department are in communication almost hourly with those offices. This information surely should be given.
I take the fourth question on the Order Paper, which is as to whether or not a water supply has been furnished in connection with a certain station. Thirty minutes' work on the part of a clerk could prepare that information. The sixth question-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is not in order in taking up subjects on the Order Paper and discussing them. It is not permissible to anticipate a subject on the Order Paper and to discuss it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot discuss those questions and I do not propose to do so. What I am discussing is the delays that are occurring in the furnishing of information to the House on matters of importance to the members and to those whom they represent. Yesterday certain questions on the Order Paper were converted into notices of motion, questions, the answers to which could not be brought down in the form of returns, questions that in my opinion should be answered because they relate to the knowledge of the Government with respect to the act of one of their subordinates, the general manager of the Intercolonial railway, Mr. Gutelius. By the action taken, another week or perhaps a fortnight will expire before we can possibly hope to secure this information. I trust my right hon. friend the leader of the Government will call the attention of his Minister of Railways, who is
absent, to the desirability of having all information from the department furnished at the earliest possible moment. I have no desire to complain of lack of courtesy on the part of the Minister of Railways. He takes pride somewhat in the meagreness of the information that he furnishes to the House. Gertainly his friends have rather praised him for the course which he has taken in that regard in times past. In all fairness, I think that we are entitled to this information, and I would rather have it than have a grievance with respect to it. It is a grievance, and I ventilate that grievance in this House on behalf of my constituents, choosing an occasion which is not only opportune but in accordance with the rules of the House.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I can assure the hon.
gentleman that the order to which he refers has not been overlooked. But as to there being a serious grievance because he has not been given the information asked for, if he will look at ' Hansard ' he will find questions intended to elicit information as to these promotions in Dorchester penitentiary and also the answers to those questions.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. minister
answered the questions promptly, but that answer did not give the information called for by this motion for a return.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will see if there is
anything further.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY INVESTIGATING COMMISSION REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Foster for Committee of Supply:
George Perry Graham: I desire to say a word, not by way of complaint, but in view of existing circumstances. There will be a discussion in this House on a certain document recently placed on the table and now in the hands of the printer. It is necessary that members of this House should be seized of the fullest information in order to discuss that matter intelligently. I understand from the press that the health of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) not being the best, he desires to go away as soon as possible, in fact, it is said that a date for his leaving has been fixed. I think the Prime Mnister should impress upon him the necessity of giving us this information at least before he leaves; for, of course-and I am not using these words at all by way of a threat-the Prime Min-

ister will see how impossible it would be for the Minister of Railways to go on with his Estimates until we get the information necessary to discuss this bigger question. I have several questions on the Order Paper, the answers to which should not be very lengthy and the information to answer which, I should think, must be in the Department of Railways here or in the Ottawa office of the Transcontinental Commission. Even if it were more difficult to obtain the information, I think a special effort should be made to answer these questions with all possible speed.


Robert Laird Borden: This matter was mentioned by my hon. friend yesterday. I understood the Minister of Railways and Canals to say that he would furnish typewritten copies.


George Perry Graham: That is, of the report; but what I had reference to was the several questions asking information not in the report.


Robert Laird Borden: Questions only?


George Perry Graham: Questions and one or two returns. These will be necessary before I can read the report intelligently from my point of view.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that question No. 24 and 
question No. 30-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No rail-
10 p.m. way questions were answered yesterday.


Robert Laird Borden: I believe not. Question No. 24 was given notice of on February 12, and question No. 30 on Febuary 13; so there has not been a great deal of delay in regard to these. I do not know whether in either of these cases it will be necessary to obtain information from Moncton or elsewhere. There is also question No. 15, of which my hon. friend gave notice on February 9. I do not observe any others at the moment.


George Perry Graham: And there are three or four motions for returns. In view of the peculiar circumstances, as to the minister's desire to leave and as to this debate coming on, I would urge special attention to this matter. Take, . for instance, question No. 15. This refers to the Toronto-Sudbury Canadian Pacific railway line, which, according to the newspapers, was referred to in the report on the Transcontinental. What purports to be a Synopsis of the report in the press states that a compari-

son was made between the Transcontinental and this line. Before we can discuss that comparison we ought to have this information. The commissioner who made that comparison must have that information.


Robert Laird Borden: I will direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to the observations of my hon. friend in regard to these questions, and I have no doubt he will be disposed, as I am certainly disposed, to give the information at the earliest possible moment.


George Perry Graham: I would make a request of my right hon. friend now: I have not put a notice on the Order Paper, but 1 should like to have the Order in Council appointing the investigating commission oi the Transcontinental. I believe that should be laid on the table.


Robert Laird Borden: I am almost sure that it was laid on the table, more than a year ago, but if not, there is no reason why it should not be.


George Perry Graham: I looked for it and could not find it.


Robert Laird Borden: We can get another copy.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I wish to ask a question, in view of what has appeared in the Ottawa Evening Citizen in regard to the Transcontinental railway. Is that report open for any one to see? Members of the House have not got it, though it has appeared in the Montreal Gazette, the Montreal Star, and the Ottawa Citizen.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no personal knowledge of the matter. The document has been laid on the table, and so, according to the practice of this House, has become a public document and open to the press. The clerk has informed me that there is a copy upstairs, and it is probably from that copy that the newspaper synopsis has been made. I only suggest that because I have no more knowledge than the hon. gentleman has as to how the newspapers obtained the summary to which he refers. In fact, I have not seen the summary myself.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Reference has
just been made by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) to the fact that the Minister of Railways was about to leave Canada for the benefit of his health. That reminds me that the Minister has not yet asked for Supply. There are several matters which I should like to have the

opportunity of discussing with the minister before he leaves, and I dare say that other gentlemen would like a similar opportunity. I would ask the Prime Minister, cannot it be arranged to allow the minister to take up Supply to discuss matters of a general character, even if he does not go into the details of the Estimates?


Robert Laird Borden: I could not say at the
moment whether that would be possible or not As the minister is going away for a considerable time, there are naturally a great many matters to engage his attention. Whether he will be able to take up Supply or not is unknown to me at the present moment. Of course my hon. friend will understand that if the minister is not here to discuss matters and give information, there will be someone else in his place to perform that duty in the House.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Canada's proportion of expenditure in connection with International Customs Tariffs Bureau, $662.
Mr. FOSTER:: This is an international
arrangement into which almost all the countries of the world have entered. The head office is located in Brussels. It is an international clearing house for customs tariffs. All the tariffs of the world are collected there and are printed and distributed to all the nations in certain proportions. All changes that take place from time to time are notified there, and notifications are sent out to the different countries. It is a sort of international customs clearing house.
Trade Commissioners and Commercial Agents, including expenses in connection with negotiations of treaties or in extension of commercial relations; miscellaneous advertising and printing, or other expenditure connected with the extension of Canadian trade, $idU,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How many trade commissioners have we?


George Eulas Foster: We have at the present
time about fifteen trade commissioners and four correspondents. The trade commissioners are stationed at Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham and London in England, and at Glasgow in Scotland. There are trade commissioners, in Paris, at Hamburg, and at Rotterdam. There is a trade commissioner in the West Indies stationed at Barbados, one in South America stationed at Buenos Ayres, and one in 58
China and one in Japan There is also a travelling trade commissioner for the present travelling through the different West Indian islands on a special trade mission. There is a trade commissioner in South Africa, one in Australia ^nd one in New Zealand. I think these take in practically all. We had a trade commissioner in Mexico, but owing to the disjointed state of affairs there that office has been practically closed. Not closed as regards information that may be sought and given, but it is in the hands of the British Trade Consul at that place, who acts under an arrangement with the Foreign Office for Canada with respect to that country. As to the United States, we have no trade commissioners.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Outside of the
commissioner at Barbados, have we not representatives of some kind in the other West Indies, such as Trinidad and Jamaica?


George Eulas Foster: The others are correspondents. They are stationed at Trinidad, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and an acting Trade Commissioner in Havana.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What do you pay these correspondents' ?


George Eulas Foster: I think $500 a year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What do you pay the trade commissioners ?


George Eulas Foster: They are graded from $3,000 up to $4,000 according to their services and the position, their salaries increasing at the rate of $100 a year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Where is most of this $150,000 expended ?


George Eulas Foster: It is distributed among the different commissioners I have named. There is the salary of the commissioner, the rent of the commissioner's office, and such clerical assistance as may be employed, and the general expenses of each office. The expenditure as a proportion can be seen when divided amongst the number of trade commissioners.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was not a commercial agent appointed at Boston two years ago ?


George Eulas Foster: No. I have had a great many requests for the appointment of commissioners in the United States, but we have not appointed any there up to the present time, and it is not the policy of the department to appoint agents there. We have agents in Great Britain for very



good reasons. Then we have agents in foreign countries where we are trying to work up trade and where difficulties, for various reasons, have to be overcome. Our trade with the United States is very large, very free; we are countries which lie in juxtaposition with each other, communication backwards and forwards is of the very best, and I have not thought it necessary to incur the expense of establishing agents in the United States.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the minister had any request for the appointment of Mr. Watson Griffin as a special Trade Commissioner to the West Indies? He was appointed a month or two ago at a salary of about $4,000. Has he had any request from any of the exporters in Canada for such an appointment and does he expect that Mr. Griffin can accomplish anything for Canadian trade; and if he thinks so, would he mind telling the committee how? The reason I ask the minister that question, is because I have heard the appointment very severely criticised and I am inclined to think there is nothing which Mr. Griffin can accomplish for our trade in the West Indies. I am not saying anything against Mr. Griffin, I know nothing about him. He may have every accomplishment necessary to make a successful trade commissioner, but really I fail to see what it is he can do for Canadian trade especially in view of the fact that we have correspondents in all those islands who understand the trade very much better than Mr. Griffin can do for a good number of years at least, and who I think are doing everything possible for the extension of our trade with the West Indies. There is also this to be remembered. A great number of Canadian exporters frequently visit the West Indies. It is an old established trade, and is known pretty well.


George Eulas Foster: I will try, I will not say to satisfy my hon. friend, but I will make an explanation with reference to Mr. Griffin's appointment. In the first place, that appointment was not even eolourably made for the sake of finding a billet for a political friend. I think my hon. friend will believe that when I state it to him. I see he assents with a nod and a smile. The West Indian Islands are so situated that it is rather a difficult matter to know what is best to be done in order to bring about the best results. My hon. friend has said that we have commissioners there now. That is true. We have one situated at Barbados, and then we have

three or four correspondents whom we pay at the rate of $500 a year. They do their occasional work but of course they are not supposed to-they could not ibe supposed to-give the whole of their time or a great deal of their effort towards helping trade between the two countries. The islands are very far apart in some respects, and the resident commissioner on one of the islands is, for that island in which he is resident, of some use, but for the islands outside, if he remains resident in the one in which he is placed, he is not of much more use than if he were here in the department at Ottawa. I may say frankly to my hon. friend that the appointment of Mr. Griffin as a special commissioner has been made for a term of one year, is to test out what I am thinking at the present time is the best method of carrying on our commissioner business in the West Indies; that is, instead of having resident commissioners, one or two in one or two of the larger islands, a travelling , commissioner continually going from one island to another with correspondents in the different islands will be, I think, a better solution of the question which we are trying to solve, and will bring better results than any other system that we could have. It was with that in view, that I appointed Mr. Watson Griffin. The question was asked me as to whether I had numerous requests. I had not. I was looking about for a man who had the qualifications for the purpose for which I needed him. The purpose for which he is needed is two-fold. In the first place he has to grasp the salient points in the trade conditions in the West Indies, and in the next place, to present those to the trade and producing public in Canada. Mr. Watson Griffin has, I think, good qualifications for that business. He has had a long experience in Canadian work, and in all parts of Canada. Mr. Griffin was in charge of the Weekly Herald and Star, Montreal, from 1886 to 1896, and was therefore in a commercial metropolis and had to do very largely with commercial currents, commercial thought, and commercial transactions as reflected in that centre. He left the Star for purposes of travel and general press work, going later to the Daily Star as chief editorial writer from 1898 to 1901, again in much the same currents of trade in the central trade position in Canada. In the service of the Star he was sent to make special examinations into the iron and steel industry in Nova Scotia. I have had the pleasure and the benefit of reading Mr. Griffin's reports

on that industry, and they are as able reports as I have ever seen written, well couched in language, selecting the principal points and using no verbiage or effort on what did not seem to be primary matter- on the whole, as good reports as I have read in reference to that kind of investigation. From 1902 to 1906 he was in the service of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, where he became thoroughly acquainted with the manufacturing industries in this country, what is produced, where it is produced, and the quality and the conditions under which it is produced. In 1912 he went to Brandon as publicity commissioner, and it was whilst he was at Brandon that I got into communication with him and asked him to undertake this work. The range over which Mr. Griffin works cannot, I think, be better shown than in the instructions that were issued to him, and if my hon. friend would like to know what those instructions are I will read them to the committee:
1.	Your appointment runs as Special Trade Commissioner to the West India colonies, where the principal part of your labours will be done. This, of course, includes British Guiana.
2.	If not too inconvenient in the way of . transport, you should also visit other principal
West Indian islands, with the exception of Hayti, looking in upon our office at Havana and going thoroughly into conditions and possibilities with Mr. Quilez.
3.	Special attention should be given, when in Jamaica, ta investigate aiul weigh out the conditions there as between Canadian and United States interests. This, of course, has to be very carefully done-diplomatically in fact, so as not to arouse any antipathies, and above all to be careful not to draw public attention ta that phase of your investigation.
4.	In the Danish Islands, if you visit them, it
would be necessary to note, in addition to other information, particularly methods of transportation.	-
5.	In all colonies which you visit, outside of general conditions governing interchanges between them and Canada special attention should be paid to financial and banking facilities,-
My hon. friend will see what an important bearing that has on the general exchanges between the two countries.
-customs, qualities and styles, both of goods and packages which are required by the customs of the people or habits of trade, facilities for transportation, the conditions as to prices and grades of goods required and customs regulations, with a view to noting carefully any existing hindrances to trade in any of these respects which it may be possible to remedy.
6.	Generally your mission will be to interest these people in Canada and Canadian production and resources and impress them so far as possible with our capacity to fill their wants in the leading staple lines. Particular attention cViould also be paid as regards transporta-
56*
tion facilities and freight rates, to the comparative situation as between Canada and the United States, noting whatever conditions may be possessed by the latter and so far as possible suggesting methods by which these can be offset either entirely or in part.
7.	In visiting the different agencies of the department you will try to make yourself thoroughly acquainted with what is being done in each and note, for our information, what improvements you would consider advisable.
8.	As regards statistical data, you will gather everything that may be useful, especially having regard to such points as are not probably brought out by the general public statistics, in so far as these may be made accessory to an increase of trade.
9.	As regards your intercourse with officials and public bodies, you will have letters of introduction in each of the countries you visit, which are to be used, of course, carefully and with due respect to rank and situation.
10.	As to the advisability of public addresses, you will be governed by what you consider is best in each case. Addresses to boards of trade and commercial bodies are valuable when they are properly conceived and carried out, always bearing in mind to keep the country and its interests to the front. Particular care should be taken in regard to newspaper interviewers and reporters to avoid anything that would commit the Government on one hand, or have even the shadow of interference in regard to home questions and controversial subjects.
11.	You will, of course, keep a careful diary of your movements and make extensive notes therein and favour the department with a running report of your work, reserving the main and special preparation of information for use here on your return.
When Mr. Griffin returns, besides the running reports that come in, he will have another mission to perform, and that is to portray to the public through the press and in other ways the conditions that he found in the West Indian Islands, and, by personal communication as well as by literary work, to bring these things before the people as widely and definitely and luminously as possible. I have received some of these reports already, and I can assure my hon. friend that, as far as they have gone, Mr. Griffin has done very valuable work during the short time he has been there and shapes as though he would do very good work for us during his whole mission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does he work
with the British Consular offices as the minister has explained is done elsewhere?


George Eulas Foster: Wherever he goes he has letters to the British consuls or the representatives of Great Britain who are there. There are not many British consuls in the West Indies, but the advice, the counsel, and all the courtesies and influences which bring him into connection with people are freely and generously given to him. He

has letters of introduction to the governors of all the islands, and through these he will get all that is necessary to make him au fait with conditions and persons in the islands.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am very glad to hear such a favourable recommendation of Mr. Griffin. I know nothing of him personally and I trust he is a promising servant of the Government as the minister leads us to believe. However, I think there is a limit to the extension of Canadian trade in the West Indies and I have always feared that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce had altogether too exalted an idea of the possibilities of extending Canadian trade in the British West Indies and that he was prone to indulge in a somewhat too elaborate and expensive a scheme for the development of this trade. Of course, I would not think of impeaching the motives of the minister. I always consider that it is his desire to extend this trade, but my opinion is that he does not have a true conception of trade possibilities between Canada and the West Indies. After consultation with men who know the West Indian trade better than most men in Canada do, I have received the impression that there is decidedly a limit to trade expansion with the British West Indies. I will perhaps discuss this question a little later, on some other Estimates in the minister's department, particu-. larly those which relate to steamship subsidies. That will perhaps be a more opportune time to discuss this particular matter. However, I suppose, as 'the minister suggests, that no harm can be done by giving Mr. Griffin a trial and possibly some good may come of it. Our trade with the British West Indies after all relates to a few products-sugar as an import and fish, lumber and flour as exports. As far as the fish and lumber trade is concerned, no commercial agent can advance that trade in any respect. It is a long established line of trade, is well known to those who are engaged in it in Canada and I think very little or no assistance could be rendered by any official commercial agency. I doubt if any consular or any commercial agent could increase our import of sugar from the British West Indies. I do not think that the minister would argue that he could. Therefore, the work that is open to a commissioner in the British West Indies is very limited indeed. There is always this to be borne in mind, that Great Britain is after all our competitor in that market. They have splendid lines of transportation, their trade with

the West Indies is now quite old and it is a trade which the British people very well understand. The year before last, the Nova Scotian exporters of fish met very severe competition from British exporters. That frequently happens. With regard to almost all that we produce in Canada and which we might probably sell to the British West Indies, we find that freight rates are more favourable from Great Britain to the West Indies than they are from Canada to the West Indies. After all, our strongest competitor in that market is Great Britain, outside of the United States in one or two articles, such as flour. However at a later time, perhaps I will take up this subject.


George Eulas Foster: I may be a little on the optimistic side, but we have undertaken this work and I think it is better to make a trial and make it quickly and that the machinery which is necessary ought to be put into operation at once so that during the continuance of our present steamship subsidy, which is about four or five years now, we will be able to test out the question. I have better hopes of results than my hon. friend has indicated that he has in what he has said to-night. Before Mr. Griffin went I had a circular letter prepared and we sent out about 2,000 to traders, boards of trade and producers in Canada. I think that from those circular letters we certainly got more than a thousand or twelve hundred *replies, and those replies took up just exactly the practical points that were in these persons' minds as to certain things that might be done with' their products in the West Indies.
Almost without exception, they have expressed their gratification that Mr. Griffin was being sent out. Mr. Griffin took these letters with him; he is working at these things as he goes along, and is sending back reports "which are coming in from day to day. The interest shown in this commis-sionership by the business men themselves is one of the most gratifying things about it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How will you circulate the reports you receive from Mr. Griffin?


George Eulas Foster: Through our bulletins, and by direct correspondence sometimes.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Does the agent do any actual practical work in the way of putting the manufacturers and merchants of Canada in touch with those who want goods in the West Indies? Suppose he saw a newspaper advertisement in Jamaica, requiring buoys for the harbour, or wanting

steel rails, how would he put that information before the Canadian manufacturers? I understand that the agents of the United States Government do practical work of that kind. They do not depend on bulletins, which very few people read.


George Eulas Foster: Our agent would give to
the persons in the West Indian Islands the names of the makers in Canada of any article that would be required, and he would give the same information to the department which publishes the inquiries from week to week in the bulletin. A manufacturer reading that inquiry would communicate with the department, and get the names of the intending purchasers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If Mr. Griffin
could work out a method of furnishing us with the trade returns by separate islands in the British West Indies, it would be valuable information. I had some difficulty in getting such information last year when our arrangement with the West India Islands was under discussion. Has any of the British West India Islands become a party to the treaty, other than the ten original signatories?


George Eulas Foster: One other island sent
its adherence to the treaty some two or three months aftexwards.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: When Mr. Griffin returns will he be available for consultation by manufacturers ?


George Eulas Foster: That is one-half of his
work.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I commend the minister for allowing the trade commissioner to be consulted by the various manufacturers. I know that a great many manufacturers do read the bulletin and that there is a good deal of interest taken in it.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I assume that Jamaica has not so far come into the group of islands which give us a lower rate of duty. Mr. Griffin would confer a great benefit on the producers of pickled fish if he could arrange with the authorities in Jamaica to allow pickled fish to enter that colony free of the import duty, which at present is very heavy. It would be a great boon to the country if pickled fish were allowed into Jamaica at a reasonable rate of duty, if not free of duty altogether. The freight on pickled fish, from Halifax to Jamaica, is three shillings per barrel, and the duty is two and sixpence, so that there is a first charge of $1.50 on the value of the fish, which would be about three dollars per barrel. There was an overstock of alewives last year, and they might have been marketed to more advantage if they were admitted into Jamaica free of duty. Could the minister find out from his agents, the islands into which pickled fish, known as alewives, are imported. The New Brunswick exporters sometimes deliver these fish in New York, and the New York export merchant seems to be able to find a market for them which the Canadian producer cannot overtake. I know there is a considerable market in Hayti for pickled alewives. but except Hayti and Jamaica, I am not aware of any of the British West India Islands which use this fish to any great extent. The same remarks would apply to pickled herrings.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is aware
that Jamaica has not given a preference to Canada, although we give a preierence to her goods.


William Stewart Loggie: I am aware of that.


George Eulas Foster: There is a three years'
period of grace allowed, and it is to be hoped that something may eventuate during that time. Of course, the men who export pickled alewives will have to use business methods to find a market, but the aim of the department is to assist them in every way possible by securing whatever information can possibly be obtained to enable them to transact their business. It is difficult to get the statistics the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) has referred to, but we are trying to ascertain as nearly as possible what proportion of Canadian goods comes into these different West India Islands from New York, mainly, and from Boston partly.
If we can differentiate as to that, we can have a much clearer idea of what business we really are doing with the West Indian Islands. That I think can be, although not wholly, approximately brought about. The other is to get the trade statistics of the different islands. Tnese we are getting, but there again we find some difficulty because of the very fact that I have mentioned, of finding out in the different islands the origin of the goods, the place from which they start, a good deal of the importations being through New York and some through Boston. Both of these points are being taken into consideration by the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I notice in the Canada West India magazine reference to the matter of shipments of flour which are entitled to preferential treatment under

the West Indian trade agreement. Two shipments from United States ports of what was alleged to be Canadian flour hut which the Comptroller of Customs suspected to be American flour, were the subject of some litigation in the courts of one of the West India Islands. I have observed elsewhere in the press that on one or two other occasions some questions arose as to the validity of certificates of origin of flour shipments entitled to the preferential tariff. One can quite well understand how that difficulty might arise very frequently, particularly in the matter of flour, and one can as well understand that a great deal of American flour might go into the West Indies if improperly invoiced and thus secure the preferential tariff rate.


George Eulas Foster: That was absolutely
liable to take place the moment that the preferential arrangement went into force. It is of course to the interest of Canada that Canadian flour only shall have the preference when it goes into the West Indian Market. Therefore, we are interested in tracing any transactions of that kind or any frauds, if fraud is necessary in order to complete such a transaction. We are following up that matter very carefully in Canada itself. Of course British Guiana and the other colonies-it was in British Guiana where this arose that is alluded to by my hon. friend -are equally interested, in a double capacity. They do not want other than flour which is designated by the treaty to come in under the preference, because of the treaty itself and because of the mutual advantages between the two countries. Also they have a direct interest in the Customs side of it, the revenue side of it, and they are following the matter with very great closeness. The certificates of origin came to the collector in such a way that he did not believe that they were genuine, and on his own belief in the matter he refused to grant the preference and exacted the full duty. He has not been upheld in that. The court by which it was decided took the ground that it must not be simply the belief of the Customs official but that this must be decided by documents. That then brought about what was the natural result: if the present regulations of the Customs are not sufficient, then they will make regulations which they think will be sufficient. New and more stringent regulations have been made, and they require now not only the certificate of origin, but that when ship-

ments pass through New York they shall be visited and attested to by the British Consul in that city.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is what you would call the continuous bill of lading certified to?


George Eulas Foster: Yes. Then there may be through the railways here a plan worked out which will still more effectually guard it; but if all other things fail, so far as I can judge, the idea of British Guiana, if not of others of the West India Islands, will be to refuse the preference to any flour that does not come by direct shipment. That may be the result. Anyway, the Customs authorities in Barbados and British Guiana are determined that the treaty in its essentials shall be carried out.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It appears to me that
the system which my hon. friend has partly inaugurated, of having these various trade commissioners visit this country at stated times and come into touch with the manufacturers and merchants, is a most excellent one. It is the only way in which trade can be stimulated. I think it would be a good idea, if the period is not too long, if these trade commissioners would spend six months of the year in the country in which they are stationed and the other six months in the Dominion of Canada. In that way the department would be spending its money very wisely. I think the minister said that reams of correspondence came from these trade commissioners to the manufacturers here, and that it was filed and nothing much more heard of it. If that is so, the only way to get over the difficulty and to stimulate trade is to have these commissioners interview the merchants and manufacturers here and in a five minute or a half-hour conversation they might do more than in a month's correspondence. I would urge upon the minister that for 'at least three months of every year these agents should come to the Dominion of Canada from their various stations; that they should get into actual touch with the merchants and manufacturers here. By carrying out a systematic course of visits by these commissioners, trade would be greatly stimulated, which, of course, would be for the benefit of every one.


George Eulas Foster: I think that I mentioned that matter the other day. I would not go
so .far as saying six months and six months because I think that one-fourth of the time here and three-fourths in the foreign or

outside country would be a fairer proportion.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Perhaps so. .


George Eulas Foster: Immediately after I came into connection with this. I saw that a great deal of expenditure and effort was lost because it did not get the application to the business men in our own country.
It is a policy that I have adopted and will carry out, that a certain proportion of the time of each year will be spent in Canada by the trade commissioners. As an example of that, Mr. Poussette made a very thorough tour of the whole of South America and went into every country. He had the best facilities for gaining knowledge; talked with the best businessmen in South America. He then came back, and has been two months in this country, going through to British Columbia, and will be here another month. The information I get from him is that his work here has been more satisfactory than two years' work at long distance would have been. He has brought men together. Having made these personal visits in the other countries, making the personal visit here to the man who is interested, he is able to bring together for business men whom he probably never could have brought together by correspondence. I thoroughly believe that a portion of the vote should be spent on home mission work as well as the other portion on foreign mission work.


Mr. OLIVER:: If this is the proper time,
I should like to ask what pro-11 p.m. gxess is being made in trade with Japan. What articles are we sending to Japan, and is our trade wiuh that country increasing or decreasing?


George Eulas Foster: I have not the report for this year with me, and therefore my answer will be general. Our trade with Japan is increasing, and during the past year there was, I think, an increase in the quantity of flour we sold to that country. I think I made the remark somewhere that there were promises in the East of consumption of Canadian grain material which we_ could not afford to overlook. I think China is naturally one of the richest countries in the world, yet, so far as its resources are concerned, except in agriculture, it is one of the least developed of the great countries in the world. One cause of lack of development has been the lack of internal communication; you cannot do much m
trdde over a vast area if you have to carry everything in baskets slung over your shoulder along footpaths in which even an animal would find ^ it difficult to keep its tracks. But China is growing in the way of railroad expansion, and when once she gets railway facilities her development will be very great indeed. That is going to do two things.
In the first place it is going to open up the whole country to western ideas, new activities, and customs of living. In the second place, it is going to cause a very large demand for machinery, for workmen's tools and for all that attaches to development of that kind. The four hundred millions of China and the sixty-five millions of Japan live, as a rule, on scant material. And, although some people may laugh at the idea, the fact is that in Japan and in parts of China rice is becoming too dear for the native to eat. His best grades of rice are sold in the foreign market, and he is restricted to the inferior grades or to something else which does him for food. They are beginning to get the idea of adding the products of flour. Once that idea is taken up, even though there be but a gradual and fractional increase, just compute what the result will be among those hundreds of millions of people. Though the increase be but little in each case or in each district, the aggregate will be enormous. In this respect, I believe that in both China and Japan there is a great future for Canadian flour, wheat and other Canadian products. We have a great front door on the Pacific, and through it look out upon these nationalities which in the future are to be live centres of industry and production, and we cannot afford not to keep our eyes wide open and have every string we possibly can attached to the growing trade of tnose countries.


John Howard Sinclair: Do they produce wheat themselves?


George Eulas Foster: To a certain extent. But rice is the main production, with millet, the soya bean, vegetables of every conceivable kind, and roots that grow in all sorts of contorted shapes and in Infinite variety.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the hon. minister any plan to teach the Chinaman to abandon rice and eat Canadian flour? We have heard that it is extremely difficult to turn the Chinaman's mind towards anything new. We all remember Charles Lamb's story of how the Chinaman com

menced to eat roast pork. The House of one of them got afire, and as the pig was living in the House, he was burnt. In clearing up the ashes, the owner got his fingers into the carcase of the pig, and, putting them into his mouth, got the first taste any Chinaman had had of roast pork. Then, they began setting fire to their houses everywhere to enjoy this new dainty. Finally, a great philosopher arose who told them that they could roast pork without burning down their houses. Has the minister any method by which he can do the trick of causing the Chinaman to use flour instead of rice?


George Eulas Foster: 
Frank Oliver: The minister has told us what is possible, but I was anxious to know what was being done and how far we had progressed in the sale of flour, fish lumber and other things to Japan. What is the amount of our trade there, approximately? Do we find in China and Japan parallel conditions to those existing in the West Indies-that our competitors to the south have established themselves in the trade of these countries, and we not only have the difficulty of bringing our products to the favourable attention of the people hut also have, to a certain extent, to displace some of our competitors m order to attain these markets. How much flour are we selling to Japan to-day and how much is the United States selling I would like the same information in regard
t0 j l?1?3 and also with regard ta lumber and fish.


George Eulas Foster: As I said I have not the reports before me for the year and I cannot carry these in my head, but if the hon. member will look at part No. 3 of the report of my department he will find that information extended in detail for a period of years. Offhand, the trade with Japan is increasing substantially. Our exports to Japan and China are also increasing. I know from having visited that country

that in the matter of flour and lumber, but partially of flour, we are already doing quite a trade with China.

Mr. OLIVER The newspapers published sometime ago a statement that our flour was displacing that of the United States in the Chinese markets. That is a very satisfactory condition of affairs. Has the minister information to that effect, that our flour, on account of its superior quality, was displacing the flour of the United States in the markets of China?


George Eulas Foster: Whether it is displacing
it or finding greater access without displacing United States flour I cannot say without looking at the statistics, but I can say it is going into China in increased quantities. It is not altogether the superior quality of flour that is looked for by either Japanese or Chinese; they do not take the highest grade of flour, and it is a competition in the lower grades of flour. That is one of the best competitions for Canadian millers, as my hon. friend will see. They have no difficulty in getting rid of their high grade flour in this country, the difficulty is to find markets for the low grade flour.


Frank Oliver: Does the information received show whether the bulk of this flour is consumed by the common people or by the better classes?


George Eulas Foster: The sale of flour as of
most products in China is not, in the first place, to the masses of the people, it is to what they call the different guilds and the negotiations must be conducted and any arrangement must be made with the guild. Once you get a large and prominent guild interested in your quality or brand of flour and they take it, your work is done, they do all the distributing, as to who eats that flour after it gets in, I think it is distributed probably a little generally; but the lower grades would go to the lower classes of the people and the higher grades to the better classes of Chinese, much the same as it would here.


Mr. BOULAY:: Mr. Chairman, the remarks which the hon. member for West Lambton, (Mr. Pardee) has just made are very important and very wise. There is no doubt that the taade commissioners who represent our country abroad cannot render the same services to us as they would *be able to do if they were well acquainted with our resources, and they could acquaint themselves with them by visiting our coun-

try every year, by communicating with our business men, instead of merely sending in reports, as they do.
I would like to know from toe Minister of Trade and Commerce the average salary of these commissioners in England, Rotterdam and Hamburg.


George Eulas Foster: I have stated that the
salaries grade from $3,000 a year to $4,000, according to years of service. The commissioner at Hamburg is a new appointment, and he receives $3,000. At Rotterdam the commissioner, who is an older servant of the department appointed in 1910, receives a larger salary and so on, according to the service that has been given the salary grades.


Herménégilde Boulay: As I unaerstand the list, we have no such commissioner in France, Italy, Spain or Germany?


George Eulas Foster: We have a trade commissioner in Paris, who is one of the highest paid trade commissioners in the service. His duties are primarily to look after tit! extension of trade, seek information, answer inquiries and communicate with the-department. We have no other trade commissioner in France except that general trade commissioner in Paris. In Italy we have had no trade commissioner as, indeed, we have not had trade commissioners in most of the the European countries. That service is being gradually extended and I have not tried to extend it much because I have not been certain that the work is being carried on on the proper basis. We have spent a good deal of money, and I am afraid we have not received the best results. I am going slowly in order to work out the best plan for doing it before extending very largely into other countries. But I was successful in making an arrangement with the Foreign Office, through the Colonial office, by which the British consular trade agents, wherever we wish them, will act for Canada the same as our trade commissioners do, in the way of receiving letters of inquiry and giving information as to openings for Canadian trade. While always they must consider that their first duty is to British trade, they are asked and instructed to answer such inquiries and give such information. I suppose there never has been a time when a British trade consul has not been willing to do that, but they have never before been given to understand that that -was a part of their duty, and Canada never before felt that she had a right to ask them. Under that arrangement
1 am arranging to-day for the British representatives at Milan and Genoa and perhaps another city in Italy to represent Canada in those places. The same thing is being done in the different European and some Asiatic countries where we have now some trade, and as the trade develops this arrangement with the British consuls will be brought into effect.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Before this item is passed, I would like to ask the minister a question respecting the tariff upon dried salt fish entering Portugal. This is a matter of some interest to the Maritime provinces, as from there quite a quantity of salt fish is shipped. British dried fish entering Portugal pays thirty-five cents per quintal higher than fish from Norway, Germany, or Iceland. Canadian exporters of dried salt fish feel this additional tariff to be quite an impediment to their trade. I mention this to the minister because a resolution respecting it was passed by the Halifax Board of Trade, and a copy of it sent to the minister for his consideration,, at a time when I think a new commercial treaty was being negotiated between Great Britain and Portugal. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether he has had it under consideration.


George Eulas Foster: Yes. Great Britain has,
for the last two years, been trying to negotiate a treaty with Portugal. It has not yet been negotiated. When I was in London, I saw the representatives of the foreign office and of the colonial office and discussed the matter with them, and the British Government has that matter in charge for us. The whole matter has been placed before them. Of course, Portugal will naturally require a quid pro quo from Great Britain if such a treaty is finally brought to a fulfilment, and a quid pro quo will naturally be required from Canada, for instance, should she get her fish in on a favoured basis. In the ultimate result it will depend on what the quid pro quo is


Frank Oliver: I would like to know what progress our trade is making with Australia and New Zealand: what lines of produce we are sending in, and particularly what we are getting?


George Eulas Foster: In regard to Australia, the trade is increasing each year. We have no preferential arrangement with Australia. We send to Australia even under present conditions, a large amount of print paper, automobiles and vehicles of that kind to a large extent. We send lumber

to a certain extent, and a lot of manufactured articles spread over quite a large range. Then our natural productions such as apples are sent over. The two seasons are the exact opposites of each other. When they have no fresh fruit, ours is in season and vice versa, and there is the foundation of a fairly good trade, I think.


Frank Oliver: Do we ship any considerable quantity of apples to Australia?


George Eulas Foster: The apple trade is growing. I think quite a considerable quantity is being sent there; certainly a considerable quantity is being shipped to New Zealand and the trade is growing quite rapidly.


Frank Oliver: Are they British Columbia apples or eastern apples.


George Eulas Foster: I think largely British Columbia apples, because they are close to the coast and are shipped at much less expense than apples from this side can be shipped. Australia sends to us a certain quantity of dried fruit. Part of Australia is a grape growing country. When in Australia, I visited the warehouses of producers and sellers, who were at that time shipping quite a large quantity of dried fruits, raisins and things of that sort as far east as Winnipeg, and, as they informed me, were making a fairly good trade. They also send to us meat and butter and some few other products. The increase in trade between New Zealand and Canada has been very marked on both sides. Our exports to that country have increased largely, and their exports to us in the lines of butter and meats have also increased largely. There is quite a difference between Australia and New Zealand. In the first place, we have a preference with New Zealand and not with Australia; but there is another difference still more important, and that is, New Zealand manufactures to only a very small degree. The result is that quite a large range of manufactured articles are going from this country to New Zealand, and in increasing quantities. When I was in New Zealand, I met travellers from St. Catherines and other places in Ontario who were travelling in that country, and who told me they had been more successful in placing orders than they anticipated.


Frank Oliver: Do we send a considerable quantity of agricultural implements to Australia and New Zealand ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, the agricultural implements of Canada take the field in Australia and New Zealand. We send a great

number of reapers to those countries. Canadian automobiles also are shipped to a very large extent and paper is exported to a large extent. In fact, we are taking quite largely the paper trade of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia.


George Perry Graham: When we get to item 354, I can assure my hon. friend there will be some discussion. Suppose we pass the first three items and then adjourn ?


George Eulas Foster: Item 353 is simply a routine matter; so is item 355. We might take those and item 356, which has been there from time immemorial; also item 361.
Salaries and contingencies under the Cullers' Act, $11,000.


Herménégilde Boulay: Is that a regular board
of cullers?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, there is a supervisor at $1,500, a specification clerk at $750, and six cullers at $700, making a total of $6,450. Then to the superannuated cullers there is paid $2,200.


Herménégilde Boulay: Is it a regular board of cullers that we have there?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, the board works
under the Quebec Board of Trade.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.
Wednesday, February 18, 1914.