House of Commons, 27 February 1905, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

1745 FEBRUARY 27. 1905


MONDAY, February 27, 1905.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.


Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Dominion Annuity Company.—Mr. Bole.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York). Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I intend to ask the attention of the House to a very grave matter ; and, if necessary, to put myself in order, I will conclude with a motion. The very important matter to which I propose to call attention has reference to provincial rights, particularly the rights of the province of Manitoba, and I regret very much that neither the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) nor the late premier of Manitoba (Mr. Greenway), who has now a seat in this House is in his place. It is largely because these hon. gentlemen have not chosen to call the attention of the House to this matter that I do so today. I think I can best bring the question immediately within the view of hon. members by reading a translation of an article that was published in 'Le Soleil' of Quebec, on February 11.
Mr. EMMERSON. Read the original.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will read the original, but for the benefit of the Minister of Railways, I will translate it ; I am quite competent to do both. 'Le Soleil,' which claims to be under the personal control of the Prime Minister and to speak for him, in its issue of February 11, made this declaration :
We declare once for all that 'Le Soleil' is the organ of the Liberal party, and by that fact is under the direction and absolute control of Sir Wilfrid. The supporters of Sir Wilfrid, and those who affirm themselves to be such, are begged to take notice of the present declaration.
On February 17, that paper, in an editorial, discussed the rights of the province of Manitoba in this way:
In proportion to her big sisters Manitoba will count as little more than a large county.
This is one of the reasons invoked by Manitoba's delegates to obtain an enlargement of her territory.
There is another. Quebec and Ontario have extended their limits, the one to the west, the other to the east, to attain on the north the shores of James bay.
Manitoba aspires to the shores of Hudson bay, on the northeast. It would be necessary to withdraw her boundaries several hundred miles towards the north, to cut the districts of Saskatchewan and Athabaska, and encircle that of Keewatin.
Manitoba is asking for treble her existing territory.
This enlargement is hardly possible.
The district of Saskatchewan opposes it, at least the part directly interested.
The finances of Manitoba in their actual state are not made to attract the free residents of the districts. Manitoba has a debt of $4,000,000. The school legislation of the little province is not of a nature to attract the immigrants who people the districts. The Northwest has its separate schools. Manitoba has abolished them.
Every good act has its reward, every bad act its chastisement.
Manitoba. will remain lowest with her pretentious law.
In other words, a threat is here held out by the Quebec organ of hon. gentlemen opposite that Manitoba is to be kept in her inferior position, as compared with the other provinces, as a punishment because she chose to vindicate her provincial rights. She is to be denied territory, and worse things than that are to befall her. Again I say I regret the absence of the Minister of the Interior and the late Prime Minister of Manitoba. Among the laws of this country is a very important Act called the Dominion Lands Act. Reading from the Revised Statutes of 1886, I find that section 23 of that Act, under the head of School Lands, says:
Sections eleven and twenty-nine in every surveyed township throughout the extent of the Dominion lands, are hereby set apart as an endowment for purposes of education, and shall be designated school lands ; and they are hereby withdrawn from the operation of the clauses of this Act, which relate to the sale of Dominion lands and to homestead rights therein ; and no right to purchase or to obtain homestead entry shall be recognized in connection with the said sections, or any part of them.
'Sections 24 and 25 provide how these lands shall be sold. Subsection 3 of section 125 says:
All moneys, from time to time, realized from the sale of school lands shall be invested in 1747 COMMONS securities of Canada, to form a school fund, and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, shall be paid annually to the government of the province or territory within which such lands are situated, towards the support ot public schools therein ; and the moneys so paid shall be distributed for that purpose by the government of such province or territory in such manner as it deems expedient.
Now, from the statement which was made to all Canada the other day, we must infer that the Dominion Lands Act is to be changed, and that in the province of Manitoba these school lands, which are now consecrated to public schools, not to separate schools, are to be sold, and the proceeds distributed in an entirely different way. That follows from the statement made here the other day, and on behalf of Manitoba I protest to-day against any such change in the law, or any such chastisement being meted out to that province as is proposed by this organ of the government. That organ wants Manitoba chastised because of certain laws which that province has passed in connection with the school lands, and yet this same organ is the mouthpiece of this government, of which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) is a member, and of which the late premier of Manitoba (Mr. Greenway) is an ardent supporter. If any wrong has been wrought to the Roman Catholic minority of Manitoba in connection with the school question, is not that due to the Minister of the Interior and the late premier of Manitoba ? They it was who caused the Manitoba legislation now complained of to be enacted. It was the Liberal party which passed it, and did so in the interests of that province. Yet to-day we have the Dominion government, of which these gentlemen are the mainstay, threatening, through its leading organ, to chastise Manitoba because of that very legislation. That organ says to the province of Manitoba : You shall not extend your bounds, you shall continue in the lowly inferior position you now occupy. On behalf of that province, and because these gentlemen are not here to raise their voices in its behalf, I raise mine.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh. oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I raise my protest because the proposal about to be made here is of a most far reaching character. Not only the school lands of Manitoba, but the whole educational fund of that province, is to be changed by a general Act, which must follow from what was said here the other day. I draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to this. If these important changes are to be made on the lines laid down by him, then it follows that remedial legislation is in order as concerns Manitoba. The argument is an a fortiori one. Remedial legislation must follow, and it will be introduced in this House by the right hon. gentleman who warned the coun 1748try against such legislation eight years ago. There is this prospect for Manitoba, that all her schools lands are, in every probability, to be diverted this very session of parliament to other purposes than those to which they are devoted to-day by a general Act amending the Dominion Lands Act. Furthermore the Manitoba school funds are to be diverted by legislation which must follow as a logical sequence from the statement made the other day. Logically the right hon. gentleman is bound to introduce a Bill remedying the school grievances of the minority in the province of Manitoba, and yet these very so called grievances are due to the Minister of the Interior of this government and his friend (Mr. Greenway) who, I am told, is to be his immediate successor in this government. It was to give these hon. gentlemen an opportunity here to repudiate this language, to say they could not be parties to any such legislation, that I brought this mattter up to-day ; and in all probability the absence of the hon. the Minister of the Interior from this House ever since the beginning of this session and the absence of the hon. member for Lisgar, (Mr. Green- way) to-day are due to their desire to shirk their manifest duty in connection with this matter. The hon. the Minister of the Interior was here only for a moment the other day, and his absence no doubt is due, as well as that of the other hon. gentleman, to what is in the immediate future in store for them. If what was foreshadowed the other day is to happen, it must follow that those school lands are to be diverted from their present purpose and a Remedial Bill introduced this session, and the party, which claims to be the defender of provincial rights from one end of the country to the other, is to-day doing nothing to prevent the shackles being put on the provinces of this great and free Dominion. These provinces are to-day free, and my-right hon. friend must know that if there is one thing which the people who breathe the free air of the prairies, the people of the great west, value, it is their political liberty ; and if the right hon. gentleman insists on shackling these people in connection with the dispossession of their school lands, he will make a great mistake. He apparently does not understand the genius of. the western people if he thinks that by aid of any constitutional argument, he can interfere with the school lands of the province of Manitoba. I leave the case for the present but may have to return to it.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. But I shall wait until the Minister of the Interior is in his place. Again I call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the absence of a number of his ministers from this House. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) is not here. I regret that he is ill, but the constitutional practice is that when a minister is not able to take his place in 1749 February 27, 1905 the House he ought to vacate the position, both in his own interest and that of the country. The hon. member for London, (Mr. Hyman), who is discharging the duties of the Minister of Public Works, is contravening the constitution every day under the circumstances.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh !
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh, but they used to attack the late government about this very thing. I regret that the Minister of the Interior, (Mr. Sifton) was not in his place at the time when these provincial rights which he held at one time to be most dear to the people of Manitoba, were being assailed. I recollect when that hon. gentleman came down to the province of Ontario and told the people of Haldimand that of all things the people of Manitoba did not want separate schools or remedial legislation imposed upon them. He came to the province of Ontario for sympathy on that score and he got it. But now if we are to believe the right hon. gentleman's organ, all that is to be taken back, the school lands are to be diverted from their proper purpose, and the hon. gentleman is bound, if he carries out what. he promised, to introduce this session, an Act to remedy the school grievances of the minority of Manitoba. If any such thing be attempted, the wrong will be done, provincial rights will be taken away, and to-day, in the absence of the two hon. gentlemen to whom I especially referred, I rise to protest against the policy outlined by the right hon. gentleman in connection with these matters. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). One could hardly imagine that any hon. gentleman would rise to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose ot inflicting on us such a ramshackleif I may use such an expression—delivery as we have had from my hon. friend. He has given us a very modern exemplification of the old story of Don Quixote tilting against wind mills. My hon. friend is becoming every session more and more quixotic in his views and methods. Take this item which he has just read from the Soeileil' and on which he has built so unwarranted a conclusion that the government contemplates introducing a Remedial Bill to amend the law of Manitoba. There is not a scintilla in the article of the 'Soleil' which can warrant any such conclusion. The whole thing is manufactured—I will not say wilfully—but if not, I know not how to characterize in what manner it was manufactured. Where is there a single word to warrant what the hon. gentleman sees there ?--
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I did not say that it was there.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend admits there is nothing there to warrant his outbreak. The whole thing is in my hon. friend's own mind, and it is from his own mind alone that he has evolved the notion that this government contemplates any such thing as introducing a Remedial Bill for the province of Manitoba. That is the only authority he has for his remarks this afternoon. The thing is too absurd for consideration. My hon. friend professes to have his soul harrowed by the prospect be contemplates. Let me tell him once and for all that the government since 1896 has never contemplated introducing any Remedial Act affecting the province of Manitoba and does not intend doing so.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. What about the school lands ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I may say to the hon. gentleman that the government has not contemplated and does not contemplate to introduce any law to amend the School Law. Is that categorical enough for the hon. gentleman?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. You cannot change the School Law without changing the Dominion Lands Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Then I will make my answer more categorical yet. The government has not contemplated, does not contemplate and will not contemplate any amendment to the Dominion Lands Act. I do not understand what the hon. gentleman ls aiming at to-day. If he has any object it must be to try and create a false impression to arouse prejudices somewhere. But the hon. gentleman began by expressing his deep regret that the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) the former premier of Manitoba, were not in their seats. Why, Sir, it would have been very easy for the hon. gentleman to secure their presence in their seats if he wanted them to be present. Why did he not notify them that he wanted to bring before the House some question requiring their presence, and which required them to make some defence to charges that he intended to bring against them. Did the hon. gentleman notify the Minister of the Interior that he wanted him here today? Did he notify the hon. member for Lisgar that he desired his presence here today? I am in the judgment of the House when I say that the hon. gentleman, when he intended to bring charges against the members of the House. wilful and deliberate charges, has not had the manliness to notify them that he intended to do so. As to the ' Soleil,' I have no interest whatever in that newspaper, financial or otherwise. It generally supports the government, but sometimes opposes it. It the hon. gentle' man expects me to be responsible for anything that is published in the ' Soliel.' be is asking more from me than one would ask 1751 COMMONS from any other member of parliament. The hon. member may be responsible for what appears in the Toronto ' World,' I have not had the same connection with the 'Soleil., I have nothing to do with the article in the ' Soleil,' which I had not read and had not heard of until it was read on the floor of the House.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is trying to draw a red herring across the track. This newspaper which declares it is his organ, and he has not repudiated it, says that the province of Manitoba is to be chastised because of its pretentious school law, it is to be chastised by the right hon. gentleman and his party, and the chastisement is in evidence now before all the people. Manitoba expected that her boundaries would be extended, and she expected that the Minister of the interior would be here to see that her boundaries were extended, but Manitoba is being chastised to-day, as the organ of the right hon. gentleman says, because of her pretentious school laws. They are not pretentious, they are constitutional, she had a right to make them, yet she is to be chastised to-day. The right hon. gentleman said practically the other day that the province was entitled to have its boundaries enlarged, it was entitled to be put on an equality with the other provinces. All over the country the statement has been published that Manitoba is being chastised because of her manliness in connection with public schools. The right hon. gentleman says he does not propose to interfere with the Dominion Lands Act. He does in substance, he does in a certain measure which I know of, where it is all outlined that the public school lands and the public funds in relation to education are to be interfered with. It may be in a special Bill, but the intention is to make laws in that direction. What follows then is this, that in the way the right hon. gentleman aproaches this question he is making flesh of one and fish of the other ; certain provinces are to enjoy certain school lands and others are to be denied them. If that is not an injustice and an interference with the lands of the province, I do not know what it is. The right hon. gentleman is trying to get away from this question in saying that he does not propose to introduce remedial legislation. He is bound to introduce it if there is anything in the constitutional argument he made here the other day. There is nothing in that constitutional argument, but there is a great deal in the constitutional argument that Manitoba is entitled to remedial legislation. If that is true, I will have to put up for the present with the trivial reply of the right hon. gentleman; but before two weeks are over, before another week is over, he will sing on the other side of his face. He will find that the people of Canada are in favour of the maintenance of provincial rights; they are not in favour of 1752 a paternalized autonomy like that which the hon. gentleman proposes. The people of this country believe in provincial rights as they have been defined and won out by the province of Manitoba. Again I say that the hon. gentleman is attempting a revolution, and the Minister of the Interior ought to be in his place here to-day, since these things are being done in the department over which he presides. The hon. gentleman asks why I did not notify the Minister of the Interior? Am I the Minister of the Interior's keeper? If he is not in his place, where shall I have to go to find him? It is not for the right hon. gentleman to say to me that I should notify this man or notify that man; let them be here to look after themselves.
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington). The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) Who has just resumed his seat, may not be the keeper of the Minister of the Interior. But there is a rule of courtesy recognized in this House which re« quires that when an hon. member intends to bring up a matter pertaining particularly to any department, the minister presiding over that department must be notified. Ministers have all sorts of reasons for not being in the House. Deputations wait upon them from time to time, as we all know. We know not why the Minister of the Interior is not in his place to-day; but there is this much about it, it is a small thing and a mean thing for the hon. member for South York to make these remarks without having intimated to the Minister of the Interior that he desired his presence here. Now I desire on this occasion to enter my protest against such interruptions and interjections, on the Orders of the Day being called, as have been made by the hon. member for South York. If there is anything calculated to stir up strife and trouble in this country it is speeches such as that hon. gentleman has delivered, and articles that appear in his newspaper. If hon. members in this House would treat the question which the hon. member for South York has introduced, with calmness, with candour, with that liberality which no doubt they all possess, there would be no danger of producing that storm and that inflamed condition of the public mind which appears in the party press and among the people, which we see to-day, and will see throughout Canada. Now, the hon. member cites the case of Manitoba. I am not going to dwell on that, I merely say that so far as I am concerned, as a member of this House supporting the government, the question of schools in the province of Manitoba is a settled question. There is no analogy whatever between the conditions of Manitoba and the new provinces which are to be admitted in to the confederation; I say this now, although these are matters which will more properly come up when the Bill is read the second time. But when we per 1753 FEBRUARY 27 1905 mit a province to come into this confederation, we permit it to come in on such terms as this House deems proper and equitable. It was so with the other provinces, and, I presume, will be so with the provinces that are to come in. Mr. Speaker, I only rise to protest against interjections and interruptions by hon. members such as those of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who seeks both by his voice in this House and by the newspaper, which, fortunately or unfortunately, he controls, an inflammatory condition of indignation in the country. I think that, when the Bill is before us and when discussion is proper, then the hon. member for South York can enter any protest he sees fit. But, untiI that time, it is much better for the House and the country that we should remain silent on the subject.
Motion (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to adjourn, negatived.


Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY (Prince, P.E.I). Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the attention of the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) through the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the condition of the mail service in Prince Edward Island. I received on Saturday a despatch from a resident of Tignish saying that, in answer to communications addressed to the postmaster of Charlottetown they have received absolutely no information as to the carriage of the mails, and the people throughout the district have now undertaken the service themselves, and the mails have been started by sleighs sent out by private individuals. It seems to me that this is very unsatisfactory, and, I should think, an illegal method of handling the public mails of this country. I will ask the right hon. First Minister to bring this subject to the attention of the Postmaster General and have some inquiry made into it. And. if the train service is so blocked that the mails cannot be brought through by the trains a service should be established by means of sleighs under official auspices, so that His Majesty's mails may not be entrusted to private individuals as they have been.
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Min- of Marine and Fisheries). I beg leave to communicate to the House a despatch I have just received :
Charlottetown, P.E.I., 27th Feb.
Steamers last crossing twenty-fourth ultimo, ice blockade still continues: tried dynamite Pictou barrier Saturday, found useless; ' Stanley ' unable to get past Cape Bear. No crossing at Capes since twenty-third instant. Boats cannot overcome lolly. broken ice and deep snow ; railway blocked for two weeks.
A. LORD. Agent.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals). Apropos the subject raised by my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey). I beg to inform the House and the country that the snow-blockade which has for some time existed on the Intercolonial—or that portion of it in the province of Nova Scotia—has been raised. I had communications to-day stating that the trains are now moving in and out of Halifax, and also between Sydney and Truro—so that the road is completely free. The Dominion Atlantic line which is the line running between Halifax and Yarmouth, had been closed for a week or ten days. Even the highways are entirely impassable. With the assistance of the Intercolonial and the using of the appliances of that road, the Dominion Atlantic has been opened up, and trains are now running over it. The blockade, of course has been a very great drawback to the business interests of the maritime provinces. Regretful for the past, I shall endeavour to make such arrangements as are possible with the clerk of the weather to prevent a repetition of such a stoppage of Intercolonial trains.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.). In reference to the question raised by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Lefurgey), I might say that I made representations to the Post Office Department some time ago and was informed that the postmaster at Charlottetown had full power to employ teams to convey the mails when the trains were stalled—full powers to have the mails brought through by any means he thought advisable in the public interest. I have no doubt at all that the postmaster at Charlottetown is using the power intrusted to him to the best of his judgment and ability.
Mr. LEFURGEY. I do not wish to make this a subject of controversy. But, as I have a message from a resident of Tignish, I might read that to the House, and possibly it may satisfy hon. gentlemen as to my position :
Tignish, P.E.I., Feb. 25.
A. A. Lefurgey, M.P., Ottawa. Ont.
Mails started by private individuals without notice. Whear insolently answers. No explanation. Bring up demoralization before orders of day. Agnew wired Yeo to-day.
So, it would appear that the postmaster at Charlottetown had been appealed to in the matter and the people had received no satisfactory explanation of his conduct, and consequently had to use conveyances of private individuals to deliver the mails.


Mr. HAGGART. I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when the Bills establishing the provinces 1755 COMMONS of Saskatchewan and Alberta will be printed ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I expect they will be printed to-day or to-morrow.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). The Bills were placed in the hands of the clerk of the House on Thursday last.



Bill (No. 34) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.—Mr. Galliber.


Bill (No. 33) respecting certain patents of Jean Effront—Mr. L. P. Demers.


House in committee on Bill (No. 14) respecting the Molson's Bank.—Mr. Ames.
0n section 1,
Mr. CAMPBELL. I may just say that when this Bill was before the committee there was some opposition to it on account of the question not being settled as to whether the shareholders had authorized this change. Since then I have received a telegram from the general manager saying that the shareholders were notified and authorized the change at a special general meeting called for that purpose.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


House in committee on Bill (No. 26) to incorporate the Sovereign Fire Assurance Co. of Canada—Mr. E. F. Clarke.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Chairman, before you report the Bill as the hon. Minister of Finance is in his place—and I am very glad to see him here looking so well-I wish to call his attention to the general insurance question, and particularly to the question which has arisen over in the United States. I am only going to take a moment because I would like to discuss this matter with him later on in the session, but I wish to give him notice today that a very serious question has arisen in the United States in regard to life insurance as controlled by private companies. He must know, as every one. I imagine, knows, that it came out the other day in the city of New York that the great Equitable Life Insurance Company of that city. that now controls five hundred millions of money in trust for its policyholders, is absolutely under the control of one man, who, with his family, owns $75,000 of the paid up stock of $100,000 which gives him the control of that company.
It has been pointed out by very import~ ant men in the United States and by the great newspapers of the United States that an effort was being made in New York by great capitalists represented by Harriman Gould and the great bond house represented by Mr. Schiff, of New York, to control this company and that they were willing to give $5,000,000 of ready money for the controlling interest in the shares of the Equitable Life. This has proved to be a matter of supreme interest to the people of the United States, that a few men with a very small capital could control the immense reserve fund for the benefit of the policy holders. It is proposed there now—and we will have to do the same thing, we will have to change our insurance laws—to enact that the policy holders shall have a great deal to say in the disposition of these immense trust funds, and I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the minister to it. I trust that, it not this session at a very early date, we will be able to cope with this great question, be cause if there is one thing of importance in connection with an insurance company it is that the trust moneys which are there for the security of the policy holders ought to have the best possible administration. I do not think the best administration of these funds can be secured when it is possible for their management to fall into the hands of two or three men who by controlling the shares of the proprietary company are free to do what they like with great funds of this kind. It is openly charged by the leading newspapers in the United States to-day that Harriman and Gould are anxious to get control of the Equitable Insurance Company in order that they may play ducks and drakes with the $500,000,000 of trust money which is the absolute property of the policy holders, in order that they may use it for their great railway propositions, and we are in danger of reaching the same condition in this country. I trust that later on some proper provision will be introduced into our General Insurance Act for the protection of the policy holders.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance). The proper (protection—shall I say the adequate protection—of the moneys which are invested in the hands of the various insurance companies of our country, must always be a question of the utmost importance, and if at any time there may be doubt as to whether our legislation is sufficient on that point I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) or any other member would be only doing his duty in bringing the matter before the attention of the House. I hope it will be found, on an examination of the general insurance law and of the charters of the various companies, that our legislation in Canada is not open to the objections which might be taken in the case of United States companies. However, if there are some companies as to which that criticism might be offered, I quite admit [...]
[...] made by the Board of Trade. I must at once dissent from that interpretation. It cannot be admitted that the government will simply till the part of a mere recording clerk for the Board of Trade. When recommendations are made to the government by the Board of Trade, the government is bound to consider the fitness of the persons proposed, but naturally would accept those recommendations unless there was cause to the contrary. At all events, that is the interpretation we have given to the statute, and I think that interpretation will be accepted by parliament. In this case the recommendations made by Toronto were accepted without dissent. So were the recommendations made by Winnipeg. But some dissent was expressed to the recommendations made by the Montreal Board of Trade. I do not mean that the fact that Messrs. Carrnthers and Metcalfe were passed over would indicate anything against those gentlemen. I do not think it would be fair to imply or accept anything of that kind. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce informs me that these gentlemen have been passed over for good and sufficient reasons. which will appear upon the face of the papers when they are brought down.


Mr. HENDERSON (Halton) moved:
For copies of all thermograph records of temperature taken on board Atlantic steamships during the calendar year 1903, stating: (1) name of steamship ; (2) date when thermograph was put in chamber ; (3) date when the steamer left the report; (4) whether chamber was (a) cold storage; (b) cool air; (c) mechanically ventilated ; (d) ordinary, or whether the record was taken on deck or other place where the natural temperature of the air would be registered, unexposed to the sun's rays; (5) where practicable, in what part of the chamber the thermograph was placed.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). There is no objection to the motion, but I understand that it will take a very long time to prepare this return.
Mr. HENDERSON. This information was moved for last year, and was brought down. But it is not in the possession of the clerk of routine and records—it is not available to members of the House. I am under the impression that the whole matter is in the hands of the Department of Agriculture.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. A. MARTIN (Queen's) moved:
For a return showing in detail all the collections for freight and storage at Sydney In 1768tercolonial Railway station for 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904; giving the names of shippers and consignees; a description of the merchandise ; where from ; weight of each package : the amount received for storage, and from whom. Also a reference to the authority under which storage has been collected; the rate, and by whom fixed. Also any refunds for freight and storage, and to whom paid.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). I am informed by the Railway Department that it is not customary to furnish such information as is asked for by this motion. It involves private business. Moreover, I am informed it will take almost a year to prepare such a. return. I would advise my hon. friend (Mr. A. Martin) to allow the matter to stand and have a conference with the Minister of Railways. Perhaps the minister can give the hon. gentleman the. information he wants.
Mr. A. MARTIN. The reason I have moved for this return is that I have received letters from parties. who complain that there is discrimination in freight and storage charges, some parties being charged more than others. I do not know any other way to get that information. If the order is too large. perhaps we might shorten it by making it apply only to one year.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. If my hon. friend were to have a conference with the Minister of Railways. perhaps they could agree upon a form in which the motion could be carried.
On motion of Mr. Clements, the debate was adjourned.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette) moved:
For copies of all petitions, memorials and resolutions from the legislative assembly of Manitoba. the executive of that province, and any correspondence relative to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba to the west or north.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I would ask my hon. friend not to move this to-day. The correspondence is not complete yet, but it may be completed next Monday. Allow it to stand.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. If any correspondence is received between now and then, will that be included?
Mr. HAGGART. I suppose we will have it before the discussion of the Bills ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not see any connection at all between the Bill now before the House and this question regarding the province of Manitoba, I cannot see that they have any relation whatever. It is intended to have the correspondence complete as soon as possible, probably this week.
1769 FEBRUARY 27, 1905
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Is it not a fact that the province of Manitoba has asked some of this very territory which it is now proposed to include in Saskatchewan ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I think therefore the question is pertinent.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not think it is, because the legislature of the Northwest Territories has passed a resolution against such a grant of their territory.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE. They have also passed a resolution favouring the incorporation of a portion of that territory in the province of Manitoba.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Yes. and I can inform my hon. friend that this territory is not at all included in the boundaries of Saskatchewan.
Mr. HAGGART. The right hon. gentleman has introduced this very subject in his speech introducing the Bill.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Certainly, I introduced it to say that we could not grant the prayer of the province of Manitoba, because the province of Manitoba asked for a certain portion of the territories under the jurisdiction of the Northwest legislature, and the legislature had refused to grant such territory. At the same time, I stated there was a portion of territory north of Lake \Vinnipegosis and Lake Manitoba as to which the legislature had expressed no objection to granting it to Manitoba. But we have reserved this, it is not included in the boundaries of the new province. Therefore it has no relation at all.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I still hold that Manitoba has an interest in the territories to the west, which are still territories and not provinces. Manitoba has been looking forward all along to acquiring them, and I believe the Minister of the Interior has made statements to that effect, that some day Manitoba might look forward to including a portion of the territory of Saskatchewan. I think correspondence of that character is in the possession of the government. and we ought to have it in connection with the new Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER. Stand.


A return showing the number and location, cost and earnings, of the cold storage establishments called ' bait freezers,' of maritime Canada; together with the returns, duly certified, of all such institutions, since 1900; the names and the salaries of all superintendents, officials and keepers of same; and the amounts in pounds of the different kinds of fish therein stored ; the amount of bait from them used by bona fide fishermen, and the names of the same; together with all such information as may per 1770mit of the thorough examination of the question of government assisted refrigerators.
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE. I must inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Martin) that some of the documents he asks for cannot be laid on the table. I am informed that the names of the fishermen are not on record. I do not know What the latter part of his motion means. Of course, the government has no objection to producing whatever papers can be produced. but the latter part of his motion cannot be complied with. I might suggest to the hon. gentleman that he call at the Department and indicate what papers he desires to obtain. The Department will furnish him with a list of those that can be produced. Let the motion stand in the meantime.


For a copy of the report of Mr. Matheson relating to the alleged fraud in payment of fishing bountics.—Mr. Ganong.
For copies of all correspondence, letters, reports, petitions, memoranda, in possession of the government, or any member or omeial thereof. relating to the location and erection of a. railway station at Grand View, on the Murray Harbour branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway—Mr. A. Martin.
For a return showing the total number of officers. civil engineers and other employees now engaged in the surveys of the Transcontinental Railway, and works connected therewith, under the Transcontinental Railway Construction Commission : the name and place of residence of each of the above persons at the time of his appointment; and the functions and salaries of each of the above.—Mr. Gervais.
For a return showing the business done in the Exchequer Court of Canada, under its admiralty jurisdiction, since the Admiralty Act of 1891 came into force; giving by districts, (1) the number of actions instituted; (2a) the number of interlocutory applications, and (b) trials: (3) the amount involved.—Mr. A. H. Clark.


House again in committee on Bill (No. 10) respecting Labour Union Labels.
On section 7,
Mr. GUTHRIE. When this Bill was last in committee, the question was on an amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. L. P. Demers), to the eifect that the word ' incorporated' should be inserted in subsection A of subsection 1 of the Act. That motion was not disposed of at the time the committee rose and asked leave to sit again. I would like to draw attention to that clause of the Bill before it is passed over, or before any other clause is taken up. Now objection was taken seriously by many members that a labour union or association acquiring rights under this Bill to register- trade marks or designs of their own, were not amenable to the common law, or to the [...]


Canada. House of Commons Debates, 1875-1949. Provided by the Library of Parliament.



Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Gordon Lyall.

Personnes participantes: