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.

Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.

friend will not be surprised if we give some accommodation at Sorel for the trade, which is only awaiting the required facilities to find its way to that locality. In the maritime provinces there are ten or twelve great harbours. I do not complain of that ; on the contrary, I am delighted, and would like to see more of them. In this matter, although the expenditure seems large, there is every reason to believe that it is warranted by the condition of things existing at Sorel.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

is more interested In this legislation than any other. I think we are not at all meeting the exigencies of the case by this amendment. So far as we are concerned, it is inconvenient and I think unworkable to confine the jurisdiction to the judges. In fact, I do not see why we should surround with these restrictions the case contemplated by the Act any more than those cases in which persons have a right to launch a grievance against individuals in any other case. With all due deference to the right lion. First Minister, 1 do not see any more danger of international complications arising under this Act than under half a dozen other cases in which the law is set in force by individuals with a free hand. There are numbers of cases that will occur to any lawyer, just as important as this, in which parties need not go to the Attorney General or get the consent of anybody, but they take the responsibility; and there are safeguards against the abuse of the process of the courts in those eases as in others. I do not look at all with favour on the omission to extend this jurisdiction to the magistrates.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

tittle over 700, and we reduced it to 500. But we have been rather demoralized, so to speak, by the fact that the force has been drawn upon largely for the Yukon and for South Africa. We have had to spend a good ideal in transportation to and fro, taking men from the different stations, bringing them here, equipping them and sending them to their destination. This has entailed upon us a new expenditure which we had not contemplated. Moreover, we have been extending our patrols till now they cover all the territory from the boundaries of Manitoba to the Peace river and even to the Mackenzie river. More than that, as settlement extends, there are more applications made upon us for new stations. We have been able, by changing them from one place to another, to furnish new stations without adding to the number of men, but this involves a great deal of new expenditure for transportation alone. You cannot take men to the Peace river without a large expenditure, and still more to the Mackenzie river. But doing the best we can, we cannot maintain the force with less than $800 for man and horse. There are about 400 horses. We think that in course of time we shall be able to reduce the expenditure down to a little under $800.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

line of railway. I simply take the ground that we should be guided in our policy in that respect by the consideration that we should give communication to the growing cities of the coast, Vancouver and Victoria, with the Kootenay district, the boundary district, and the other mining centres of British Columbia; and the government at the proper time, notwithstanding the advice given by my hon. friend from Toronto that we should put an end to railway subsidies, will consider that question.

1 am not prepared to express any opinion with regard to the Wellington and Cape Scott road, which is an island railway. That is a project which has some merit in it as it has been developed to me; but it does not seem to me to be of the same immediate necessity as the other roads to which I have alluded. I would say the same with regard to the Ashcroft and Cariboo district.

My hon. friend has advocated the construction of a road from Kitmat to the Yukon. With this I have absolute sympathy with my hon. friend, and he must regret the vote which he was induced to give three years ago when we introduced the policy of building a railway through Canadian territory to the waters of the Yukon. If the project which was then introduced, had been carried out, of building a railway from the Stikine river to the waters of the Yukon, which was the first link of the very railway the hon. gentleman now advocates, extending it afterwards to Kitmat Harbour and the Yukon river, the very thing my hon. friend now advocates would be to-day an accomplished fact.