Hon. Mr. ROSS.

Speaking of the population of British Columbia, the hon. member for Victoria stated the other day that it was something over 150,000. The hon. member for West York has praised the people as being a peace-loving, orderly people, which I was pleased to hear ; but I am very sorry to find that there is such a spirit of litigation among those people, which perhaps is not the best sign of a peaceable and orderly people in any country. I am in the position which the hon. member for West York has referred to : I came here in the interests of my constituents, and I have no personal ambition to serve, further than to do the best I can in that respect.

Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 150) further to amend the Act respecting the judges of provincial courts.

Mr. WALLACE.

(c) On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year 1904, $3.

(d) On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year 1905, $2.

(e) On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year 1906, $1.

2. The said bounties shall be payable halfyearly on the first days of July and January in each year.

3. The total sum payable for such bounties shall not exceed $100,000 in any year. If ihe sum payable at the rates per ton mentioned in resolution (1) on lead refined during the half of any calendar year shall exceed $50,000, then and in such case the bounty payable per ton shall be reduced as regards that half-year to such rate per ton as shall make the amount of bounties payable in respect of such half-year not more than $50,000.

4. If the sum paid for such bounties in any half-year shall be less than $50,000, the unpaid balance (being the difference between the sum so paid and $50,000) shall be carried to the credit of the bounty fund for the next succeeding half-year and may be paid out in such succeeding half-year in addition to the $50,000 hereinbefore provided.

5. The Governor in Council may make such rules and regulations (including regulations as to rates and charges for refining) as may be deemed expedient in the public interest, for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and all payments of bounty shall be subject to the due observance of such rules and regulations.

6. All bounties payable under these resolutions shall cease and determine on the 31st day of December, 1906.

He said : These resolutions have received the assent of the Crown.

I move that the House go now into committee to consider the following resolution, to which the Crown gives its assent :

Resolved, That it is expedient to amend section 25 of chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada so as to provide that the sessional allowance of $1,000 payable as therein provided to each member of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada shall be increased to the sum of $1,500, beginning with the present session.

Mr. Speaker, I venture to express the hope that the resolution which I now introduce will commend itself to the favourable judgment, not only of the members of this House on both sides, but of the people to whom we are responsible. Everybody will agree that perhaps the ideal way of dealing with this matter is the way In which it) has always been dealt with in England, where members of parliament give their services to the country gratuitously. But England occupies in this respect a position which is absolutely exceptional, so far as my information goes -and I think on this point my information is correct-a position which is not shared by

any other country in which there are representative institutions. The conditions of England in this respect are particular and peculiar. The representatives of England go back to a very great distance in the past. They were introduced at a time when they were confined to the wealthy classes-to men who could give their services to the country without any remuneration or compensation. In those days the legislative power was confined to a very narrow limit of electors ; and the men who had the control of the legislature in those days could well afford to give the whole of their time to the state without impairing at all their own personal business. When the legislative power was extended by the Reform Bill in 1832, and later on in 1867, and when England became practically a democratic country, the people had become so wealthy and there was such a large class of leisured men, that it was possible to find men in all classes who could give their services to the state gratuitously, though there has been of late an agitation growing up, not very strong as yet, but still felt in Great Britain, in favour of a departure from that rule on behalf of those classes who cannot send representatives to parliament without impairing their fortunes.

With the single exception of England, I believe every country in the world which is blessed with representative and democratic institutions, has come to the conclusion that it is not fair to expect men who serve their country as legislators in parliament to give their services to the state gratuitously ; and this country is no exception to that rule. The reason is a very obvious one ; it is that, as a rule, in countries situated as Canada is, members of parliament cannot be absent from their own business for three or four or five months in the year without greatly impairing their business and their means of earning a livelihood, and that unless they received some indemnity for their services, it would be impossible for the very

was contemplated in 1S73, so far as I have been able to get a familiar acquaintance with the debates of that time, that the session would rarely extend beyond eight weeks in every year. That was the very moderate and perhaps too moderate view taken of the business of the country then.

When I first entered parliament, twenty-six years ago, an hon. gentleman, whom some older members will remember-Mr. Holton, the leading parliamentarian of his day and one of the leaders of the House-said to me very frequently that even at that date four months were not too much for the business of the country. Everybody knows that the business of the House has increased enormously since then, and that a session of two months is a thing we will never see again. It is hardly conceivable that any session of this parliament in the future would last less than three months, and in all probability the average will between four and five months.

If then it was fair and reasonable twenty-seven years ago to provide an indemnity of $1,000, is it not reasonable to provide that in future the indemnity will be at least $1,500. How does this indemnity compare with that paid by countries similarly situated. If we look to the country to the south, which in many respects we resemble, from which we differ only in point of population, we find that the indemnity given members of Congress is $5,000 a year. I grant at once that the amount of business transacted in that country, with a population of

75.000. 000, is far larger than what is called for in this with a population of only

6.000. 000.

Mr. WALLACE.

The sessions in Washington are about the same length as ours.

56U3

this country. With the exception of a very few men in this House, whom I could count on the fingers of my hand, everybody here has to work for his living, has to provide by his own labour for himself and family. We find that some 200 men in this House have to depend on their own exertions for the support of themselves and their families, and have to leave their own business from three to five months in the year. It is therefore not unfair to say that $1,500 is a very moderate indemnity for the labour they have to give to the work of the country to the deprivation of their own families.

But if this increase in the indemnity is voted by this parliament, I wish it to be understood by all hon. members that whatever may be the future length of any session-whether four, six, seven or eight months-there will be no increase of indemnity. In the past, when a session was extended to undue length, parliament has sometimes thought it advisable to give an increase for that particular session. I deprecate such a practice. I have always thought it unwise, and if we are to increase the indemnity now as proposed, I wish it to be well understood that in the future, whatever may be the length of any session, the indemnity must remain at $1,500 and no more. With these observations I submit this resolution to the serious consideration of the House.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I think that the main question we should bear in mind is the probable effect which this increase in the indemnity will have upon the character of the representation in this House. I do not think that this country will object to the increased indemnity proposed by the right hon. the First Minister, if the probable effect will be to continue or even improve the character of that representation. This matter has been discussed more or less in the country during the past few weeks, and among other objections urged against it is this, that the increased indemnity will bring into parliament a class of men who might properly be described as professional politicians-men who come to parliament solely for the sake of the indemnity. If I thought that the proposal would have any such effect, I would be prepared to object most strongly to it. I have turned that question over in my own mind and discussed it with public men, and have come to the conclusion that it will not have any such effect, but that it is more likely to bring into parliament men who more closely represent the great industrial interests of the country. What we want in parliament is men who represent the business life of the country, the manufacturing interests, the labour interests -all the great industrial development which is now going on and must continue. We not only want those interests represented in parliament but represented by the very best men. The question is whether or not the

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

proposed increase is likely to better that representation. For my part, I am inclined to think that it will, or at least continue it as it is at present. As as has been pointed out by the right hon. gentleman, if we are to expect the best element of this country to be represented in parliament we must get them from the active business life of the country. '

The men whom we want in parliament are men who have business interests of their own. And it is? well known to all of us- well known to most of us by experience- that to participate in the public life of this country involves a very great sacrifice to the business interests of any man who has any real business to attend to. That being the case, is the proposed increase wise or unwise ? The indemnity was fixed, as the right hon. gentleman says, in 1873. I have looked carefully over what record there is of the debate in that year ; I have looked carefully over the record of the debate in 1885 with respect to the special increase for that year, and over the debate in 1891 wiiu respect to a similar matter ; and I believe that if any hon. gentleman takes the pains to look at these debates, he will undoubtedly say that when the indemnity of $1,000 was fixed in 1873, it was fixed upon the basis that sessions of parliament should not extend beyond the period of three months. Now, what is likely to be the duration of future sessions of parliament ? I am inclined to think that the business of this country cannot be done by parliament in any such length of time. I believe that in the future-looking to the next twenty-five years-the business of parliament will require four months if not five months. Let us look at the record of the present session. I think that no hon. gentleman in this House will be disposed to say-I think that no reasonable person in the country will be disposed to say-that during the present session any considerable length of time has been unprofitably used in discussing the business of this country in this House. On this side of the House we have honestly endeavoured, as far as we could, to expedite the business of the government. And the result is that this session will run to at least three months and a half. Moreover, it has not been to any extent a controversial session ; very little controversial matter has been introduced. And we may expect in the future, during the next session and during the following sessions, that the business of the House will necessarily occupy a considerably greater time than lias been occupied during this year. Now, if this country fixed the amount that I have spoken of in 1873 having regard to the business which had to be transacted then and having regard to the length of time which was then necessarily occupied, it does not seem to me that, twenty-eight years afterwards, we are unduly departing from any principle then laid down if we say that the sessional indemnity

should now be increased to $1,500. In doing that, I believe we are fixing the amount of the indemnity for a great many years to come, we are fixing it with a view to the necessarily longer sessions of the future, and we are doing it in view of the enormously increased business of this House, business which must continue to increase during the next twenty-five years, unless we are all very much mistaken as to what the future development of this country will be. I have, therefore, to say, Sir, that, so far as I am concerned and speaking for myself, I am inclined to support the resolution now before the House, for the reasons that I have placed before you.

Before this motion is finally disposed of, I desire to offer a very few remarks. I rise with considerable hesitation, because I am surrounded by men of very long parliamentary experience, men who have devoted the best portions of their lives to furthering the interests of the Canadian' people, and men who have arrived at what I understand to be a very unanimous opinion that the indemnity of the representatives in parliament/ should be increased. I have always understood that it was the custom of the Canadian parliament to follow as closely as possible in the pathway laid down by the British ijarlia-ment. But I admit that the right lion. Prime Minister has made a very lucid explanation why, in the opinion of this parliament, men should not be asked to represent Canadians in parliament without having some indemnity therefor. In the last general election at which we were all returned to this House, this question, as I am informed, was not very generally debated. But, as I always understood public questions of this kind, it is expected from the government of the day that, when any great proposition is about to be placed before parliament, it should be made an issue before the people. In some sections-very few,

I confess-this question was taken up for consideration and discussion. I, either fortunately ar unfortunately, come from a section of the country in which the question was considered ; and if I understand the feelings of people there correctly-and I think I do-the people there are not in favour of any increased indemnity ; and that is my position on this motion. '

Then, don't take it.

Mr. BLAIN.

Now, I am careful to say that I represent a very small portion of the Canadian people

Hear, hear.

Mr. BLAIN.

The hon. gentleman says [DOT] hear, hear.' I will give to that hon. gentleman the right to represent his people as well as he can, and I think that I ought to have the same right in the parliament with regard to my constituents. I say that 176*

this question was something of an issue in the election in my constituency. I am here to say that I did not introduce it myself ; I am /lot responsible for its introduction into the contest ; and, therefore, I am not called upon to say that I am altogether responsible for the position I take in this House to-day. It may be that, had my experience in parliament been longer I would better understand the duties that devolve on a representative of the people in these long sessions where very much legislation is introduced-legislation that requires the best attention and close application of every member here-it may be that I would entertain other opinions than those I am expressing here to-day. But, as I say that, for myself, understanding as I do that, in the discussion that took place in the general election, there was a very strong complaint that the debt of this country was growing very rapidly, and that the public expenditure was increasing very largely, I am not quite sure that the Canadian people would endorse the proposition that is now being presented to this House. However, I am just going to offer these remarks ; I do it in all kindness ; I do it because I feel it to be my duty. And I say again that I hesitate to say even this much, surrounded as I am by men whose opinions will certainly be of more value than mine ; men who have had long parliamentary experience, and whose experience must have brought to them knowledge that I do not possess in discussing the important question that is before the House to-day.

Hear, hear.

Mr. .TABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).

That was like a good British cheer. Mr. Speaker, i have addressed this House a number of times during this session. And I must say that I have been unpopular in my remarks sometimes with hon. gentlemen on one side and sometimes with hon. gentlemen on the other. And I think that, perhaps, the remarks I am about to make now will be the most unpopular of all. I feel something like this-and I usually express myself as I feel-that it was the duty of this government at an earlier stage of this session to acquaint the people that they proposed to introduce this legislation, so that it might have been discussed by the press of the country. I am pretty sure that most of the newspapers will call this, as they called the giving of an extra amount to the members some years ago, ' a salary grab.' But, the government have introduced it. and the opposition, of course, are quite willing it should be introduced. The government are pushed on by a tidal wave from behind, and there is no force springing up to resist the movement. Now, I think the people should have been consulted. This subject was never mentioned on the hustings in my county, at least. I never heard of it until I came here. Therefore, I protest

against it. It may be proper to give this extra salary to members of parliament ; it is possible some of them earn it, but, I know some of them do not.

Some bon. MEMBERS. Name, name.

Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).

I could give you the names, but it would not be pleasant. I do not desire to be personal in this matter. Now, Mr. Speaker, suppose that you had hired a man on the 7th day of last November, with the understanding that he was to work for certain wages, and that before the expiration of the year he had gone into your granary and taken out nearly as much again in value as you had promised to give him, what would you think of that hired man? That is exactly the position this parliament is in with regard to the people of this country. The people have hired a man, and he has sold their grain and put the money into his pocket.