1908-06-01

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 179) to incorporate the Synod of the Diocese of Keewatin.-Mr. Johnston.
Bill (No. 180) respecting the Crown Life Insurance Company.-Mr.	Northrup by
Mr.  W. J.@: Roche.
Bill (No. 178) relating to the water carriage of goods.-Mr. Johnston.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-Mr. SAM.



HUGHES.

Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton) Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I find in the 'Hansard' of Tuesday, May 26, the following ;



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. BERGERON.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: leader, would not have come to me and said something to me about it. Now I come to what 1 have got to do about it. Soon after the notice was put on the paper -last year, the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) notified me that Dr. Worthington had something terrible against me. He -is going to expose you, said Mr. Bergeron, -and your grafting in connection with the Ross rifle. And he asked: Is it not possible for you to pay back the -money?
Mr. Bergeron then said :
This is the first time I have heard anything of the matter. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (-Mir. Worthington) has never spoken of it to me and I have never spoken to the hon. member for Victoria and Baliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) in the way he has here indicated. The w-ho-le thing is entirely a dream, as far -as I know.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair to the hon. member for Beauharnois-at the time he spoke to me we were sitting as we are today. He spoke, as I felt, as a friend, a gentleman talking over the motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of the hon. member for Sherbrooke Mr. Worthington. He stated to me that he (Mr. Worthington) had any amount of data, X think the expression was any God's amount of data against me, and the Minister of Militia ; and he went on further-I do not remember the exact words-but he begged me for God's sake to try and get out of it, and pay the money back, was there any way to pay the money back that had been grafted in order that I might get out of it ? These were the statements. Not only that but it was referred to on other occasions. I assured him there was nothing in it. He said ' everybody believes it.' Not only that but I spoke to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) about it. He said it is a common rumour, current opinion in Montreal that 'you are in it up to the neck.' I spoke to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. I,. Borden) about it and to twenty other members of the Conservative party and this is the first time I ever heard it contradicted. More than that, I happened to receive


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The hon. gentleman does not suggest that I said I had heard anything about it ?


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: No, what I mean is I had informed my fellow members of the statement made by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) and I mentioned his name last session and told it to a dozen members last session that my friend Bergeron had spoken to me and I said it was a slander, I gave that to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) as the reason why I would not drop the agitation before the Public Accounts Committee at the time the First Minister wanted to go to England ; I was going to fight it to a finish, they were going to either prove their Mr. SAM. HUGHES
case or be exposed before the country to be as they have been shown to be. Mind you, I have other data upon it. I can show you just how these gentlemen would go around -not the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), because as I say he spoke in all kindness, and wanted me to try and save the party, and save my own reputation by getting out of it-but the agitation was engineered by other gentlemen who went around with that pained expression on their countenances and would say : It is too bad that Hughes and the Minister of Militia are tied up in these things, it is a terrible thing th-at they should be tied up in this way. And oh, my the agony of soul these gentlemen would display in passing around the town and the country, circulating this slander on fellow members and some others who were not fellow members. The data is all available. Here is a letter from another gentleman to show how they are working it, how even within the last two weeks some of them have been trying to work it. The letter is from Colonel Greville Harston, of the city of Toronto, and in it he says :
Some of your good friends have industriously sent it about among some of our best men like John T. Small and Colonel .1. I. Davidson and others that yon have large pecuniary interests in the Ross Rifle company and that you are a director of that company. I of course denied it flatly.
Then follow other matters to show that the insidious falsehood started by this organization has been passing around. I do not know what the hon. member for Beauharnois means, if the words have not a double meaning, by saying: 'In the way he hqs heard indicated; the whole thing is entirely a dream.' The regrettable thing is that the gentlemen who started the agitation did not find out that it was a dream before they started it. It would have been much more to their credit and to the advantage of the country. I have nothing further to say than to repeat, in words as strong as the English or the French language will allow, that the words the hon. member for Beauharnois used expressed the sentiment I have stated in this House on a former occasion and on the present occasion.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As my name has been mentioned, I suppose I may be allowed to answer in one word. I have nothing to take back of what I said the other day, and so far as I am concerned, my hon. friend is entirely mistaken. I never heard that he had any interest in any shape or form in these so-called scandals, and nobody ever said anything to me about it.


Samuel Hughes: I again insist that the words were uttered not once only, but two or three times.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I call on the Chair. When the hon. gentleman puts words into

my mouth, and I deny having used them, he is bound, according to the rules of the House, to withdraw what he said.


Mr. SPEAKER.: In a matter of personal dispute it is very difficult for the Chair to decide. It will have to be left to the Judgment of the House.


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: As my name has also been drawn into this discussion, I wish to add my absolute denial to that of the hon. member for Beauharnois. I never at any time nor in any place made such a statement to him or to any other member of the House. I also think, as the hon. member for Beauharnois does, that it is nothing but a silly dream.


Samuel Hughes: It has turned out to be quite silly.



DOMINION LANDS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 181) to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the public lands of the Dominion.
Mr LENNOX.: In reference to this matter I have just a word to say before the hon. member introduces his Bill. I wish to call the attention of the House to the time this measure is introduced. We have now been sitting six months. This is an important Bill. The minister and the government gave consideration to this matter last year. This is I suppose to a great extent the same measure that was Introduced last year, and I think the introduction of such an important Bill at this stage, when I suppose the session is pretty nearly drawing to a close, is very much to be deplored and to be condemned. I think the hon. gentleman ought to give some satisfactory explanation to the House as to how it is that an important measure of this kind has been delayed until this stage of the proceedings. If it were an isolated case it would be somewhat different; but more and more, not only during this session, but during preceding sessions, the practice is prevailing with the government of leaving the introduction of important measures to the late days of the session. This is not fair either to the members of the House or to the country. It leads to injudicious legislation and results in the measures not being properly considered, and it is a practice that I think ought to be condemned and discontinued.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. OLIVER.: The Bill is in very much the same terms as the Bill of last year. The consideration given by the House to the Bill of last year resulted in the acceptance of certain amendments which have been
adopted in the re-drafting of the Bill. The opportunity has been taken to make a very thorough revision of the Bill in the light of the subsequent operations of the Lands Act. In regard to the provision which was particularly contentious, while the principle of pre-emption and of purchased homesteads remains in the Bill, the area to which this principle applies has been restricted to the .territory, speaking roughly, between Moose-jaw and Calgary on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and between the international boundary and the latitude of Battleford. It is hoped that, with this restriction, the Bill will be acceptable to all parties in the House.


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

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to say to the Minister of the Interior that I have had a letter from the commissioner of immigration, Mr. Scott, asking for particulars with respect to one of the officials in Halifax to whom I referred in the House not long ago The information which I have is in the form of a statutory declaration having the force of an affidavit. As it is from a man who has been dismissed in consequence of an investigation recently held, and as it contains charges against one of the officials of the government, I think for the present it is not best for me to read it in the House until the government shall have an opportunity of making an investigation. Instead of doing so, I shall hand the original to the Minister of the Interior, in order that he may make a copy of it, and return the original to me. I have also a declaration respecting another official, but as to that, I think I shall speak privately to the minister, as there are some circumstances which seem tn make that the wiser course.



THE EXERCISE OF CLEMENCY.

Robert Laird Borden: And whereas the crime for which said Agnes Balium Kun was convicted is in the opinion of this honourable council, one that deserved the severest [DOT] punishment, as it affects the moral welfare of the community;
And whereas the police department of Sydney, has within the last few years put forth every effort to rid Sydney of such disreputable houses.
Therefore be it resolved that this council view with regret the release of said Agnes Balium Kun and hereby voices its protest against any persons sentenced for such offences being released on tickets of leave or otherwise, until their full sentence is served.
And further be it resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Minister of Justice at Ottawa.
I would like to inquire whether the attention of the government has been directed to this resolution and also to ask what were the considerations which led the government to release this offender before the full term of her imprisonment had expired?


Rt.   H@: So far as I know, no member of the government has received communication of this resolution unless it be the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), The resolution. I apprehend, should have been sent to the Minister of Justice, and I do not think he has communicated with any of his colleagues about it.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: The resolution referred to as having been passed by the city council some time ago was forwarded to the Minister of Justice, and I noticed in the press a reply published, as coming from the Minister of Justice.


Robert Laird Borden: The resolution came to me in a letter dated 21st May. Obviously the writer of it was not aware of any reply having been given up to that time, so far as I can gather from the context of the letter.


Alexander Johnston: All I know is that the Minister of Justice replied.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the reply ?


Alexander Johnston: I have not the papers before me, but a reference to newspapers published some considerable time ago will show what the reply was.



THE BANQUE DE ST. JEAN.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to a statement which appeared in one of the Montreal newspapers in sequence of other statements of a similar character which have appeared from time to time with reference to the failure of the Banque De St. Jean, Quebec. According to this statement


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I suppose this is for the purpose of founding a question ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


George Eulas Foster: Yes. Probably the better way would be to read what is stated.
After calling attention to the fact that in the case of the Banque Ville Marie an investigation was held by the Finance Department and punishment meted out to the guilty parties, it goes on :
In the case of the Banque de St. Jean there are the same kind of harrowing experiences attending the depositors as beset the depositors of the Banque Ville Marie and the Banque du Peuple. Among the depositors of the ill-fated Banque de St. Jean are to be numbered priests, nuns, guardians, widows, orphans, farmers, merchants, artisans, peddlers of farm and other produce and the usual clientele of the modest country bank. The deposits as a rule run from ten and fifteen dollars to a hundred and five hundred, and temporary deposits have sometimes run into the thousands.
Many special cases are detailed, and then it goes on ;
We have shown that in January in the report furnished to the government, the Banque de St. Jean credited itself with $751,859 of current discounts and $17,574 of overdue debts. But in the statement just issued by Mr. Tan-crede Bdenvenu, these current discounts or promissory notes are reduced to $191,396 or by $560,463 or nearly three-quarters. How has this huge proportion of the bank's loans been wiped out with, as it were, a stroke of the pen ?
Several questions follow, and then the query is put whether the Finance Department has as yet undertaken to do its duty in the matter as it did in the case of the Banque Ville Marie ? And that is the question I ask.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I think that the machinery of the Bank Act is not the same to-day as at the time when the case of the Banque Ville Marie arose. The present Bank Act provides that the moment a bank gets into trouble, an officer shall be appointed by the Bankers' Association to take possession temporarily until a liquidator is appointed. These two steps have just been taken, as I see by the press of the last day or two that a liquidator has been appointed. What further proceedings shall be taken is a matter for consideration. The machinery of the Bank Act is in motion. If there is a difference of procedure as between the time of the Banque Ville Marie case and the present day, it is because, under the amended Act the Bankers' Association have a duty to perform. That duty they have performed and we have now reached the next stage.
I am afraid the situation is a very grave one for all concerned, but the moment has not arrived for the government to take further action. I expect that we shall receive further communication on the subject at an early day.


George Eulas Foster: No change has been made with reference to penalties for misconduct?


William Stevens Fielding: No ; but we have no information that wfll enable us to proceed as respects penalties. Of course, the hon. gentleman will agree that in such a matter newspaper reports are not sufficient. I have no doubt that there will be a fuller investigation. The machinery provided by the law remains the same, and action will have to be taken on the facts coming before us.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-HON. MR.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Wednesday last, a statement was made in this House by the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) in the course of debate. It is always difficult to tell exactly what a man says across the floor of the House. Still, I ventured to characterize the statement at that time as absolutely untrue. It now appears in cold print as reported on page 9585 of ' Hansard ' :
The hon. gentleman seems to be very suspicious. But, Mr. Speaker, assuming that every word that he has said to-day is true- and scarcely ,a word of it is true in its application-I would like this House to consider whether at its worst it is to be compared for one moment with the position of a man who *succeeds in placing himself in a position of trust in a company and then succeeds in placing himself in another position connected with another company, and then engages in the delightful occupation of selling out the company of which he is a director to himself in another company, and taking a commission which comes out of the hard savings and earnings of the people of this country, in connection with one of the large insurance companies, and putting that commission into his own pocket


George Eulas Foster: All of which is


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: All of which is absolutely true.
He then goes on to say be does not need to take it up because it has been taken up and proved : ' it is an accomplished fact and everybody in this House and out of it knows it is an accomplished fact.'
Mr. Speaker, I desire again to-day to say that, so far as the language of that declaration and its charges are concerned, and the meaning that seems to be intended by them, they are absolutely and wholly untrue. I give the Minister of Militia and Defence-as this is the first time these insinuations have come to be put in direct language by a responsible member of this House -the opportunity to prove that statement ; or, if he cannot prove it, to retract it, again stating that it is absolutely and wholly untrue.


Hon.   S@: The language reported as just quoted by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) is not precisely the language I used, or, at any rate, is not what I
intended to use, for there is very little meaning in the words as reported. The following is what is reported :
I would like this House to consider whether at its worst it is to be compared for one moment with the position of a man who succeeds in placing himself in a position of trust in a company and then succeeds in placing himself in another position connected with another company, and then engages in the delightful occupation of selling out the company of which he is a director to himself in another com, pany, and taking a commission

And so on. I did not say that, or I certainly did not intend to say it. What I intended to say was :
A man who succeeds in placing himself in a position of trust in a company arid then succeeds in placing himself in another position connected with another company, and then engages in the delightful occupation of buying lands for the company of which he was manager, and accepting a commission and putting it in his pocket in that connection

And so on. That is what I intended to say, and the revised 'Hansard' will show the words so corrected. And my authority, if the hon. gentleman wants it, are the proceedings of the Royal Commission wbieli investigated this particular case which was discussed thoroughly in this House during the last session, and I quoted particularly, and I mentioned it, from the speech of the Minister of Justice which I happen to have before me at this moment. I had not the pleasure of hearing the speech which was delivered by the Minister of Justice, as I was away, but I read it after my return from England, and in that speech I find the following :
The other transaction of a similar character perhaps deserves one word of additional notice, and for the simple reason that in regard to the $5,000 transaction, the verbal evidence which witnesses gave before the commission is contradictory. One witness gives in his testimony-which I need not say is equally sworn evidence-a statement of the transaction directly at variance upon this crucial point with the statement of the hon gentleman. It is not for me to judge between the two, it has not been the part of the commission to judge between the two. They have stated simply and frankly upon the face of the report what was the evidence of one and what was the evidence of the other, and leaving that evidence for comparison and for perusal, and leaving those who read to form their own judgment upon it. The commission left it at that and discussed the transaction from either of the different points of view, according to the different evidence which any reader may choose to accept.
But with regard to the subsequent transaction-
Tile one to which I referred.
-in respect to which a commission of small amount was paid, there is not, because there cannot be, variation in the testimony of witnesses, it resting upon written documents. This is a transaction, in essence of precisely

the same character. The syndicate is purchasing lands with the money of either the Foresters or of the Trust Company, with money which is furnished to it, borrowed by it, if you please, upon the security of the lands that are being bought, and the syndicate so making its purchase and so making its payment, we are again treated to the proposition that there is to be paid a commission out of it. And in this instance, it is upon the letters which are in evidence. Exhibit No. 665 is a letter dated December 23, 1903, from Mr. George E. Foster to Mr. Pritchard, at Winnipeg. He says:
I have talked the matter of these lands over with some parties. The price is too high as it was asked, and I can get no one to take any interest at any such price. My clients are filled with lands, and the offerings of men who have got lots and have to make payments and have not the money, are numerous. This flattens the price. Now, if the following is of any use to you I will, on receipt of answer, go into it further, and give you an early decision, to wit, $5.25 per acre for the land with twenty-five cents per acre as commission, thus netting you $5 per acre. This will depend upon the amount of cash down required-$1.25 certainly, and $1 say in four months, and the remainder in four yearly instalments with note, and option to pay the whole amount at any time without bonus. One trouble is the inability to inspect lands at this time. This, I am aware, is not as good as you expect, but you have no idea of the .amount of land offered here and parties here are filled up. Kindly let me know if this will be acceptable. I see no way of doing anything better at present, but I think I can get the above through.
The answer on December 28, in Winnipeg, from Mr. Pritchard, is as follows:
Dear Mr. Foster,-I am in receipt of yours of the 23rd, and have read your offer with some little regret, as I had hoped that you would be able to handle these lands at a better price in view of their choice location. As I pointed out when I saw you in Toronto, the Canadian Northern are putting their branch through from at or near Swan river to the Thunder Hills, which will make these lands convenient to railway facilities. However, as you cannot do any better, I accept your proposition with the following slight modifications. There is $2.48 due the Canadian Northern on these lands which runs for eight years at thirty-one cents an acre per year, with interest at six per cent. The whole of it can be paid off at any time without bonus, which I expect you to assume. As regards the cash payment, $1.25 down, seventy-five cents in three months and seventy-five cents in six months. The cash payment in that way will secure the equity, all being met within six months. I trust you will be able to meet me in this slight change.
Tours very sincerely,
The answer is a telegram of December 31, 1903, to A. W. Pritchard, Winnipeg, Manitoba:
Send contract terms your letter for part due Canadian Northern and amounts due vendors. The Union Trust Company, Limited, in trust is purchaser. Cash payment will be made on signing contracts.
On January 2, 1904, Messrs, Macdonald, Hag-gart and Whitla, of Winnipeg, solicitors for the vendors, wrote to the Hon. George E.


Frederick William Borden: Foster, as manager of the Union Trust Company, as follows:


Mr.  A. W.@: Pritchard, who has been carrying
on correspondence with you regarding the lands in the Swan river district, has handed us all the correspondence therein, together with your telegram of the 31st ultimo, accepting the offer of sale of these lands The lands in question stand in the name of our Mr. Whitla, under contracts from the Canadian Northern Railway Company. We are preparing agreements of sale in accordance with the terms of the agreement already arrived at, and will forward the same to you as soon as completed. There are 9,920 acres all told. If you have any suggestions to make as to the methods of closing the sale we will he glad to hear from you. We presume that since we act as solicitors for your company we can have Mr. Whitla sign the agreements and forward them to you for the signature by the company, and you can forward the cash payment and return one copy of agreement duly signed. We can at the same time forward you for inspection the contracts covering the various parcels which our Mr. Whitla holds. We trust this will be satisfactory.
The answer was as follows:
Toronto, January 5, 1901.
Yours of January 2, duly received re Pritchard's sale of Swan river district lands. The contracts will be with the Union Trust Company in trust and cash. Cash payment will be made to credit of vendors in Standard Bank of Toronto on receipt and signing of satisfactory documents of agreement. Twenty-five cents per acre is to be paid as commission on sale. This can either be deducted from the cash payment or better. You can send a cheque therefore signed by the vendors in favour of myself. I will then deposit to credit of vendors the whole cash payment and present cheque which will be paid therefrom. Kindly see that purchasers are allowed to pay up whole amount due on lands at any time without notice or bonus.
Yours truly, GEORGE E. FOSTER.
And accordingly, as is asked by that letter, a cheque to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) issues for that amount of commission at the rate of 25 cents per acre on the 9,920 acres, or $2,480. That is asked for in the letter I have read in distinct and unmistakable terms as a commission on the sale of these lands to the company of which the writer was jthen the paid manager. That is asked for as a deduction from the cash payment his company was to make, or better, a cheque for the amount signed by the vendors in favour of ' myself,' the manager. And that amount so received has not been shared with anybody.
That is the ground upon which I made the statement, Mr. Speaker.


George Eulas Foster: If the House will allow me for a moment, I have not altogether caught the exact statement made by the Minister of Militia and Defence. This much is certain that he does not stand by the statement he made the day before yesterday. Do I understand that he retracts it ?


Frederick William Borden: I do not stand by the report; I stand by the statement I made.


George Eulas Foster: Then the minister declares that this is not the statement that he did make ?


Frederick William Borden: I have already said what took place. ' Hansard ' will show that.


George Eulas Foster: That is not the statement that he did make ?


Frederick William Borden: I do not say that.


George Eulas Foster: The minister does not say that ? What does the Minister say V


Frederick William Borden: I gave the bon. gentleman the statement I made.


George Eulas Foster: I see no difference between the minister's statement now and that which appears in the unrevised ' Hansard.' We find it very difficult to go upon anything else than that.


Frederick William Borden: If there is no difference it is quite satisfactory.


George Eulas Foster: Now, the Minister of Militia and Defence substitutes another statement for this one and I do not altogether understand his statement. We will see what it is in 1 Hansard ' to-morrow, but if his statement is intended to convey the meaning that his statement of the day before yesterday was intended to convey, all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, is that in the verbiage and in the intent it is absolutely untrue and unfounded. I do not care how many speeches the Minister of Militia and Defence may read to buttress it up ; even if he has to take the campaign literature of the Liberal party and read it as he does at this moment, Mr. Speaker, although I have nothing to say against the extract as not being a fair extract.


Frederick William Borden: Does the hon. gentleman deny the authenticity of the letters I have read ?


George Eulas Foster: Not at all ; I never did. I absolutely deny the charge that the Minister of Militia and Defence bases upon these letters and that evidence, and I challenge the Minister of Militia and Defence to prove his statements to be true. He can take his own means, his own method and I state, as a member of this Hoffse, that the charge that he has made is an absolutely unfounded charge, and if that is his charge I think he ought to retract it.


Frederick William Borden: Well, Mr. Speaker, I simply read'a statement made in this House over a year ago. I based the statement I made the day before yesterday on that. That statement, made by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth), has never been contradicted or disproved. That is all I have to say.


George Eulas Foster: There is every difference between a statement and an inference. I
am dealing with the statements of the Minister of Militia and Defence. I brand them as absolutely untrue. He may draw any inference he likes, but I will not be bound by them. All I have to say is that they are not true and the minister as a member of this House is bound to take my statement and withdraw his statements.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes ; hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Then if he will not withdraw them I challenge him to prove them and I shall repeat that statement as long as he and I are members of this House.


Frederick William Borden: I cannot see very well how I can withdraw a statement made by a member of this'government a year ago based upon the evidence which he gave at that time. I have simply quoted that statement and repeated it. I cannot withdraw a statement made by the Minister of Justice. It is impossible.


George Eulas Foster: Nobody asks the minister to withdraw a statement made by the Minister of Justice. All I ask the minister to do was to withdraw his own statement which is absolutely unfounded.


Frederick William Borden: The statement is taken from your letter.



USE OF THE GOVERNMENT STEAMER ' CHAMPLAIN.'

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to refer again to the question as to the use which is being made of the government steamer ' Champlain.' On Tuesday I brought to the attention of the government the statement that the government steamer ' Champlain ' was being used by Mr. Taschereau, Minister of Public Works in the province of Quebec, candidate in Charlevoix, for political purposes. I stated to the House that I had been credibly informed that persons supposed to be Conservatives were turned off that steamer although they offered to pay their passage. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) stated in reply that the route of the steamer had been somewhat extended. He did not say for what purpose, or at whose instance, although my question involved that. I have now another telegram from Mr. Rodolphe Forget, a member of this House, bearing date the 27th day of May, which says that :
Steamer * Champlain ' refused ito call at St. Irene for me and Conservative friends this morning although scheduled for this place.
On looking at the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries I observe that the place named is one of the points at which that steamer is supposed to call. I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether the government has any information upon this and whether it is true or not that this steamer is being used as a political transport in the

interests of tbe Liberal party in the provincial election now going on in tbe province of Quebec ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: When my bon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) called this matter to the attention of the House the other day my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) was not in his seat. I wired at once to Mr. Beland, the agent of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, as to this matter and he sent me a telegram which, I think, was communicated to the House by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I also received this morning from Mr. Beland a letter on the same subject. If I had known that the matter would again be brought up I would have brought it to the attention of the House and read it. I shall do so on Monday. With regard to the later charge that the steamer ' Champlain ' did not call at St. Irene, although scheduled to do so, that is a new charge of which I have not heard, but as to which I will make inquiry. The steamer ' Champlain' is doing ferry work between River Ouelle and Murray Bay.


Robert Laird Borden: And St. Irene.


Wilfrid Laurier: St. Irene is one of the points. Of course, I cannot give any information to my hon. fripnd on this matter, but I shall inquire of Mr. Beland. Mr. Beland is stationed at Quebec and gets his information by wiring River Ouelle or Murray Bay.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-HON. MR.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a question of privilege also. In the discussion on the subject of cold storage, as I And the report on page 9575 of 1 Hansard,' Mr. Trueman was referred to and 1 see that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is reported to have asked this question:


Mr. LENNOX.: Is that the Trueman who figured after as Judge Trueman?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether this is the judge or the solicitor. Judge Trueman has since died.


Mr. DANIEL.: This is the judge, and a member of the firm of Puesley & Trueman.
He was in the cold storage company.
My hon. friend who represents the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) must know that Judge Trueman, who, in his lifetime was a practising barrister in St. John and afterwards became a judge, was a partner of mine some fifteen or twenty years ago ; that at least fifteen years ago he ceased to be my partner and afterwards practised upon his own account. So far from Judge Trueman being the gentleman referred to as ' Mr. Trueman ' that gentleman was Mr. Walter
H.	Trueman, an entirely different person.


George Eulas Foster: Was he a judge?


Robert Laird Borden: 


William Pugsley: No; Walter H. Trueman was not a judge. He was the solicitor and he is the gentleman who is referred to in this correspondence and who is mentioned by Mr. Williams. My hon. friend from St. John is therefore wrong, first, in his statement that the Mr. Trueman referred to was Judge Trueman, and secondly he was in error in informing the House that Judge Trueman was a partner of mine.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The Minister of Public Works is quite correct in his statement. When the member for North Toronto was speaking I was under the impression he was referring to those who were the charter members of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company. The charter member by the name of Trueman of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company is A. I. Trueman, Judge Trueman, and when alive the partner of the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: But, at what period?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I was mistaken in understanding the member for North Toronto as referring to the charter members of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, and so I spoke of the Mr. Trueman that was mentioned in that case as, he was, Judge Trueman, partner of the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: Well, I do not understand that. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that Judge Trueman was "my partner. I have already informed the-House that some fifteen years ago Judge Trueman and I dissolved partnership and were never afterwards in partnership.


John Waterhouse Daniel: All I can say is that the firm name down in St. John has always been Pugsley and Trueman.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have never seen any notice of the dissolution of partnership.


William Pugsley: It occurred at least fifteen years ago.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I know the two gentlemen had their office in the same room all along.


William Pugsley: Yes, we rented an office in the same building.



SUPPLY-COLD STORAGE FOR BAIT.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fielding that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["We had no discussion of the matter whatever. It was left entirely with the government.\nOn motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier Hou< adjourned at 2.18 a.m., Saturday. '", u"Monday, June 1, 1908. o'cfock.SPEAKER t0\xb0k the Chair at Thre"]
Mr. GEORGE  W.@: FOWLER (Kings, N.B.) When the House adjourned at six o'clock on Wednesday I was referring to the reciprocal compliments that had passed between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia, and to the fact that the

Minister of Agriculture desiring to taka a part in military affairs, the Minister of Militia was desirous to Join to his more warlike accomplishments something of the arts of peace, and so took an interest in agricultural matters. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, between the warlike desires of the peaceful minister and the peaceful desires of the warlike minister, poor Mr. Williams got into serious difficulty and was unable to handle a scheme he had devised for establishing cold storage facilities iu St. John, N.B. It is to be regretted that the Minister of Militia in discussing this matter should have lost his temper. There was nothing in the well-reasoned speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) which ought to have aroused to such a degree the ire and the wrath of the minister of war. There were no insinuations made in that speech.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend did not hear the concluding part of that speech. If it were said of him he would not have stood it half so well as I did.


George Eulas Foster: The concluding part was a suggestion.


Mr. FOWLER.: Sometimes the sting is in the tail, and perhaps the minister thought so in this case. Anyway it is just as well not to be too thin skinned. This is a matter of great public interest and my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) had a perfect right to bring it to the attention of parliament, and because he did so was no reason why the Minister of Militia should have fallen upon him in such a savage, fierce and vindictive manner. Well, I do not intend to follow that line of debate ; I dont be lieve in it. I dont think we should make these personal attacks on members of the House, and I shall therefore discuss this 'question from the information before us, and from the knowledge we have of the circumstances of the case leaving personalities aside as they should be left aside in discussing public matters. The facts of this case are: Some time in the latter part of the year 1905 Mr. F. E. Williams of St. John, who is a merchant of considerable prominence and not the kind of person the Minister of Militia would lead us to believe, took an interest in cold storage matters in his city. By the way I was surprised to hear the Minister of Militia speak of Mr. Williams as he did; I was more surprised at that than I was at his references to the member for North Toronto. The member for North Toronto was in the House able and willing to defend himself, but Mr. Williams was absent, and so it is the more regrettable that the minister should have made disparaging statements about him. I quote from the speech of the Minister of Militia:
As to this particular cold storage establishment, we have been told a great deal about a man named Williams.
Now, Mr. Williams is a prominent merchant of the city of St. John and a prominent Liberal as well, and it was quite unnecessary for the Minister of Militia to refer to him as ' a man named Williams.' True, he is a man, and true he is named Williams, but we all understand the idea the minister wished to convey; we all know he wished to underrate Mr. Williams and to minimize his importance, and so he spoke of him not as Mr. F. E. Williams, a prominent merchant of St. John, but he designated him in a curt and disparaging way as ' a man named Williams.' I quote further from the Minister of Militia in referring to Mr. Williams:
He says he was engaged an the fish business though it turned out he was engaged in the pork business.
I defy the minister to point, in the letters of Mr. Williams to the department, to any statement of his that he was in the fish business. The Minister of Militia has gone out of his way to attack the veracity of Mr. Williams, and that attack was unwarranted and unsupported by facts. The minister further says:
He wished to get from the Department of Marine and Fisheries a grant not of 30 per cent but of 50 per cent in order to enable him to freeze bait and carry on his own line of business.
Now, if he was not in the fish business he would not be carrying on his own line of business in freezing bait. The minister seems to have attributed some evil motive to Mr. Williams in trying to get 50 per cent, but Mr. Williams in his letters points out that in every case the bait freezing establishments iu Nova Scotia receive 50 per cent of the cost of their plant, and so when Mr. Williams was asking 50 per cent for a bait freezing plant to serve the fishermen of the Bay of Fundy, he was asking exactly for the same terms they were getting in Nova Scotia. Is there anything unfair or improper in that. Is there any reason in it why the Minister of Militia should sneer at this gentleman and insinuate that he was grasping enough to try and get something he was not entitled to ? I think this is very unfair on the part of the Minister of Militia. It says in other words, he wished to be given a system of cold storage which would subsidize directly his own line of business and not a system of cold storage on a large scale which would be of great advantage to the foreign export as well as the local business. As a matter of fact Mr. Williams was not engaged in the fish business. He wished to establish a bait freezing plant in the city of St. John, and asked for assistance to that freezing plant



on exactly tlie same terms as had been given by the Department of Marine and Fisheries to similar establishments In Nova Scotia. Supposing that he had advanced his own business by getting cold storage in St. John. The Minister of Militia states that he started into this because he was largely interested in fruit culture in his own district, therefore he would be equally blamable in desiring to get some special benefit for himself on account of the business in which he was engaged. The minister said:
Mr. Williams wanted something which would particularly benefit his own line of business and he made certain applications and had certain negotiations with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). But owing to a change of policy in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Williams failed to get what he wanted; and not being pleased, he endeavoured to solace himself by abusing me. Seeing that even he could not get something for nothing.
He could not get something for nothing. Did he ask for something for nothing? Did the industry with which the Minister of Militia was connected get something for nothing? Is that the inference we are to draw? It seems to me that is the only inference we can draw if we are to take for granted the statement of the Minister of Militia that Mr. Williams, in asking for this subsidy which the Department of Agriculture had already been authorized to give, was trying to get something for nothing and therefore guilty of reprehensible conduct. What are we to say of a cabinet minister who is asking for exactly the same thing ? Is his conduct to be all right while that of Williams, who does not have the advantage of a seat in this House, is to be all wrong? Yet that is the only fault the minister can find with Williams, that he was trying to get something for nothing, and because he could not get it was abusing the minister. Surely the minister, having been successful in obtaining what he was after and Mr. Williams having been turned down in trying to get what he was after, should have just a little of the milk of human kindness in him and should have said that Williams was a little sore and so should not be blamed so much. I think that Mr. Williams* conduct has been reasonable and proper. I do not think he can be blamed much for having lost his temper under the circumstances. He had all his life been an active Liberal worker in St. John, he was prominent in the councils of the Liberal party there, he was only asking what every one had the right to receive if they came within the conditions laid down in the grant and be found himself up against an influence he did not expect to have to butt against, he found, even although he had engaged the services of the Minister of Railways and Canals and sup- 1 Mr. FOWLER.
posed that minister was going to be powerful enough to gain what he wanted, that that minister was powerless in the fact of another minister who had greater influence over the Minister of Agriculture, and it was perhaps natural that Mr. Williams should feel a little sore on the subject. It would not be necessary to speak of the history of this case had not the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) denied that the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) has any direct or indirect interest in this business. It does seem to me that the Minister of Militia stated in so many words in his speech that he was interested in this business.


Frederick William Borden: No.


George William Fowler: Did I misunderstand?


Frederick William Borden: I did not intend to. I stated that I had an interest and then I introduced two or three sentences between that statement and the discussion of what that interest was. Then I resumed and said : I said I had an interest-and then I explained what the interest was.


George William Fowler: Then I take it that the hon. gentleman denies that he has any interest in this business except his interest as a public man


Frederick William Borden: Precisely.
Mr. FOWLER-in something that he believes to be for the benefit of the country. All I can say to that for the moment before I analyse the evidence is that the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence has manifested a greater and deeper personal interest in this particular line of business for the improvement of the country than he has in any other line in which only his general interest as a public man is concerned.
I was speaking of the history of this case. It began, as I say, with the application that was made to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries by F. E. Williams. The negotiations between Mr. Williams and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries continued for some time. Finally the Minister of Marine and Fisheries shunted Mr. Williams and his application off on the Minister of Agriculture. We find that on October 13, 1906. about a year after the Williams application was first made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries-and it seems to me that that application having been made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and passed on by that department to the Department of Agriculture it should dat< from the time it was made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries which beyond all question would make Mr. Williams the first applicant for the subsidy for the city of St. John-a company was incorporated called the Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company, Limited.

As I understand it, the moving spirit in the Incorporation and formation of that company was the Minister of Militia and Defence. I understand that the Minister of Militia and Defence will not deny that and in fact although the minister is not included among the incorporators, nor is Mr. Macoun his son-in-law and another of the active spirits in the promotion of this company, although the names of the incorporators are simply men of straw used for the purpose of the incorporation of the company, clerks and the like of that-


Frederick William Borden: Clerks in the law firm that got out the charter. .


George William Fowler: Yes, that is the common way of incorporating these companies; afterwards the true people come in and take up the stock.


Frederick William Borden: As a matter of fact the company was never organized.


George William Fowler: It was incorporated but not organized.


Frederick William Borden: Yes. It is only fair to say that Mr. R. J. Graham, the other gentleman to whom my hon. friend referred as having been interested


George William Fowler: Will refer.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN-agreed, in case the company were finally organized, to become the managing director of the company but that point was never reached.


George William Fowler: We find then that the Minister of Militia and Defence and his son-in-law, Mr. Macoun, and Mr. Graham were the moving spirits in connection with the incorporation of this particular company. That was on October 13, and on December 4 the Minister of Agriculture announced in the House his intention to give a subsidy of 30 per cent on the cost of cold storage plants. That 30 per cent was to include not only the cost of the building, but the cost of the site as well. That is a matter of some importance and I remember that when this matter was introduced by the Minister of Agriculture in the House I opposed the inclusion of the cost of the site in reckoning the amount of subsidy to which the builders were entitled, because in many instances free sites would be given -and just that same case arose here.
I have no doubt that when the cost of this building was made up, for which the amount of subsidy was asked, the value of the site was included.


Frederick William Borden: I do not think so.


George William Fowler: I think it was, and in addition to the value of the site being included, I think there was included the amount of stock given to the gentlemen 2974
promoting the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company ; because any one who has seen those buildings must come to the conclusion that no amount of $150,000 could possibly have been expended upon them, not even on a government contract. On the 4th of December, 1000, as I have stated, the Minister of Agriculture announced his policy of paying 30 per cent to those who established cold storage plants throughout Canada. On the 5th of December, 1906, the very next day, an application was made by L. S. Macoun for aid for a cold storage plant in the city of St. John. He did not lose much time in getting in the application. It would almost look as if the application were waiting to be put in-waiting for the announcement to be made, with the knowledge that it was to be made. That may not have been the case ; I am only saying what it looks like. Mr. Williams did not lose much time, although he had no means of knowing beforehand the policy of the Minister of Agriculture; for we find that on the 7th of December, 1906, three days after the announcement to the House, in which there was time for the announcement to be telegraphed to St. John, Mr. Williams put in his application to the Minister of Agriculture. Negotiations then proceeded between the parties. There was a considerable volume of correspondence between them, but nothing of very great moment until we come to the 11th of June, 1907, when Mr. R. J. Graham applies for the bonus, the same gentleman who was interested with the Minister of Militia in the Canadian Lands and Produce Company, the abortive company that died stillborn Up to this time Mr. Graham, Mr. McAvity, Mr. A. I. Trueman and others, who were interested in what was known as the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, were at arms-length with each other. One party had the ear of the provincial government, through a former partner of Mr. Trueman, who was at that time at the head of the provincial government of New Brunswick. There are people who are suspicious enough to say that the name of A. I. Trueman, though it appears there, was really only used for the name of somebody else.


Mr. A. IC. MACLEAN.: Who ?


George William Fowler: Ask him and you will find out. I am not referring to anybody ; I am simply saying that there are those who say that the name of Mr. Trueman was used for somebody else, they do not say for whom. They leave that to the imagination of other people, and my hon. friend has a very vivid imagination when it suits him, and he can perhaps supply the name of the other person. I say that at that time the two parties, the one having the ear of the provincial government, and the other, com, posed of the Minister of Militia, Mr. Macoun and Mr. Graham, having the ear of

the federal government. They were not working in harmony. That was on the 11th of June, 1907. But between the 11th of June, 1907, and the 17th of August, 1907, a change took place. They felt that it would not be well to fight, because if they united together, they could better divide the spoil among them. They were getting 30 per cent from the federal government and those who took the provincial subsidy were to get $00,000 towards their plant.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, no ; a
guarantee of bonds.


George William Fowler: Bonds and interest guaranteed-practically the same thing. If they made money, all right; if they lost, the promoters would not lose anything. Well, they thought it best to join forces and put up a plant. With the $60,000 that they were to get from the provincial government by way of guarantee of bonds and guarantee of interest, and with the $30,000 of subsidy from the Dominion, supposing the plant would cost $100,000, they would get $90,000. This would mean that they would only have to put up $10,000. But we know how these things are worked. They are worked in a variety of ways. By the padding of accounts, by the putting in that for which no money has been paid, such as good will, and that sort of thing, it would be possible to bring the cost of the property up so much that the $60,000 and the 30 per cent would more than cover the cost of the building, leaving a decent margin to the gentlemen who were engaged in the promotion of the company. That something like this did occur we have evidence in the letter of Mr. F. E. Williams to the Prime Minister. Opposed to that we have the absolute denial of the Minister of Militia as to any conversation having taken place between them. Now, I do not propose to judge between these two men-the one a prominent Liberal and merchant of good standing and character in the city of St. John, the other the Minister of Militia, a gentleman enjoying the confidence of his constituents in the province of Nova Scotia, enjoying the confidence of his colleagues in the government, and it is presumed enjoying the confidence of a majority of the members of this House. We have the two statements diametrically opposed, Mr. Williams asserting that the Minister of Militia said to him that by the uniting of forces, by getting an amalgamation of the St. John party, who had the ear of the provincial government, with the Ottawa party, who had the ear of the federal government, they would be able not only to build this plant with the subsidies and subventions, but divide a decent profit as well.


Frederick William Borden: Is that statement attributed to me ?


George William Fowler: Yes.


George William Fowler: 


Frederick William Borden: AVell, it is absolutely false.


George William Fowler: I have already stated that tlie minister absolutely denies this, and I say that I do not propose to judge between him and Mr. Williams. I merely say tills. Let us look at the question of interest. On the one hand, Mr. Williams' evidence perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt, from the fact that he is a disappointed applicant for these very subventions and subsidies, while on the other hand should not a certain amount of doubt gather about the statement of the Minister of Militia from the fact that he is as intensely interested in denying that any such conversation ever took place ? So that when we come to take the statements of these two gentlemen, equally worthy of credence from the positions they occupy, they are equally clouded with suspicion, and it is difficult to judge between them.


Frederick William Borden: I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) does not wish to take an unfair advantage. I think his statement is altogether out of order. Mr. Williams is not a member of this House. But, whether my hon. friend believes me or not, or whether he believes Mr. Williams or not, I think he is bound to accept my statement.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is the rule of the House.


Mr. A. MARTIN (Queens).: It was not the rule in the other case.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Martin) should not say that. The other was the case of a dispute between two members of the House about a matter of common knowledge, which was an entirely different proposition.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Militia has entirely misunderstood me, and I was trying hard to make myself plain. I do not refuse to accept the word of the Minister of Militia, but I was pointing out how difficult it was to decide between these two gentlemen, they being equally respectable and each having an interest.


Frederick William Borden: I am afraid my hon. friend wanted an inference to be drawn.


George William Fowler: I did not draw any inference. But the Minister of Militia is so accustomed to drawing inferences in order to make charges against the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that he cannot cease even in his own case. Now, the peace-pipe was smoked, and on August 17 there had been an amalgamation of the interests of these conflicting parties. On that date Mr. R. J. Graham notified the department of the amalgamation of interests of the Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage Company and the New Brunswick Cold

Storage Company and asked that all the interests should be transferred-that is correct, I think-to the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company.


Frederick William Borden: As I understand it, Mr. Graham had applied in his own name and had actually made a contract with the Department of Agriculture, but later he asked to have his own contract transferred to the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company.


George William Fowler: I think the Minister of Militia is misinformed with respect to that. He must admit that up to the time of the amalgamation, Mr. Graham was acting for himself and the other promoters of the Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage Company, and that when he made his application on June 11, it was not for himself, although it might be in his own name. Surely the minister will not say that it was for himself solely, absolutely and independent of the other gentlemen, Mr. Macoun and the minister himself? There never was an intimation that Mr. Graham was acting for himself, although the application was made by him. Mr. Graham himself does not claim that he was acting for himself.


Frederick William Borden: The contract with the government will show.


George William Fowler: It does not show anything. It might be made in Mr. Graham's name, and yet he might be acting as trustee for other parties.


Frederick William Borden: If he were trustee, it would be so stated, would it not?


George William Fowler: Not necessarily. Why should it be stated?


Frederick William Borden: I should think it would be.


George William Fowler: Take the case of a man who holds timber licenses, for instances. Why, I myself hold timber licenses that do not belong to me individually; I hold them for others. My name does not appear as trustee, but appears as if I were the individual owner. But I am not the owner. That is the way it is always done.
Now, on August 17 Mr. Graham gives notice that the interests are amalgamated. On September 1 the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company is organized, with R. J. Graham as president, L. S. Macoun as secretary-treasurer. What stronger evidence could you require that the Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage Company had been absorbed? Because it was not a case of amalgamation, but of absorption. This company had absorbed the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company which is the fact-


Frederick William Borden: I have told my hon. friend that the company was never organized. How could it absorb anything if it was never organized?


George William Fowler: It was incorporated.


Frederick William Borden: But it was never organized.


George William Fowler: What had that to do with it?


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman said the Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage Company absorbed the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company. How could it if it was never even organized?


George William Fowler: The minister is something like the man who sent for a lawyer to get him out of jail. When the lawyer heard the man's case he said : ' They could not put you in jail for that ; it would be impossible.' But the man's answer was :
' It may be impossible, but I am in jail just the same.' The minister may say that this absorption could not take place ; all I say is that it did. In this Canada Lands Produce Company how many people have we been able to trace? (I do not refer to the names of the incorporators, because, as the minister himself admits, they were simply clerks). We find that the men connected with it were the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), L. S. Macoun and Mr. It. J. Graham. I care not whether the company was organized or not-it consisted of these individuals-just as the Ross Rifle Company, the Minister of Militia tells us, consists of Sir Charles Ross solely, so this company consisted of the three individuals. Now, we find two of these individuals in the amalgamated concern, one as president and the other as secretary-treasurer, occupying the important positions in connection with the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company. So when I say that it was not a case of amalgamation, but of absorption, I think I was not far from the mark. On 1st September, 1907, we find this company incorporated, Mr. R. J. Graham president, Mr. L. S. Macoun secretary-treasurer, Mr. A. J. McAvity, Mr. A. I. Trueman and Mr. Henry R. Ross. Now, Mr. McAvity was a man very close to the government then holding power in the province of New Brunswick, a very close friend of the then premier of the province.


William Pugsley: Who was the premier at that time?
Mr. FOWLER, I think that September 1, was just after the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) had been translated ; I think he had not changed his form on August 17, certainly not on June 11. But although the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) may have retired as the nominal premier of the province of New Brunswick, he continued as the actual premier up to March 3, 1908, when the people took a hand in the matter and made a change tham-1 selves. While not the nominal, he was the

actual leader during that time, the actual premier, and the other gentlemen were simply puppets to be moved as he pulled the strings.


William Pugsley: You flatter me too much.


George William Fowler: Though I am bound to say that his pulling of the strings was not done in a very masterly manner. Perhaps the string broke. Mr. A. I. Trueman was a very worthy gentleman. He has since died. He was at one time a partner of the present Minister of Public Works and expremier of the province of New Brunswick. While nominally he had for some time ceased to be a partner, in fact the offices were the same, and were never changed. They occupied the same offices, particularly about the time I think that the hon. minister came up here.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me to correct him ? (He is entirely in error. When Mr. Trueman and I dissolved partnership, we actually dissolved, and never from the time we dissolved was I interested in his business, nor was he interested in my business. It is true, he had his own office and I had my office; but there was a general office which was occupied by the respective clerks for both of us. But so far as our business was concerned, it was absoluetly separate; and as I say, neither one of us had the slightest interest of any kind or description, direct or indirect, in the business of the other.


George William Fowler: Now my hon. friend has proved just what I said. What different position would the minister have us think was occupied by these two gentlemen than any other parties. Is there not in every case, where they are able to afford it, a general office, and a private office for each member of the firm ? That is the way it was here.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman, notwithstanding my statement that we were not in partnership, and had not been in partnership for fifteen years, persists in saying we were. The hon. gentleman made the statement that we only nominally ceased to be partners. Now I think my hon. friend will accept my statement, and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, whether he should not do so.


George William Fowler: Now, Mr. Speaker, I never made any such statement. Let me repeat what I did say. I said that at one time these gentlemen were in partnership, and that at a certain time they, nominally, so far as I knew, ceased to be partners. At the time, and up to the time of the removal of the hon. gentleman to this scene, they occuped the same offices. That is what I said, and I say that any inference can be drawn from that state of facts. I never made any statement different from Mr. FOWLER.
what the hon. gentleman has made. When he got up and said that they occupied each their own private office and had a general office in common, I said that the same practice existed among other partners. I did not say that proved a partnership between these two gentlemen, I did not say anything of the kind. Therefore it is not necessary for me to accept the statement of the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: I understood that is what he said, that while we nominally ceased to be partners-the fair inference I drew from his remarks was that, while we nominally ceased to be partners, we were still real partners. If my hon. friend did not mean that, I cheerfully accept his denial.


George William Fowler: There my hon. friend goes again, just like the Minister of Militia and Defence drawing inferences. I am not responsible to this House for any inferences he may entertain, nor any meaning he may take. I am responsible to this House for what I state. I stated the matter as it was, and I am going to restate it. I am going to state that at one time the hon. gentleman and Mr. A. I. Trueman were partners; at a certain other itirne they nominally ceased to be partners. Perhaps they actually ceased; I uo not know, but I do know that they nominally ceased to be partners. 1 am going to state further than that, that from the time


William Pugsley: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. gentleman should not accept my statement, that for fifteen years or thereabouts we had not been in partnership, and had no interest directly or indirectly in each other's business.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not understand that the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) refused to accept the statement of the Minister of Public Works.


George William Fowler: I certainly did not refuse to accept the statement of the hon. gentleman. It would be almost high treason for any one of us to refuse to accept any statement of the Minister of Public Works. I would be looked upon as a man almost crazy if I refused to accept his statement. Now that is with respect to Mr. A. I. Trueman. The other director is Henry R. Ross, a young man whom I know thoroughly, a very bright young man, who has no financial interest in this company, but who is its manager at St. John

because this company extends its operations beyond St. John, it has another plant in the province of Nova Scotia, I think two.


Frederick William Borden: None, so far I know.


George William Fowler: No, the New Brunswick Cold 'Storage Company. They run it under
9357	MAY 29, 1908	9358
another name over there. What is it there ? the Nova Scotia Cold Storage Company? It is run under another name over
tlibre.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman, I am sure, does not wish to misrepresent me. There is no cold storage company in Halifax, so far as I know, except the bait freezing establishment to which his friend Mr. Williams refers in his letter. That is the only one I know of.


George William Fowler: Is not Mr. Graham connected with another cold storage company in Nova Scotia ?	*


Frederick William Borden: There is none whatever.


George William Fowler: I thought there was one in Nova Scotia. I accept the statement of the Minister of Militia, because I know that the Minister of Militia knows.


Frederick William Borden: I certainly do.


George Eulas Foster: He knows all about it.


Frederick William Borden: I know several things, more than you wish I did.


George William Fowler: Now I want to refer to an editorial which appears in the St. John ' Telegraph.' It shows that the suspicion that the Minister of Militia is interested in this company, is not confined to the wicked opposition members of this House, but it is a suspicion that is widespread, as widespread as the knowledge that a cold storage company exists in the city of St. John. This editorial appears in the * Daily Telegraph ' of Thursday, May 28, which arrived here to-day. It is a very clever, bright, readable editorial, and I am sure all the members on both sides of the House will enjoy hearing it. It is headed ' Very cold storage ' :
In an evil moment the Hon. Sydney Fisher
I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not here.
-wrote a letter. He says a careless phrase slipped into it. Unfortunately the phrase he now describes as ' loose ' referred to his friend and colleague, Sir Frederick Borden, and the latter's interest in a cold storage promotion, or company, of which New Brunswick has heard much, and to which it has contributed more money than it likes to think about. Mr. F. E. Williams, of this city, wrote to Hon. Mr. Fisher to make application for a cold storage subsidy, and the Minister of Agriculture replied, intimating that the subsidy would go to a company in which the Minister of Militia was interested.
That certainly is borne out by the facts as disclosed in the correspondence.
The virtuous rage of Sir Frederick at being thus officially associated with a subsidy hunt must be imagined.
There, of course, the editor is drawing upon his imagination.
Hon. Mr. Fisher, in discussing the matter yesterday, when Mr. Foster brought up the chill but seasonable subject of cold storage, explained that when he said Sir Frederick was ' interested ' he did not employ the word in the narrow and commercial sense, but meant to convey the intelligence that Sir Frederick's benign interest in all matters of public welfare and progress embraced cold storage also.
That, I think, is a fair inference from the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture.
It is a pretty story, and no doubt Mr. Fisher told it with becoming gravity. Sir Frederick, too, may be disposed to applaud his colleague's interpretation of a phrase which the public might be inclined to view as, let ns say, awkward.
But one cold storage chapter leads inevitably to another. Keeping Hon. Mr. Fisher's loosely worded, or carelessly phrased, letter in mind, let us come down to the time of the recent change of government in New Bruns-w ick.
The Robinson government, by an order in council of which the mere taxpayers heard no whisper, agreed to give the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company an additional mark of esteem by guaranteeing an additional $30,000 worth of its bonds.
In addition to the $60,000 to which they were already entitled, in its dying moments, the Robinson government, under the tutelage of its preceptor, I have no doubt, passed an order in council giving an additional $30,000, making $90,000 altogether towards this cold storage construction in the city of St. John. The fact of the passing of that order in council was most carefully concealed from the people of New Brunswick during the elections that were held there. Although the financial condition of the country was gone into, although there was a joint meeting held at St. John at which the leaders of both parties spoke, although they discussed the financial affairs of the country, although the premier-I was just going to say the acting premier-himself spoke on that occasion, and although he professed to disclose all the financial obligations of the country, lie carefully concealed from his audience on that occasion and from the general public the knowledge that he had passed an order in council granting $30,000 more of a subsidy in this cold storage construction :
At that time the Robinson government designed to succeed itself in the esteem of the people whose credit it was pledging. The people had other plans, and these matured on March 3, when the government was routed at the polls. The cold storage company's relations with the old government had been cordial in the extreme, but a new king had arisen, and it was quite possible that he might not know Joseph. _ Also, he might be Inquisitive as to orders in council and have constitutional scruples.

While things were at this pass

Here is where the connection of the Minister of Militia and Defence comes In :
While things were at this pass Sir Frederick Borden came to St. John and called upon Hon. Mr. Hazen. He casually referred to the $30,000 guarantee, of which Mr. Hazen up to that time had never heard, and it is reported that he suggested the desirability of the government's ' seeing' the old government's thirty and 'raising it' ten thousand.
I am afraid that the editor has been in the habit of playing poker judging by the terms he uses :
Sir Frederick's son-in-law is one of the officers of the company. How is Sir Frederick's presence here on that occasion to be interpreted? Does it square with Hon. Mr. Fisher's theory that the Minister of Militia's interest in cold storage was general and patriotic and not confined to a particular project whose success was personally desired by him for the ordinary reasons?
The theory of subventions is that all applicants shall have equal opportunity to share the public money thus given to promote enterprises of publio benefit. How does that theory work out in this case? Was the opportunity of Mr. F. E. Williams equal to that of the men who had the energetic support of a cabinet minister? Possibly so, but the average citizen would as soon fire off a Ross rifle as believe it.
That, Sir, is how this matter is viewed by one of the leading newspapers of the maritime provinces, the leading paper in New Brunswick, published in the very city where the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company has its building and offices. It seems to me that we must come to the conclusion that the parties who were interested in the Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company, Limited, that company which was incorporated but never organized, are, with the exception of the Minister of Militia, who claims that he is not interested, the same parties who are interested in the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, because the same idea obtains all the way through. There was a time when the Minister of Militia admits that he was interested, but the Minister of Militia has not yet told us when his interest ceased. If he were interested in the first instance and if he is not interested now, there must have been a period when his interest ceased. I fail to see it. I have not found it. The minister has not told us when that was, but we have the facts before us that the minister has maintained the same apparent interest in this matter up to the present moment and that he has worked for the welfare of this enterprise as he did at the outset when he admits himself that he had more than an apparent interest in the matter, that he had more than the ordinary interest of a public man. Of course, in this House, when a minister .states that he has no actual interest in the matter we are bound, by the rules of parliamentary practice, to accept his


George William Fowler: statement, although the minister himself is more ready to ask for the application of that rule than he is to submit to it when asked by others. I think it is unfortunate that the minister should have imparted into this discussion a degree of bitterness that was unnecessary and which I, at any rate, have sought most strenuously to avoid.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) made some statements with respect to the conduct of the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain which were absolutely incorrect in so far as the facts are concerned. If the minister had taken the trouble to look up the authorities he certainly never would have made the statements he did make. He stated that Mr. Chamberlain, while still a member of the government, was largely concerned in companies which were doing business with the government. What are the facts ? I have the authority here. You will find it stated in the Parliamentary Debates, fourth series, from 5th December to 15th December, 1900, page 442. This matter came up in the House of Commons and it was discussed in a motion brought in by Mr. Lloyd George, one of the Welsh members, at present, I think, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it really amounted to a motion of censure upon the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain. This is what Mr. Chamberlain says :
When I went into public life I gave up private business altogether. I have done what I could, I defy anyone to do more to keep out of investments that seemed likely to bring me into relationship with the government or public works. I will take one case. I was a considerable shareholder in the Small Arms company and in another company, Kynochs.
That is the company which the Minister of Agriculture referred to.
Now, what did I do? I sold out of both companies, and I sold out of them at a loss.
That is what the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain said and when my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture cites the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain's case as a justification for a minister of the Crown being mixed up in a matter of this kind he certainly cites a case that is against him rather than for him. Then, there is another case which the hon. gentleman might have cited and that is a discussion in this House. The motion upon which it was based appears in the Journals of August 13. 1891. The discussion will be found in Volume II. of ' Hansard,' 1891, page 3827. This amendment to the motion to go into supply was moved by Sir Richard Cartwright, and seconded by Mr. Laurier, now the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada. This is the amendment :
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Cha:r, but that it be resolved: That the acceptance of gifts or testimonials of any kind on the part of ministers of the Crown or of

any member of their families from contractors, government officials or other persons having pecuniary relations with the government, is entirely opposed to sound principles of administration, and is calculated to bring parliamentary government into contempt, and that the example thus given tends to corrupt and demoralize the officials serving under ministers who have accepted or permitted the acceptance of gifts or testimonials as aforesaid.
I would ask the Minister of Public Works to pay particular attention to this because he has accepted a banquet gotten up for him by a contractor in the city of Montreal and presided over by that contractor.


William Pugsley: A very good banquet it was.


George William Fowler: I should judge so from some of the statements made by the hon. gentleman when that banquet was pretty well along. I should judge there was something at that banquet which loosens the tongue, gives rein to fancy, takes away from judgment and reason, and sometimes from veracity. I agree with the hon. gentleman that it was a good banquet and I should think he enjoyed to the full every thing that was at the banquet. Now, this resolution was seconded by the leader of the Minister of Public Works. We all know that the opinion which the Minister of Public Works entertains for his present leader has greatly changed in the past few years, and for that matter the opinion his leader held of him away back in 1896 appears to have changed also. However the opinion which the Minister of Public Works had of the present Prime Minister has changed very much for the better so far as the Prime Minister is concerned. This amendment to Supply was accepted by the government and the House was unanimous on it, and Sir Richard Cartwright made a speech and he was very vehement as he often was, and he said :
But I lay down, with all the emphasis in my power, I call upon this House and I call upon every honest man in this House and out of it, to stand by me in declaring that ministers of the Crown have no right whatever under any conceivable circumstances, to accept gifts from contractors or public servants, or persons having direct relations with the government. I have always held that ministers of the Crown were in a two-fold sense trustees. They are trustees of the people by right of the fact that they are the representatives of the people, hut they are more than that. They are the sworn and paid servants of the public; they are, therefore, doubly bound to see to it, that no act of theirs should bring their high office into contempt or should be likely in any way to interfere with the proper administration of constitutional government as we have it and understand it.
It does seem to me that this is very apposite to the present case. Here is the
Minister of Militia making application for a subsidy for his own private purpose as it was in the first instance-I am not speaking of the latter part now, but as it was up to the time the Minister of Agriculture wrote this letter-and it does seem to me in that respect the Minister of Militia was blamable.
'Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. I never make an application for my own private purpose and the Minister of Agriculture has said so.


George William Fowler: Oh, no.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, yes.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Agriculture does not say so; the Minister of Agriculture says exactly the opposite. I will read his letter again;


Frederick William Borden: Read his
speech.


George William Fowler: Oh, his speech; that is a different thing entirely.


Frederick William Borden: It is more recent.


George William Fowler: Here is the letter written by the Minister of Agriculture when he had no idea this matter was to be discussed in parliament. Here is the letter not couched in language for the purpose of concealing facts but for the purpose of disclosing facts. Of course the Minister of Agriculture says he used a loose expression and now he comes to parliament and tries to fix it. I do not say that he wilfully prevaricates. I would not say that for two reasons; One is that it would be unparliamentary, the other is that I am frank enough to say I don't think it would be in accordance with the facts. But here is the letter written to Mr. Williams in which the Minister of Agriculture says :


Messrs F.   E.@: Williams,
?2 and 96 Princess street, St. John, New Brunswick.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th. I may say that we have not yet made any grant for a cold storage warehouse in St. John. Sir Frederick Borden has made application, on behalf of a company with which he is connected, and 1 have viewed his application very favourably.
There is what the Minister of Agriculture writes In plain English. He says the Minister of Militia made application on behalf of a company with which he was connected and in that statement the Minister of Agriculture was disclosing the absolute fact as it was up to that time. Either the Minister of Militia had made that application for a company with which he was connected and the Minister of Agriculture was stating the fact, or else the Minister of Militia had made no application and the Minister of Agriculture was not stating

a fact. I do not see bow the Minister of Agriculture could have misunderstood the Minister of Militia in respect to his connection with the company. It would be impossible for such a misunderstanding to arise between two ministers who fight like blazes, as Mr. Tarte told us, I could understand it; but here are two ministers who don't fight at ail, and the one of whom is always trying to help the other. When the Minister of Agriculture got into difficulty with Lord Dundonald the Minister of Militia out of the friendship he had for the Minister of Agriculture was willing to sacrifice the officer that he knew to be eminently qualified for his position. The Minister of Militia out of the great friendship he entertained for the Minister of Agriculture was willing to accept the odium for dismissing the hero Dundonald, and the Minister of Militia and the ministry as well did incur a great deal of odium for that act. So I say if this letter had been written by a minister concerning another minister between whom and himself there were no feelings of accord, I could quite understand how there might be a misunderstanding, but in this case it was utterly impossible, and the Minister of Militia must have given the Minister of Agriculture to understand that he was connected with this company. So, Sir, I think, in view of all these circumstances to which I have alluded, in view of the evidence disclosed in the letters, that the Minister of Militia is not without blame in this matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I desire to occupy the attention of the House for just a few moments. After listening to the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on Wednesday last, which occupied more than two hours and consisted of numerous quotations from papers, upon the public records, from which he read at unnecessary length, the fact came back to me that the motion before this House was that you do leave the chair so that the House might resolve itself into Committee of Supply, and I was impressed during the time the hon. member for North Toronto (Sir. Foster) was addressing the House and after reading his speech subsequently, that the time of this House might be better occupied in proposing or carrying out some amendment to the rules of this House which would prevent such unreasonable consumption of time as has occurred during the last few weeks in this House and the great delay in the transaction of public business which is much to the detriment of the public service. I presume that of all countries in the world in which there is any form of parliamentary government, Canada is the sole country which would permit such an abuse of privilege as prevails in this parliament; no other parliament would tolerate for one Mr. FOWLER.
moment such unwarranted consumption of time and neglect of public business. And, Mr. Speaker, I submit that where the political head of an organized political party, under a statute of the parliament of this country, is in the receipt of an indemnity almost equal to that of the Prime Minister, he is in honour and all morals bound to exercise some control over the party which follows him. It is not fair, it is not intelligent or reasonable that the leader of a political party who is in the receipt of an indemnity, or whatever you may call it, can free himself from the obligation to pay some little respect to what is the real business of parliament.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: That is what hurts you.	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not one of those who would object to reasonable opposition even if it was opposed to my own opinion; I have sufficient knowledge of what political warfare is to recognize that. But surely there is some limit. We have members of parliament standing up here openly announcing that if the provisions of a certain Bill were eliminated the estimates would go through at once, intimating that they have no objection to the estimates.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) ended his long speech the other day by suggesting that the Minister of Militia and Defence should resign his seat in the cabinet and not further compromise the government. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is too free, as he was reminded the other night by his own friend and political ally the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes), to suggest wrong-doing by his political opponents. During his whole speech the hon. member for North Toronto was unfair to the Minister of Militia and Defence. His whole speech was but a repetition of innuendoes which could not be supported by the evidence which was before the House, or by the papers which were upon the table of the House, and yet my hon. friend took great umbrage when he received a slight reprimand from the Minister of Militia and Defence. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) should remember that anybody who has skated on such thin ice as he has and who has sometimes fallen through that his provoking style of discussion of public affairs must provoke recrimination.
I could not but smile this afternoon when I heard the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) deprecating any excesses in parliamentary speech, particularly of a personal nature, and then saying that he would not condescend to such a mean manner of speech and never had done so.
I am in the judgment of the House when I say I am telling the simple truth in stating

that the hon. gentleman's speech from beginning to end was unfair and unwarranted. He would accept no statement of correction from any hon. gentleman opposite. He did not, I think, candidly accept the explanation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) that a certain gentleman was not his partner, and he made the statement that in St. John it was generally understood that Mr. Trueman was but nominally interested in this company and that his name stood for the name of somebody else.
In this discussion two ideas have been developed by hon. gentlemen opposite. One Is that the Minister of Militia and Defence was interested in this corporation which received a subsidy under the Cold Storage Act passed some two or three years ago by this parliament. The second is that this corporation was assisted too largely by the government of Canada. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) the other day repeatedly made the insinuation that the Minister of Militia and Defence was a shareholder, was financially interested in this corporation, and he quoted from many letters to sustain this contention of his. Now there were upon the record two letters, one addressed to the Minister of Agriculture by Mr. Macoun stating that the Minister of Militia was not financially interested in this corporation and that he was not then a shareholder or the owner of a share of stock therein, and the other from the Minister of Militia and Defence stating that he never was interested in that corporation and did not now hold stock in it. Then later we had in the address of the Minister of Militia and Defence his own explanation of what interest he did have in the corporation and this I desire to place before the House. I think it was a fair and reasonable statement for him to make and it furnishes to the House very clear information as to the interest of the minister in this promotion. He said in part :
While I was in England in 1906 application was made under instructions given by me and Mr. Graham jointly for the incorporation of a compamy. It was intended, I may say at once and frankly, that my properties in Kings county, orchards and farms should he made a part of this company, and Mr. Graham, of Belleville, I believe, a prominent Conservative, a great fruit dealer and well up in cold storage and all matters pertaining to agriculture, was to have taken an interest and to put his properties into the company in the same wa^ as mine were to be put in, and we were to accept bonds and a certain amount of stock for these properties. It was expected that money would be raised in England to carry on the business, and it was expected also that a portion of the money would undoubtedly be invested in the establishment of cold storage plants in different parts of Canada
That was a clear, clean, business proposition, in which Mr. Graham and the Minister of Militia agreed to pool their interests and
place them in the hands of one corporation, and they were to receive, as part of the consideration for the sale, bonds and stock, of the company. The establishment of cold storage was to be an incident in that promotion. If after that organization was completed, it became entitled under an Act of the parliament of Canada to a subsidy for cold storage purposes, I submit that there could be no objection to that, even if the Minister of Militia was in it. But tbq Minister of Militia saw that it might be open to criticism, so far as he was concerned, and he decided to withdraw. He says :
This was all arranged before it was expected that any policy such as that afterwards decided upon would be brought down by the government.
At the time the organization was proposed, the Cold Storage Act had not been placed on the statute-book.
The minister goes on to say :
When the Minister of Agriculture saw fit to adopt the policy of aiding, somewhat largely, cold storage, I felt that, so far as I was concerned, it would be undesirable for me to own stock in any company which was receiving from the government a subsidy, although, under the law, I do not know that it would have been. I would have been going beyond my right in doing so. Then it was that I told Mr. Graham that some other means must be taken to carry on the cold-storage project in the city of St. John and elsewhere.
Now, I submit that the course pursued by the Minister of Militia and Defence was highly commendable, and that he did everything to destroy the criticism that might have been made had he remained interested in the original project. That project was abandoned. Then the Minister of Militia admits frankly that he was interested in the conclusion of the project which he and Mr. Graham had in mind, and I suppose he lent his sympathy to it. Why should he not do so ? Was it not his duty, as a member of parliament, as a minister of the Crown, as one interested in the export of agricultural produce and its preservation prior thereto, to lend to that project his active sympathy and support ? The question is this :	Was that support of a nature
which might possibly be construed as a violation of the Independence of Parliament Act ? There were apparently two applicants for this subsidy, Mr. Williams and tilt New Brunswick Cold Storage Company. I might preface that by saying that the Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company was never organized ; it never became a live organization, and it was eventually abandoned. Mr. Graham and Mr Macoun became identified in interest with the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, and there the connection of the Minister of Militia with the project positively ceased. Now, I deny that theie was more than one applicant for cold storage aid after

the Cold Storage Act passed. The hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) denied the statement made by the Minister of Militia that Mr. Williams bad stated that he was in the fish, business. Well, I have in my hand a letter of March 1, 1906, addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries by Mr. Williams, in which he says :
The undersigned is engaged in the city of St. John, N.B., in carrying on a fish business, and is about to enter more largely in the business.
That statement the hon. member for Kings and Albert denied most vehemently. He denied that Mr. Williams was engaged in the fish business, or that he ever said he was.
Sir FREDERICK! BORDEN. As a matter of fact, he said he was when he was not.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The minister said he wds not engaged in the fish business, and that is what the hon. member for Kings and Albert said.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member for Kings and Albert had before him the records before parliament. That is all I have, and in those records Mr. Williams states, in a letter to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that he is engaged in the fish business and that he proposed to enlarge it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman seems more interested in correcting the statement of the hon. member for Kings and Albert than he does in getting at the fact.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: profit left. Any fair-minded man reading the letters to Mr. Williams as they appear upon the files to-day must necessarily come to the conclusion, first that Mr. Williams never intended entering upon a project such as was contemplated to be subsidized by the Cold Storage Act, and that he exhibited no business acumen whatever. His letters to the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture in almost every case were not couched in terms likely to emanate from a man of good business standing. He insinuates in one letter that the Minister of Militia stated that the enterprise could be floated out of the subsidies they were about to receive from the Dominion and provincial governments and leave a construction profit besides. The Minister of Militia denies that. He could well deny it; and it would not be necessary to have his denial to know that the statement of Mr. Williams was absolutely false and financially impossible.
Now, let me say a few words on the financial aspect of this matter. The hou. senior member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) discussing this matter the other day, said:
We have to take the figures as they are put in the official correspondence, and the claim for the 30 per cent subsidy was on an expenditure of $125,000. If that statement is correct this fortunate company obtains in guarantees and subsidies from the Nova Scotia and Dominion governments $127,500 for building a plant which cost $125,000.
That statement was absolutely unfounded. No person reading the record, even carelessly, could reach such a conclusion. Any hon. gentleman who would give the matter even casual consideration should be unwilling to make such a statement in this House upon his responsibility as a member. In the first place, the company has received from the New Brunswick government only a guarantee of $00,000 principal and interest. They have received from the government of Canada $15,000. So, at the most, this is only $75,000. And the statement is made that they have already expended over $109,000. It is evident from this statement of facts that those interested had not failed to put into the enterprise some of their own capital or the capital of somebody else. But the statement is not as good as that for the company. The Minister of Militia has stated, I believe, that the company has spent $165,000. I am advised privately that it has spent $169,500. Let us take it at $165,000. Now as against til's, they have received the guarantee of the Province of New Brunswick upon $60,000 worth of 4 per cent bonds. I do not know whether these bonds have been sold. I should be very much surprised indeed if this enterprise has been able, during the last twelve or eighteen months, to sell these bonds. But if they have pledged them as collateral with any banking intitution in
this country, I venture the statement they would not get more than 90 for them. This would give them $54,000. Add the $15,000 received from the Dominion government, and you find a total of $69,000 of subvention from both governments against an expenditure of $169,000. Yet hon. gentlemen talk glibly about the construction of the whole enterprise out of subventions with a construction profit besides. The purpose of aiding these cold storage plants was a very proper one, and I believe the policy will do a great deal for Canada. This plant should do a great deal particularly for St. John. It does not necessarily benefit the province of New Brunswick alone, for Ontario and Quebec will, perhaps, derive greater advantage, as they are large exporters of perishable food stuffs through the port of St. John in the fall and winter seasons. This subsidy of 30 per cent payable by the Department of Agriculture is not, it must be remembered, handed over to the corporation at once. They receive 15 per cent of the cost upon completion of the plant. Assuming the cost in this case at $165,000, they would receive $24,750 upon completion of the plant. They have received only $15,000. In December, 1908, they would receive 7 per cent more or $11,550; in December, 1909, they would receive $3,300; in December, 1910, $3,300; in December, 1911, $3,300; in December, 1912 $3,300, or a total of $49,500. Yet hon. gentlemen speak as if this full subvention of 30 per cent is taken from the public treasury and handed over immediately to the corporation. Such is not the fact. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) knew that. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) knew it. The hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) knew it. Yet these gentlemen deliberately make their statement in a form which shows that their desire is to make the country believe that this company has received $49,000 or $50,000 from the government of Canada, and $60,000 from the New Brunswick government, neither of which is correct. The purpose of distributing this subvention of 30 per cent paid by the Dominion of Canada over a period of seven years was a good one. It was anticipated that any cold storage project in St. John, Halifax or elsewhere would not be a profitable enterprise for some few years at least. I take it that the purpose of the subvention was to aid the operation of the plant after its completion rather than to aid the construction. I think that was a very wise provision. Were this subvention paid immediately after construction, there would be a great opportunity for persons to make a profit on construction, and then, in the event of the enterprise proving financially disastrous, they could well afford to permit it to end there.
Now, these are the only two features of


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: I think perhaps if the people of this country had some knowledge of the manner in which the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) deals with what he is pleased to term the important business interests of the country, if they had the same acquaintance with his conduct in dealing with these matters as members of this House have, I think his speech on this question would at least provoke a smile. He has found fault with my hon. friend from North Toronto for having introduced this subject and brought on this discussion. His principal objection to the discussion has been that it is not of sufficient importance to warrant us in devoting so much time to it. Well, Sir, it is really refreshing, to me at least, having some knowledge of the manner in which the hon. gentleman conducts himself in the Public Accounts Committee, to learn that he has experienced a change of mind, and I hope a change of intention for the future, and that he will no longer follow a course in the Public Accounts Committee which has won for him the reputation of being one of the chief obstructionists. I am sorry that this discussion has caused him such a shock at seeing public business obstructed, as he says, and now that he has experienced a change, I hope he will make an attempt in the Public Accounts Committee to deal with the public business henceforth to come before that committee in a proper manner and will endeavour to promote the investigation.
The excuse offered by the hon. member for Lunenburg for the conduct of the Minister of Militia in this matter was that it was a perfectly legitimate thing for him to pool his interest with the interest of Mr. Graham in an endeavour to advance their material interests in fruit growing and agriculture. Well, if I had not such an intimate knowledge of the condition of the affairs of Mr. Graham, the associate of the Minister of Militia, I would not marvel as I do at the partnership between these two gentlemen, as stated by the minister himself. I did not know, I take the word of the minister for it, that he is very largely interested in the cultivation of fruit and agricultural produce In the Annapolis and Cornwallis valley, but I would like to know where the corresponding interest of Mr. Graham comes in. It is intimated that Mr. Graham had a corresponding interest in some other portion of the country, and that these two interests were going to be pooled tor the advantage of somebody or some-tlntig. Well, I happen to know that Mr. Graham has no such interests as would enable him to pool anything with the Minister of Militia and Defence. Then the hon. member for Lunenburg suggests a reason why this Canada Land and Produce Company was abandoned. Prom the discussion that has taken place, X would suggest this answer to his query :	It became apparent to those who were promoting the Canada Land and Produce Company that the object sought to be obtained by them might be obtained in some less public manner than by their becoming members of that corporation, and that by some such means as have been exposed, or attempted to be exposed, by the discussion of this matter, the same ends might be attained without publicity being given to the position occupied by the Minister of Militia.


Frederick William Borden: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that Mr. Graham possesses no Interests in Belleville and Ontario generally in fruit and cold storage business?


Edward Guss Porter: Yes, you understand me in a sense to say that ; he is not a producer himself, as the Minister of Militia asserted that he was. Mr. Graham has been carrying on for a number of years what might be called a broker's business in the city of Belleville, or a commission business, that is, he has been receiving for transportation to the old country fruit, hay, cheese and different farm products.


Frederick William Borden: Has he not a large cold storage establishment in Belleville?


Edward Guss Porter: He has a cold storage establishment, not a large one.


Frederick William Borden: Does he not manufacture dried fruit and vegetables? Has he not eight or ten different places in Ontario where he manufactures evaporated fruit?


Edward Guss Porter: There was a time, I may say, when Mr. Graham was interested in a number of industries of that kind in the province of Ontario, and, in fact, outside of Ontario in some of the states of the Union. But, that day passed away a long time ago, or some considerable time ago, these businesses are now all in the hands of the Bank of Montreal, and Mr. Graham does not own or pretend to own one cent of interest in them.


Frederick William Borden: It is only fair to Mr. Graham to say that Mr. Graham does own these properties, but that the Bank of Montreal has large security upon them from him. The hon. gentleman surely does not wish to drag Mr. Graham's
private affairs in here to his injury. It is only fair to Mr. Graham to make that statement.


Edward Guss Porter: I certainly would not have done so had not the minister asked me the question that he did and which provoked an answer.


Frederick William Borden: On the contrary, the hon. gentleman stated here that Mr. Graham had no property or interest at all in Ontario.


Edward Guss Porter: I said that he had no such property or interest as was mentioned by the minister to be pooled with the property of the minister. I repeat that statement.


Frederick William Borden: The Bank
of Montreal, at the time, was cognizant of what was going on. Mr. Graham produced valuations by competent valuators showing property to the value of $100,000 and the Bank of Montreal was prepared to indorse the scheme and to accept the bonds which would have been issued by Mr. Graham in lieu of its lien upon the property. That is the statement.


Frederick William Borden: The Bank of Montreal taking that position with Mr. Graham. The Bank of Montreal has got into such a position with Mr. Graham that it is really forced to carry Mr. Graham to some extent to save itself.


Frederick William Borden: That is a very unfair reflection to make upon a worthy man.


Edward Guss Porter: I have no objection to offer to the scheme of assisting cold storage in the Dominion if it is done in a proper, open and legitimate way. I think that cold storage has been and will be proved to be an important factor in advancing the interests of the country. But, when a minister of the Crown having means of knowledge, not possessed by the ordinary individual, is at least seen to be mixed up with a matter of this kind in some way-I will not go so far as to say in what way-that alone Is sufficient to warrant a discussion of the matter in this House. I do not agree with the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) when he raises the question as, to whether or not the opinion exists in the country that the minister is connected with this business. I know that to some extent the opinion does exist in the country that the Minister of Militia is connected with this thing and not only the Minister of Militia, but it is common talk that the Minister of Agriculture himself has also some interest in this matter. I have heard it stated outside of this House and I have seen it stated in the newspapers ?


Mr. FISHER.: What kind of an interest?


Edward Guss Porter: I will not say what kind of an interest, but I say that it is most im-

portant that the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture, if you will, should be afforded at least the opportunity of denying that they have any such interest in it.
Mr. FISHBIi. I will not take the trouble to deny such nonsense.


Edward Guss Porter: The discussion which has been brought on by my hon. friend from North Toronto lias afforded an opportunity to the Minister of Militia of denying any connection with this matter, which he has done in his own way, and I think that instead of criticising my hon. friend from North Toronto he should thank him for the privilege that he has had at least of attempting to clear himself of any imputation. There are certain points in connection with this question that are beyond dispute. There are certain things that are admitted that, to my mind, at least, require something more than a mere denial on the part of the minister to free himself of the impression that does exist that he has some connection with this business. It is certain that it has not been denied that the government, through the Department of Marine and Fisheries, have established the practice or policy of assisting bait freezing institutions.


Frederick William Borden: It still exists.


Edward Guss Porter: Well, it did exist at one time.


Frederick William Borden: It does yet.


Edward Guss Porter: Very well, I will take the minister's word for it. What I say Is that it did exist and, at that time, as far as this discussion has shown and as far as I know, that was the only department of the government that was assisting enterprises of this kind.


Frederick William Borden: Not at all ; the hon. gentleman is not familiar with the statute. The Department of Agriculture was giving a bonus to the extent of five per cent unon $40,000 invested in cold storage, if I remember rightly.


Edward Guss Porter: Not for bait freezing institutions.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, yes.


Edward Guss Porter: That was established by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Frederick William Borden: Quite so.


Edward Guss Porter: It is also admitted that Mr. Williams made application to the department for assistance to enable him to establish a bait freezing institution in St. John. His application was the first that was properly made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and it was the_ first that was made for the establishment of a cold storage system in the city of St. John.


Frederick William Borden: It was the only one made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Edward Guss Porter: 


Edward Guss Porter: Yes. Well, then, it was the first one.


William Pugsley: I think I can say to my hon. friend that he must be in error as to that, for 1 happened to know as a member of the provincial government that some seven or eight years ago the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company was incorporated, that it was proposed to give them the aid of the New Brunswick government, that thev acquired a lease of land from the Intercolonial Railway for the purpose of establishing cold storage, and I understand that they had made an application to the Dominion government for the aid which was provided under the original Cold Storage Act. That must have been four or, five years before Mr. Williams made any application.


George Eulas Foster: We are supposed to have all the papers down and .that does not appear in them.


Edward Guss Porter: That does not appear, at all and that does not alter the position that I take that at the time Mr. Williams applied his was the only application before the Department of Marine and Fisheries for assistance in establishing cold storage for bait freezing purposes ia the city of St. John.


William Pugsley: For bait freezing. I was referring to general cold storage, for fruit and farm produce.


Edward Guss Porter: The question arises here : Was WTlliams treated fairly and squarely in connection with his application for cold storage, and was the Minister of Militia a party to an application for assistance for establishing cold storage in St. John ? The next question is: Was the fact that the Minister of Militia was an applicant or was interested in a company which was an applicant, the cause of Williams not receiving the treatment he otherwise would have re ceived? Let me examine the conditions as I understand them. Williams made his application in October, 1905, and he followed the matter up during a whole year.


Frederick William Borden: To the Marine and Fisheries?


Edward Guss Porter: Yes, to the Marine and Fisheries.


Frederick William Borden: But at
that very moment there existed in the Department of Agriculture a law under which assistance was given to general cold storage.


Edward Guss Porter: That does not affect the issue at all.


Frederick William Borden: But it is true.


Edward Guss Porter: It Joes not affect the argument I am making.

'Six* FREDERICK BORDEN. It (Iogs very much.


Edward Guss Porter: He made his application in 1905, and he followed up that application, and as an evidence of his intention and ability to carry out a scheme of that kind he forwarded recommendations of various persons and corporations who were in a position to judge of his qualifications and of the honesty of his purpose. That continued for nearly a year before anybody else appeared upon the scene.


Frederick William Borden: Always for fish, however1.


Edward Guss Porter: At that time it came about that the whole matter of aiding cold storage jorojects was to be handed over to tlie Department of Agriculture, and when that became known Mx\ Williams made an application to the Department of Agriculture for assistance in the same manner as he had made his application to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Williams' application was made to the Department of Agricuitxxre on the 7tli of December, 1906, and the application of the company represented by Mr. Macouu was made on the 5th of December, only two days prior.


George Eulas Foster: But with this difference, that the application of Mr. Macoun was an application for information only. The application of Mr. Williams was an application for subsidy as well as for information.


Edward Guss Porter: That is quite right, but I am treating them both as being applications, which is the most favourable construction that can be placed upon the position of Mr. Macouu.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 151) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Crawford.
Haughton Lennox: When we were last dealing with this Bill the Minister of Railways proposed an amendment to my amendment, but as the hour for private Bills was exhausted I had not an opportunity of expressing my objections to it. The minister pointed out that the wording of his amendment was the same as the wording of section 11 of the agreement, being the schedule to the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill of 1904. I regard the position under the minister's amendment as worse than the Bill without qualification, while my amendment 298
is an important security for the people. One of my principal reasons for objecting to the minister's amendment is that it casts a new burden upon the people. Under the Act of 1904 the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, if they should build the bi'anch lines, could saddle upon the country such branch lines as they did not desire to retain, and if the government of Canada determined to operate the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway they would be compelled to take over those comparatively unremunerative branch lines. This is extending the difficulty and making us not only subject to take over such comparatively useless bi'anch lines as the main company may see fit to build, but also binds us to take over the branch lines built by the subsidiary company, the Grand Trunk Pacific Bi'anch Lines Company. Therefore, I am very anxious to defeat this amendment by any legitimate means that I can adopt. I am glad that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) is in the House, because I think for once I shall have his valuable assistance in defeating this amendment to the amendment. If I have his assistance, with his well known ability, I have no doubt I shall be eminently successful, and as lie is an astute lawyer, logical of course to the last degree, I am sure I shall have his strong support. I assume that this proposed amendment has not been recommended by the Governor General in Council, because that has not been mentioned-of course if it has been recommended in that way my argument does not apply, namely-that it is out of order. I have three very eminent authorities in support of that proposition, first the dictum of the Minister of Public Works, second the opinion of the deputy Speaker of this House and, third, the ruling of the Speaker of this House. It will be remembered that when I introduced the amendment some few weeks ago and it came up in the House on the Sth of this month the Minister of Public Works argued that the amendment was out of order because it was a proposal to impose a burden upon the revenue of the country and that the consent of the Governor General in Council had not been obtained, and of course could not be obtained by a private member. He argued that it certainly would be out of order but for the proviso at the end of it that the work should not be taken over without the consent of parliament, but the bon. gentleman further showed by his argument that even with that proviso at the end of my amendment it was still out of order under the British North America Act. I propose to call your attention to the argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). The amendment to the amendment, as proposed by the Minister of Railways, is substantially the same in



wording as my amendment except that my amendment aims at taking over all lines we see fit to take over, and the amendment of the minister proposes to take over only such lines as the railway company do not see fit to retain. But my amendment has the proviso that that shall not be done except with the consent and sanction of parliament, which proviso saved my amendment, as was decided the other night and which proviso is not in the amendment as proposed by the minister.


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: My amendment has that proviso in it. As typewritten it had not, but within five minutes after handing in the amendment I added that proviso.
' Mr. LENNOX. As it appears in ' Hansard ' it has not, and as read by the minister it had not.


George Perry Graham: Five minutes after it was read by the chairman that proviso was in.


Haughton Lennox: It was not read by the chairman. The chairman did not read it.


George Perry Graham: I had it put in inside of five minutes after I gave the amendment.


Haughton Lennox: As I always want to he eminently consistent I shall not pursue' that branch of the argument, but as suggested by my friend (Mr. Lancaster) I shall pursue some of the other branch lines. These three companies are substantially one and the same company, the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company. The government is building the eastern division, and from day to day as time goes on we are more and more realizing the amount of money we are putting into that enterprise. The advantages are all in favour of the railway companies as contrasted with the position of the country. The Grand Trunk Pacific Company get all the good end and we get all the bad end ; they get all the easy part and we get all the difficult part, and therefore the government should safeguard the people to the extent of seeing that if we put our money into the building of this eastern division, and we are compelled to take it over at the end of fifty years, or if after it is built-and this is not a remote contingency-the Grand Trunk Pacific Company do not take it at all, but it is left on our hands, we should be able to obtain such branch lines as are feeders to it or as connect the cities of the south with it, upon reasonable terms. Now, in the Act of 1904 we have the provision which, as the Minister of Railways says, is copied in the amendment which he proposed the other day, 'that the government shall, if at the expiration of the said Mr. LENNOX.
lease if it shall determine to undertake the operation of the said eastern division, take over such branch line or lines as the company' may elect not to retain.' The position is this, that if in any event we operate the line at the end of the fifty-year period, we have not the right to take over the paying branches, but we are compelled, whether we want to do so or not, to take over the branches which the railway company do not want to retain, which will be the branches which are not paying. We have not an option, as under the amendment I propose, of taking them over. If we have an option, it is beneficial to this country, but if we are saddled with the necessity of taking them over, whether we want them or not, and are compelled to take over such branch lines as the company do not desire to retain our position is not only not improved in over what it was when this Bill came into the House some weeks ago, but we are in a vastly worse position. I protest against that condition of things. Let me call the minister's attention to something else. I was inclined to think that the minister had paid very little attention to the drafting of this amendment, not only because I did not find the proviso in ' Hansard ' or anywhere else or get any track of it until the minister mentioned it now, but because this section, as now worded, is practically senseless. Let me call the minister's attention to how it works out. It says :
At such value as may be agreed upon, or as may, in case of failure so to agree, be determined in the manner provided by paragraph 24 (2) of the said contract.
There is no contract in this Act that we are amending. Before that it says :
The government shall, if at the expiration of the said lease-
There is no lease mentioned in the statute we are dealing with. This is simply very slovenly-if the minister will allow me to say so-and unsuitable wording to accomplish any purpose. This is brought in without consideration from a statute which deals with a lease and with an agreement, but the statute we are dealing with refers to neither lease nor agreement, and, therefore, the amendment in that respect is not appropriately drawn. I will not take much time over that, because it can be easily amended. But, more than that, this provision is meaningless. If we turn to the statute that it is taken from-that is paragraph 24 of section 2 of the agreement -we find that that provides :
If, in any question arising under the provisions of sub-paragraph s (a), (c) and (e) of this paragraph, the parties shall fail to agree, the matter in difference shall be determined by 'arbitrators, to be appointed in the manner provided by paragraph forty-seven of this agreement:	provided, however, that, if a
board of railway commissioners shall be here-

after appointed under the authority of an Act of the Parliament of Canada, having powers substantially as proposed by Bill No. 21 of the present session of parliament, then such dispute shall be determined by such board, from whose decision herein either party shall have the right, without leave, to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Now, when we turn to paragraphs (a), (c) and (e) we find that paragraph (a) Is ' reserving to the government, in respect of its ownership, present and future, of the Intercolonial and any other line or lines of railway, running powers and haulage rights over the eastern division of the railway ; paragraph (c) is ' securing to the government in respect of its ownership, running powers and haulage rights over the western division,' and paragraph (e) is ' securing to the company running powers and haulage rights over the Intercolonial Railway or any portion thereof.' How can that have any application to the matter we are dealing with now? Evidently the minister or whoever drafted this did not turn to the sections and see how they would work out, and the result is that when we do trace them up we find that they become absolutely senseless. If the minister does not want to adopt the full measure of relief that I propose I regret it very much, but in any event, if he sincerely wants to have this workable, and I have no doubt he does, he should frame a provision somewhat on the lines on which I framed it, making it complete in its wording.


George Perry Graham: I will detain the committee but a moment. I will not attempt as a layman to reply to my hon. friend's legal argument. The question of this amendment is one that was not considered by me until after an objection was raised by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Barker) in the first discussion of this Bill, that this Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Bines Company, although representing the same interests as the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, had been organized to get away from the provisions which we had in the old agreement as to taking over branch lines.
If that were so, I think it was very reasonable that it should not be allowed to be done. We wanted not to put them in a better position than the Grand Trunk Pacific. I have had a clause drafted the same as in the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but I say frankly to my hon. friend that I am not anxious to press this amendment to the amendment. I cannot consent to his amendment, but, if it will meet him half way, I propose that both his amendment and my amendment to the amendment should be dropped and that the Bill should be passed as it came from the Senate. The effect of the amendment to the amendment is, ostensibly, to necessitate the taking over by the country of cer-298i
tain branch lines. It is debatable whether that would be best or not. Personally, I am inclined to think that no injury would be done the country if we were compelled to do that. I gave my reasons in support of that view and will not go into the subject again. But, as I have said, I am willing, if it will meet the hon. gentleman, that the Bill should be accepted as it has been passed by the Senate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I listened to this discussion on two or thi'ee previous occasions as well as to-night, and whether the amendment of my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is absolutely the best possible or not, yet, as the best thing proposed, I would adopt it. I certainly think that some such amendment should be made covering the point that the hon. member has in mind. The amendment, as I find W in ' Hansard '-and I trust that on this occasion ' Hansard ' is correct-reads as follows:
2. In case the government as defined in the * schedule to the National Transcontinental Railway Act, 1903, in pursuance of the terms of the said schedule shall .at any time determine to undertake the operation of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, the government shall thereupon and thereafter have the right to take over all or any of such of the lines of railway authorized by chapter 99 of the Acts of this parliament of 1906 as are connected with or running from a point or points in the said eastern division

And here I pause to emphasize the fact that that means the lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company and not the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
-at such value as may be agreed upon between the government and the company; and in case they cannot agree the amount to be paid by the government to the company the amount shall he determined by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, from whose decision either party shall have the right, without leave, to appeal to the Supreme Court df Canada.
Now, so far, I have not heard one word advanced by anybody to show that this is not a proper provision.


Mr. KNOWLES.: May I ask a question?
I have no doubt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) has given a great deal of attention to railway charters. Why should a provision such as this be put in this charter more than any other that happens to cross the Grand Trunk Pacific?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am afraid 1 shall have to make my remarks longer than I had intended. I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles! and every other member of this House understood the peculiarity of this charter. Here was a very vexed question beginning in 1903. The two


V383 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
political parties disagreed as to the wisdom of the bargain made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. We made a certain arrangement with the company wherein we were almost sure to lose- much more sure to lose if they did not make money than if they did. The probabilities of the company earning money and paying dividends had everything to do with whether the guarantees of this government as endorsed would fall upon them, that is whether we should be called upon to make good the money that the Grand Trunk Pacific would borrow on the strength of the guarantee. In 1906, when the Branch Lines Company was to be incorporated, 1 took the position in the Railway Committee and in this House that we ought not to create another entity with power to build branch lines, but that the building of the branch lines should be part and parcel of the Grand Trunk Pacific. My argument was-and, if I do say it myself, it was never answered-that, in case of a dispute as to division of freight between a company originating traffic and the trunk line which takes over that traffic and carries to its destination as to the division of the freight, the railway commissioners would probably, and very properly, give the lion's share to the originating company; therefore, if we guaranteed the liabilities of 'A' and then permitted him to carry on in the name of ' B ' a business more profitable than that which he carried on in his own name
William Erskine Knowles: Did the Grand Trunk Pacific represent ' B ' in that case?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company is not the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. The case is as if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) were to ask me to endorse his note and then ho were to carry on the profitable part of his business in his wife's name and yet, while allowing her to make the profits, would refuse to make her responsible for the obligation on which I had endorsed. It would be as though a man went to a bank for money and the bank were to say; If you get So and So to guarantee you, we will give you the money; then, having got the money, he divides his business into profitable and unprofitable parts, makes it impossible for the endorser to gain any of the profits and yet leaves him liable for an obligation which could not be redeemed because relating to the unprofitable part. In plain English, that is what we did when we incorporated the Branch Lines Company. Of course, we cannot go back on that. I am not suggesting that; but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) asked me why it made a difference, and I am trying to tell him. I understand that my hon. friend from South Simcoe wants to try to stop this from going any further.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) does not understand me. There is no evidence that the capital to be put into the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines is in the slightest way identical or associated with the Grand Trunk Pacific. If he will show me any reason for believing that it is, one great doubt in my mind will be removed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think it makes any difference how they raise the money. These two are the same concern, the same people. Nobody believes anything else. The hon. gentleman himself (Mr. Knowles) will not say that they are different.


William Erskine Knowles: I think so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: A different crowd?


William Erskine Knowles: Before the lines are built and in operation, there may be different capitals invested altogether.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well let us see who the men are in this Branch Lines Company. Here for instance, is Mr. Charles M. Hays. Everybody knows who Mr. Hays is-he is president of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and second vice-president and general manager of the Grand Trunk. Then there is Mr. Frank W. Morse, who is vice-president and general manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Then there is Mr. William Wainwright. Does not everybody know that he is one of the principal officers of the Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific? Another is Mr. W. H. Biggar, who, as we all know, was assistant solicitor of the Grand Trunk and who now occupies the position formerly held by Mr. John Bell as general solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway system. And then there is Mr. D'Arcy Tate, assistant solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway. Now those are the people who are incorporated in the name of the Branch Lines Company.


William Erskine Knowles: I would remind the hon. gentleman that the gentlemen who take out a charter are not necessarily those who will finance the charter. There is absolutely no reason to believe that because Mr. Wainwright, Mr. Biggar and their associates have taken out a charter, that therefore some of the investors' money is going to be in that railroad.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not say that the same people are going to lend the money to build the road, but these are the principal debtors whose liabilities the government of this country are going to guarantee, these are the people who can make us liable on these bonds that we guarantee, according to how they manage their affairs. The Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Branch Lines Company are one and the

same concern so far as relates to the running of that railway and the making or losing of money, and therefore the sticking the people of this country so to speak, on their bonds. Now some such amendment as proposed by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is necessary at this juncture. No one has said yet that there is anything wrong with it, every one has said that there is no objection to it. Theii it goes on to say :
If any such line of railway, so to be taken over, shall have received any grant or grants under the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Canada, the amount of such grant or grants, without interest, shall be deducted from such value, and the difference only shall be payable by the government upon the taking over of the line.
Now why is not that only fair but necessary, in the interest of the country ? But now the minister proposes to withdraw his amendment on condition that the hon. member for South Simcoe withdraws his; in that case we will have neither. The proposition of the Minister of Railways that brought me to my feet, was that if he succeeded in getting my hon. friend from South Simcoe to drop his amendment, he. the minister, would drop the amendment to the amendment, and in that case we would have neither the one nor the other. I appeal to the Minister of Railways if that provision should not be either in this amendment to the amendment, or in the original amendment of my hon. friend from South Simcoe. I say again that it is absolutely necessary if we are not going to let the Grand Trunk, and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk Branch Lines, and any other concern that the Grand Trunk chooses to put before this country as a company that is going to be affiliated with it-I say if we are not going to let them do anything they please, if we are not going to hand over to them the sole control of everything in sight, and the right to tax the people to this extent, then we must put some such amendment as this in the Bill. Then it says :
Provided, however, that nothing in this Act contained shall authorize the government to take over the said lines of railway or any of them without the consent of parliament, previously obtained, to the exercise of such right of taking over as aforesaid.
Now surely we have got to have some such provision. If the Minister of Railways will draw a section that protects the people, though it uses different language from this. I will support it. But we must have something of that kind somewhere in this Bill. When we passed this charter in 1906, I, over and over again, to the extent of making myself an annoyance perhaps to some gentlemen in the Railway Commission, insisted on a clause that nothing we did for that Branch Lines Company should interfere with any of the rights of the people in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. That did not carry. Why ? Because the Grand Trunk Pacific would not have it, and the government would not force the Grand Trunk Pacific to take it. It was argued that we were incorporating a different company, under a different name, which would be capitalized perhaps by uifferent people, and therefore, although they were- going to become affiliated with the Grand Trunk Pacific, we should not force them to relieve us from liability on the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I proposed in the Railway Commission, and I think again in the House, that there should be a clause in the Grand Trunk Branch Lines Company charter that nothing therein contained should impair or take away the right of the people in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, or should put them in the same position as if the Grand Trunk Pacific itself had built these branch lines under the original charter. and that was voted down by this House. Everybody in this country knows that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Branch Lines Company are one and the same concern, and are working for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Railway. Therefore when we proposed in 1906 that nothing in this Act which is now being amended should take away any of the rights that we had already, and that everything we did for that company should have the same effect, as regards these branch lines when they were built, as if they had been built by the Grand Trunk Pacific themselves, when we could not get that, when the government voted that dowm, the present Minister of Justice who took charge of the measure instead of the then Minister of Railways, put in that qualified section which is now being amended, that it should not affect our rights in some regards only. Now the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles) must recognize that his own side of this question was represented in this House^ in 1906 by the present Minister of Justice, who drafted and put in a clause dealing wdth the principle of the matter, but not to the full extent it ought to be dealt with, that is to say. that the Branch Lines Company was connected w'ith the Grand Trunk Pacific, and vou will find in the original Act of the Branch Lines Company a clause saying that it should not affect the right of the country ns against the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in some respects, and in those respects only. But my point is that this government did undertake to say that the one had something to do with the other, that thev should be dealt with in some respects as if they were one and the' same
If my hon. friend wants to tell us that the Grand Trunk Branch Lines Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are entirely different matters and should

not be mixed up the best answer I can give him is the section of the Act of 1906 which was drawn by the Minister of Justice and -which says to the contrary. I and another hon. gentleman made the contention in the Railway Committee that there should be full protection to the people but we succeeded in getting only a compromise and not the full measure of protection that I thought ought to be enunciated in the Act. I want to say to my hon. friend that the Minister of Justice declared in this section the very opposite to what my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals tells us should be adopted when he put this clause into the Act in lieu of the one which I was moving which was more general in its terms and which was designed to protect the people entirely and not in the limited -way that this does. Section 32 of the Act to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company, passed in 1906, provides that:
,,Tllie Provlslons of paragraphs 39, 12, 13 and 11 ot the agreement which forms the .schedule to chapter 71 of the statutes of 1903, and so much of paragraph 15 of the said agreement as provides that traffic shall not (be diverted to ports outside of Canada, shall apply to the company in the same manner and to the same extent as if the lines of railway hereby authorized .had been constructed by the Grand 1 rumk Pacific Railway Company.
Surely, iu view of that, my hon. friend will not say that there is nothing at all in the contention that one company is affiliated with the other and that we should not mix them up in legislation. Surely, in view of the section passed by this parliament, drawn by the Minister of Justice and offered to parliament in lieu of the full protection that I was contending for iu the interests of the people iu every respect, my hon friend will apologize to the House and recognize that he was entirely wrong in saying that they were two companies and that they were not connected one with the other. The Minister of Justice knew that in these matters that are mentioned here there must l)e some protection in regard to the people's rights, in regard to the guarantees which they gave and the benefits they expected to receive from the incorporation and development of this company or scheme known as the National Transcontinental Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company this ocean to ocean line. The Minister of Justice recognized, although he was. as I thought and still think, not doing what he ought to have done to protect the people m regard to the guarantees and the great liabilities which they were assuming in assisting the Grand Trunk Pacific to construe! this line, that in that matter the statute should lie amended and he put in the clause which I have just quoted and which distinctly says that these paragraphs shall apply in the same manner aud to the same extent as if the lines of railway hereby


Edward Arthur Lancaster: authorized had been constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I am afraid that the Minister of Railways and Canals sometimes forgets that all we are doing by this Branch Lines Railway Company could have been done by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company itself. I always was opposed to giving the Branch Lines Company these rights as it looked to me like an attempt to give another company, under an entirely different name, but with the same people behind it, the right to acquire all the benefits that the branch lines will give them because this will be the paying part of the railway and at the same time not make provision to assist the parent company which is our debtor and which is the debtor of the capitalists who have taken the bonds guaranteed by the country. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) proposes here an amendment that if any of these branch lines are taken over by the government the government shall be able to select the lines they want. As it is now the government have to take the lines that the Grand Trunk do not want, only such lines as the Grand Trunk choose! to use an ordinary expression, to dump upon the people of the country. Such lines as they have found do not pay them very well they can force the people to take. Surely we can get over that. Let us have a little judgment. Let us once in a while try and protect the people of the country a little. . Let us have one day in the month when we can unanimously in this House remember that we represent the people and not the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk. Let us break the ice a little this hot wea-thei, let us say :	We have some rights in
this country that we must keep our eye upon. Here we are sayiug deliberately : We will help you ail we can to build these lines of railway ; we have given the whole credit of Canada to assist you to get money to build them iu one way or another and while we think that there are one or two things that ought to be attended to, we will leave them aside and we will say that we will help you to do all these things. We will give you lines in every direction ; we do not know how many will pay, so that you need not worry whether they will pay or not. We say, go on and build them, we will get the money and those that you find do not pay you can throw upon us aud we will buy them from you.


William Erskine Knowles: Is there anything in this proivsion to compel the government of Canada to buy these lines, or is it only an option ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The amendment to the amendment says just what my hon. friend (Mr. Knowles) asks me. I will read it to him :
In oase, during the currency of the lease of the eastern division, the company shall have


MAY 29, 1908 9389
[Stage Direction]
constructed a branch line or lines running from ia point or points in the said eastern division, the government shall, if at the expiration -of the said lease, it shall determine to undertake the operation of the said eastern division, take over such branch line or lines as the company >may elect not to retain.
Did any one ever hear of such a bargain being made from the people's standpoint ?
William Erskine Knowles: Is it compulsory-may take over ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is compulsory. My hon. friend wants an option on a piece of property or a business ; will he make a contract that he undertakes to take just that part that the other man chooses to sell to him and no other part at all ? Would my hon. friend, if he wanted to buy out of a departmental store, make a bargain that he would take only such departments as the other man chose to sell him and go without the rest of them ? That is practically what the people are doing here.


William Erskine Knowles: I will gladly make a bargain that 1 at any time ' may' buy.


Mr LANCASTER.: Suppose that we arrive at the stage where the people declare that under the provisions of this Act they determine to undertake the operation of the eastern section. It has always been argued that one of the advantages that the people have in regard to this railway is that they can, if they choose, undertake the operation of the eastern section. Suppose they under

talTe "ftr operate vvbaL they own, what they have paid for, what belongs to them and if they want to do that they have to take such branch lines, connecting with that railway as they want ?-no, not as the people want but such as the Grand Trunk say they must take.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Louder.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend does not want to hear it. He perhaps wants to vote it through deafly as well as blindly. But, I want to give my bon. friend an idea of what he is voting for if he votes for this charter the way it is. We some day perhaps are going to operate the eastern section. If we undertake the operation of the eastern section, of course, we will want the branch lines which connect with the eastern section. Will we have the privilege of taking such branch lines as we desire ? No, we must take such lines as the Grand Trunk Pacific want to sell, such lines as the Grand Trunk Pacific lias no use for. We will be meeting our antagonists and business associates operating branch lines that were worth something while we were operating branch lines that are useless, that produce no freight and while we will have to pay a big price for them these lines will be of no use to us.
I do think that the Minister of Railways who has charge of this legislation in tiie
interests of the public ought to sit down with the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox! and draw up a section that will protect the people of this country. The Minister of Railways must see that there is no way of protecting the people of Canada unless some such amendment as that proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) is adopted.
SUPPLY-COLD STORAGE^ FOR BAIT.
The hour for private Bills having expired, House resumed on the motion of Mr. Fielding that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Edward Guss Porter: When the House rose at six o'clock I was pointing out some of the undisputed facts which to my mind lead to the irresistible conclusion that Mr. 'Williams wlio had made application for assistance to bis cold storage project, was not treated in a fair and proper manner by this government and was not treated in the same manner as was the company with which the Minister of Militia was connected. I had arrived at the stage where there was an application made for assistance by Mr. Williams on the one hand and by Mr. Macoun on the other. These two applications were received within two days of each other and there seems to be good reason why the application of Mr. Macoun who lives in Ottawa should antedate the application of Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams had no means of ascertaining when the announcement would be made by the Minister of Agriculture as to the assistance that would be afforded these concerns. as to what form it would take, or as to what would be required from the applicants. On the other hand Mr. Macoun had ample means of knowing all that. The Minister of Militia was connected with his company and the circumstances in connection with the announcement to be made by the Minister of Agriculture had no doubt been discussed in the presence of the Minister of Militia, and so, as appears to have been the case, there was an opportunity of getting in ahead of Mr. Williams. Both of these applications were answered on the same day by the Minister of Agriculture, but the answers were not identical. The answers given to Mr. Macoun's application did not cast any doubt upon the scheme, but left the impression that it was a certainty, whereas the reply sent to Mr. Williams referred to the contingency of the Bill which the Minister of Agriculture was about to present, receiving or not receiving the assent of the House and thus casting a doubt upon it. That alone was enough to throw cold water upon the application of Mr Williams, to put him in doubt, and to cause him to hesitate and delay about going to further expense in connection with the

matter. From that time in December no action was taken until about the 1st of April, when Mr. Williams-no doubt having ascertained that the Minister of Militia was interested in the application opposed to his -wrote pointing out that fact and asking in a very polite way the very direct question whether his application was going to be considered or whether it was the intention to give the preference to the company with which the Minister of Militia was connected. It is singular that ail through this transaction from the beginning to the end, whenever Mr. Williams got busy and wrote to the department, the cold storage company with which the Minister of Militia was connected got busy also. And so, after Mr. Williams wrote on the 1st of April, we at once see the company with which the Minister of Militia was connected getting busy again and taking action before the Minister of Agriculture. The correspondence leads pretty irresistibly to the conclusion that the company with which the Minister of Militia was connected was being favoured by the government, while the proposition of Mr. Williams was being discouraged as much as it could be. Matters drifted along from the date of Mr. Williams' letter in April until some time in June, nothing being done by either party Following the letter of the first, a letter was written by the minister to Mr. Williams on April 11, 1907. This is the way Mr. Williams is treated. In that letter the minister says :
*'redericIi: Borden has mads application, on behalf of a ^company with which he is connected, and I have viewed his application very favourably.
Following that we find the company itself getting busy again and Mr. Graham writes to the Minister of Agriculture under date April 13. Very little time was lost. In that he says :
Sir Frederick Borden requested me_______
Mark you, he is the hired man of this company, the employee of tjiis company and he is requested by a gentleman who is connected with the company :
that is most important in this connection, it seems to rue. Mr. Macoun advised him that everything had been arranged in connection with the matter. That left nothing to be done if the statement made in that letter is true, as I believe it to be. The Minister of Agriculture assumed the same position as did Mr. Macoun in the matter and as Mr. Graham had been advised to assume. The Minister of Agriculture writes a letter on the ICth of April :
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 13, and note what you state in regard to your visit to Ottawa last Thursday.
What he stated in regard to his visit last -Thursday was that he had consulted Mr. Macoun and found that all arrangements had been completed. The minister finishes his letter with :
This is quite satisfactory.
Assenting to what had been said by Ma-couu and reasserting the position ' that everything in connection with the application of the Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company had been completed. That is important in this view of the matter. The reason urged by the ministers during this discussion for not treating further with Mr. Williams was that he had filed no plans and specifications at the time when these two letters were written, when everything was said to have been arranged with the company with which the minister was connected, there had not yet been a plan or a specification filed on behalf of that company, and I conclude and I think it is the only conclusion one can draw from it. that so far as the Produce and Gold Storage Company was concerned the Minister of Agriculture could complete an arrangement without any plans or specifications being filed. With Mr. Williams they did not even call upon him to file plans and specifications, but because he had not filed plans and specifications they ignored his claim altogether, and granted this subsidy to the Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company.


Frederick William Borden: Which they never did.
-to interview you in reference to aid for our cold storage propositions.
Not the cold storage proposition, as the minister would have the House believe from his remarks this afternoon, for which an application was made by Graham on his own behalf, but here is an inquiry by Graham, ' on behalf of our cold storage proposition at St. John. Then he says :
I learned from Mr. L. S. Macoun that yo had advised him that everything had bee arranged in connection with this matter, am l ole ^ would be unnecessary for me t r 70u any further in reference to th aiatter in question.


Edward Guss Porter: 


Edward Guss Porter: Now let us see what sort of encouragement they further gave to Mr. Williams. On June 3-and mark you the plans and specifications of the Canada Cold Storage Company were not filed until the 11th of June-Mr. Williams wrote to the Minister of Agriculture and after having received the information that the applica" tion of Sir Frederick Borden had been made and had been considered favourably, and the fact being as is proven here, that everything had been arranged in connection with it, although that was not known to Williams, he writes and says :
I have already spent considerable of my money going to Ottawa and endeavouring to

obtain a grant for the cold storage warehouse in St. John, and do not feel like spending any more money in getting up plans and specifications if the preference is to he given to Sir Frederick Borden.
He does not receive a reply to that letter denying that a preference is given to Sir Frederick Borden, or what action is being taken with Sir Frederick Borden, but he receives a reply from the deputy minister during the absence of the minister saying :
If you will submit your application it will receive due consideration.
His application was in months and months before. He is not asked to file plans, &c., and they will be considered. He was not told : We have not only considered the application of Sir Frederick Borden favourably but have taken action to arrange all matters in connection with it and therefore the thing is closed so far as you are conc< rued and you may as well quit. That wonhl have been a correct statement of the position and a frank statement to make to Williams. But the matter is allowed to drift on. At. that stage the application was in fin' name of the Canada Produce and Cold Storage Company, but everything had been arranged with that company and an effort had been made to make financial arrangements to float it. If what has been stated in this debate is correct, then it occurs that something must be done, some reason occurs to the parties interested to * I
TTnvke~tt-change;-Having made certain of-getting the assistance from the government it seems to have occurred to some one


Frederick William Borden: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that Williams was never asked to send plans of any kind.


Edward Guss Porter: He was sent forms for making application.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman has before him Williams' letter of June 3,-saying to the Minister of Agriculture
I received blanks for application for cold storage warehouses. In your letter of April 11, you gave me to understand that nothing could be done unless plans and specifications were submitted, and you also stated that you looked favourably, etc.
He was then asked for plans and was told to


Edward Guss Porter: What was the use of asking him at that late stage ?


Frederick William Borden: That is another thing. The hon. gentleman was giving the House the impression that Williams was not asked to submit plans.


Edward Guss Porter: He was not asked to submit plans at any time when it would have been of any service to him to submit
plans, and then he got this letter, because at that time, when the blanks for making his application and sending in his plans and specifications were given to Mr. Williams, the matter had already been closed up, as the minister himself said in the correspondence which I have read.


Frederick William Borden: I never said any such thing.


Edward Guss Porter: Then I do not understand the English language. When he says everything has been arranged, that certainly means that nothing has been left, and the Minister of Agriculture assents to that, as I have already read.


Frederick William Borden: Not at all. He said nothing of the kind.


Edward Guss Porter: I will read it. Mr. Graham says to the minister :
I learned from Mir. Macoun that you had advised him that everything had been arranged in connection with this matter.
Then the Minister of Agriculture, referring to that letter and to what he said, uses the expression : ' This is quite satisfactory.' I do not know you could put it in more precise and definite language.


Frederick William Borden: It is somewhat different from the hon. gentleman's statement.
__Mr. PORTER. It makes a great deal of
difference, because here was Mr. Williams making an honest application, and he was entitled to fair and honest treatment on the part of the minister, without any partiality being shown to one applicant over another; while an arrangement with the Canadian Produce and Cold Storage Company was made secretly. It was not done publicly apparently, but in some hole-and-corner or underhand way, while Mr. Williams was led to believe that the matter was still open, and was encouraged * to go on and incur further expense to have plans and specifications prepared and to send those plans and specifications into the department, when he had received no answer to his communication as to whether or not the minister was to have the preference ; and what would have been the result ? The very same result that we have today ; the subsidy would have been granted, as it was granted, to the Canadian Produce and Cold Storage Company.


Frederick William Borden: It never was granted. There never was such a company organized.


Edward Guss Porter: I have heard the minister say that several times. There was a company of that kind chartered, and according to this correspondence the application was

made in the name of the Canadian Produce & Cold Storage Company.


Frederick William Borden: And never was granted. It was absolutely abandoned.


Edward Guss Porter: Let us see whether it was or not. Mr. Macoun was the secretary, and here is what he says when he made application on the 5th of December, and this is the application that was acted on :
I 'beg leave on behalf of the Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company, Limited-
In the reply to that, the Minister of Agriculture says :
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of December 5 and note your application on behalf of the Canadian Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company.


Frederick William Borden: Go on. There was no agreement made whatever- absolutely none,


Edward Guss Porter: What I have said I stick by-I say that an application was made on behalf of the Canadian Produce & Cold Storage Company.


Frederick William Borden: Of which nothing whatever came.


Edward Guss Porter: Well, Mr. Graham and those who were associated with him got the advantage of that application-


Frederick William Borden: Not at all.
Mr. PORTER-because there is no further application made by them. They simply file their plans and specifications on the 11th of June.


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Graham made application in his own name.


Edward Guss Porter: Up to that time they were all acting in concert-Graham, Macoun and the Canadian Produce & Cold Storage Company; and wlien affairs were in the condition that I have pointed out, it became apparently advisable to the persons who were interested, that the Canadian Produce & Cold Storage Company should be dropped or hidden from view in some way ; and so Mr. Graham, who is an employee of the Canadian Produce & Cold Storage Company


Frederick William Borden: He is not an employee ; it does not exist.


Edward Guss Porter: It is stated in the address of the hon. Minister himself that Mr. Graham had been employed on behalf of the company, and he gave the reasons why -because he -was a man of large experience in cold storage, would carry out his undertakings, and so on. At that time, for some reason which is not disclosed here-and Mr. PORTER.
perhaps we may not be able to get at the bottom of it-it occurred to the parties who were interested in this matter tbat it would be better for future proceedings to be carried on in some other way ; and so we find that Mr. Graham, who had been engaged for some months in St. John in making arrangements for the erection of this plant or the perfecting of this plant, has made some arrangement with the New (Brunswick Cold Storage Company, and he writes to the minister asking that the name of that company be substituted for that of the Canadian Produce & Cold Storage Company. And so the agreement is prepared, executed and carried out. Now, it does seem to me, without treating the matter further, that the written evidence and the facts that are beyond any question or dispute, show as clearly as the noonday sun that Mr. Williams and the Canadian Produce & Cold Storage Company were not treated in the same way-that the latter was treated most favourably and with every consideration by the Department of Agriculture, while Mr. Williams was discouraged, if not in every possible way, in a sufficient way to prevent him from putting in any plans and specifications, thus affording some peg on which the hon. Minister could hang his hat if the matter ever came under discussion in this House.
Another feature of the matter is connected with the absorption of the Canadian Produce & Cold Storage Company. Failure had followed the effort to raise funds in the old country, and who was here in this company who had the financial backing to carry on this enterprise ? Mr. R. J. Graham, from what has already been said in the House, was not in a financial position to do it. Mr. McAvity who was a man in good circumstances had contributed his part by handing over the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company and its charter, but that did not provide any funds with which to erect the plant.
Then there were Mr. Macoun, secretary-treasurer, Mr. A. I. Trueman and Mr. Ross, who had the management of the business. In that list of names I do not see any reasonable prospect-if that is all that is behind it-of carrying out this enterprise. Another reason given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), and concurred in by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), was that Mr. Williams did not make a bona fide application and did not intend to-that is, they insinuated that he would not-carry out the proposition of a sufficient and eifective cold storage plant.
I think that, if remarks of that kind are to be made at all, they would apply just as well, if not better to the board of directors, as I see the names here, of this New Brunswick Cold Storage Company. But the fact
3397 MAY 29, 1908 9398	
is they went on. The fnoney came from somewhere. It did not come from England. I doubt if it came from the board of directors ; they have not disposed of their stock? Where did the money come from ? It came in part from this government and the local government of New Brunswick ; $15,000 has been paid by this government and $60,000 has been guaranteed by the government of New Brunswick. But where did the rest of the money come from? Now, it is interesting just at this stage to note the statement made in the newspaper published in St. John which was read by the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) this afternoon, stating that after the change of the local government in New Brunswick, the Minister of Militia himself had an interview with the premier of the province of New Brunswick in reference to the additional $30,000 grant that was to be made by the local government for the purpose of assisting this company. Now, that is only a few months ago. If there has not been time since June, 1907, for the Minister of Militia to free himself entirely from the financial interests of this concern I would like to know how long a time it is going to take. We find the minister only a short time ago so interested on behalf of the public of Canada that he is inquiring of the local administration of the province of New Brunswick about the $30,000 that is to carry on this enterprise. I think it is	liams I think the fact will be found to be that the Department of Agriculture was waiting for the return of the Minister of Militia before taking action in this matter. For we find that, very shortly after his return, the matter was consummated. 'I think that something more is desirable than the mere statement, the solemn statement, of the minister to allay-to put it in a mild form -the suspicion that all these circumstances create. If it is true that the minister has nothing whatever to do with this matter, that the action of the Minister of Agriculture was not influenced by the fact of his colleague's position in the matter, then it is to the advantage of the hon. gentleman himself that the subject should be fully and properly investigated and that he be afforded every opportunity, by some means to be taken by this House, of showing that he was not connected with the enterprise in a way unsuited to his public position, or in such a way that private interests or the interests of his country have suffered at his hands. Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe). I do not feel after what has been advanced that I should go very fully into this question. There are some points that have been very conspicuously brought out that I do not regard as very pertinent to the inquiry. For instance, the hon. member for Lunenburg (A. K. Maclean) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden)
dence and testimony given here in the letters that passed between the various applicants and the department, that the company with which the Minister of Militia was connected did receive more favourable treatment than did Mr. Williams who applied on behalf of himself or a company that he was going to organize. I ask the question, why was that done? Could there be any other answer than the fact that he was Minister of Militia and Defence? And if that was the reason, if the fact of the hon. minister being a member of this government influenced the conduct of his colleague to grant favours to him that would not be granted to the ordinary individual, I do not hesitate to say that that act is one to be condemned by parliament and by the country. The Minister of Agriculture suggested-in fact, made the bald statement-that he had waited five long months from June until September for Mr. Williams to perfect his application. Now, while we are bound to take the statement of the minister in this House, is there not a fair and cogent reason for the lapse of five months' time at that particular stage ? Where was the Minister of Agriculture and where was the Minister of Militia and Defence during that time? I think the Minister of Militia said himself that he was attending the imperial conference. So instead of waiting five months for Mr. Wil-	bably some blame attached to Mr. Williams, that he did not pursue his application as vigorously as he might have done. I venture to say that is not an important question in the discussion now before us. It is a comparatively unimportant question whether Mr. Williams did or did not pursue the matter on which he was engaged as vigorously as he might have done, and it is not a matter of vital importance whether Mr. Williams was right or wrong. The point seems clear that the Minister of Agriculture advised Mr. Williams that the Minister of Militia had made an application which was favourably entertained by the Minister of Agriculture, and that Mr. Williams, rightly or wrongly, took this as a pretty clear intimation that he was not in the running. In other words, it seems clear that by the action of the Minister of Agriculture and the position the Minister of Militia had assumed in connection with this matter, the incorporation of the company and the promotion of his scheme, an . outside and independent party was frightened out of the field. The important, crucial point in this case is-whether a minister of the Crown has so connected himself with the distribution of public funds which should go without trammel to those entitled to them, that a person who would otherwise have been induced to apply and 1 would have got the benefit of that sub-

sidy was driven away; and that a minister of the Crown occupied an exceptionally favourable position in the matter.
Now, going back a little, what is the situation ? This is one point we should keep track of, that before the time when the Minister of Agriculture introduced this resolution of December, 190G, we had already two-I believe three-laws providing for subsidies. We had provisions which enabled them to establish bait freezing stations on a small scale, and we had provisions which enabled the government to subsidize bait freezing-stations on a large scale, giving them fifty per cent on the original outlay, and I think $2,000 a year afterwards. We had also the general provisions for cold storage, and the fact that we had a cold storage law in force at the time that the Minister of Militia determined to incorporate his company and float this scheme, is a most important fact that must not be lost track of in considering the question whether the minister put himself in a position which was not consistent with the public interest, or with the high position he occupied as a minister of the Crown. We had a statute which provided that wherever a cold storage station was established w-henever a commercial cold storage plant was constructed, according to the regulations of the government, the parties would be entitled to'five per cent upon their outlay up to $40,000. So the minister does not get rid of the difficulty by saying that he went into this transaction and floated this company to go into the cold storage business, and was frightened off as soon as he discovered the enlarged subsidy policy of the Minister of Agriculture, because the fact was that before he conceived this scheme there was a subsidy law upon the statute-book. Does any one believe for a moment that the Minister of Militia did not intend to avail himself of that Act in the scheme which he inaugurated in the fall of 1906 ? It is only a question of degree. The minister must admit that when he conceived the scheme of forming a company, and applied for incorporation, and associated with himself Mr. Graham and his son-in-law, he knew there was a law on the statute-book giving a subsidy to cold storage companies, and that he intended at the time to avail himself of the provisions of the law which then existed. It is no excuse, he does not get rid of the difficulty by saying that when he found what the matured plan of the Minister of Agriculture was, he determined not to go into the scheme, or in other words, to disassociate himself from that scheme. Now, to be perfectly fair with the minister, I will read what he said :
While I was in England in 1906, application was 'made under instructions given by me and Mr. Graham jointly for the incorporation of


Haughton Lennox: a company. It was intended, I may say at once and frankly, that my properties in Kings eounty, orchards and farms, should be made a part of this company, and Mr. Graham, of Belleville, I believe a prominent Conservative, a great fruit dealer and well up lin cold storage and all matters pertaining to agriculture, was to have taken an interest and to put his properties into the company in the same way as mine were to be put in, and we were to accept bonds and a certain amount of stock for these properties. It was expected that money would he raised in England to carry on the business, and it was expected also that a portion of the money woxild undoubtedly be invested in the establishment of cold storage plants in different parts of Canada. Was there anything wrong in that? Was there anything highly improper in that?
Well, I cull attention to the fact that the minister, in almost the next sentence, says that there would have been something wrong if he had proceeded with that scheme after he knew what the policy of the Minister of Agriculture was.


Frederick William Borden: No, I am misreported there, the word 1 not ' was left out in the next sentence after what the hon. gentleman has read.


Haughton Lennox: I will read the next sentence.
This was all arranged before it was expected that any policy such as that afterwards decided upon would be brought down by the government. When the Minister of Agriculture saw fit to adopt the policy of aiding, somewhat largely, cold storage, I felt that, so far as I was concerned, it would be undesirable for me to own stock in any company which was receiving from the government a subsidy, although under the law I do not know that it would have been.


Frederick William Borden: The first part of that sentence is all right, but the word 1 not ' should be in.


Haughton Lennox: I understand the minister to say that when he found a matured scheme by the Minister of Agriculture to grant subsidies, he thought it would be improper for him as a minister of the Crown to go on and organize a company, and to receive a subsidy from the government.


Frederick William Borden: I said ' undesirable.'


Haughton Lennox: Weil, if it was undesirable in the case of a large subsidy, it was also undesirable in the case of a small subsidy. The minister knew at the time he was incorporating this company as well as any one can know to-day, that there was a provision of existence, of which he would avail himself, for subsidizing a company such as he was floating. Therefore it is hard to understand how the minister can draw the distinction. It is just as wrong, I suppose to be guilty-well, I
9401 MAT 29, 1908 9402	
won't give the illustration that occurred to my mind, but you cannot draw the distinction. Now let me show how the matter stands. It is a peculiar fact that just the old policy is pursued in this matter that we find in so many cases. The old plan is that whenever there is going to be-I won't say a raid upon the government- but whenever there is going to be something to be taken out of the public treasury for the benefit of individuals who are dealing with this government, almost invariably it is done by incorporating a company. So we find that in this case, in the month of October, 1906, the bon. gentleman, according to his own statement, sets about incorporating a company. We have the same thing in the case of the Ross Rifle Company, although Sir Charles Ross is the only gentleman who is a member of the company; we have the same thing in the North Atlantic Trading Company, and we could not find out who they were; we had the same thing in that famous SubTarget Gun Company, we had Mr. Hartley Dewart and others forming themselves into a company; we had the same thing in connection with the raid upon the government in the case of the Carbide Companies, and more recently we had the Falconer deal and the Falconer Company as its sequence. So that for many years it had been the practice to form companies for the purpose of dealing with the government, companies composed of clerks and unknown persons. Now the minister incorporates a company, the Canadian Produce and Cold	cally challenged by the letters of reply that Mr. Williams sends from time to time, it is pretty hard to realize that the Minister of Agriculture is quite correct in saying that he did not appreciate the position at the time. I think we ought to be prepared for something of the kind on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture for, if I remember rightly, speaking in the city of Montreal on a most important question a year or so ago, he said that we wanted no preferential treatment, that we wanted nothing in return for the preference that we gave to Great Britain, and when taxed with it in the House he said that he was not speaking as minister but in his private capacity only. Then, when later on, the hon. gentleman assured us that he had, on a most important question, a valuable letter, upon which our rights in reference to Japan hinged, the hon. gentleman found that again he was not to be depended upon, that he had not such a letter and never had had it as a matter of fact. It took him two years to find that out. And in this matter, although frotn time to time, his attention is directed by the correspondence, which I shall not read, to the point that a minister of the Crown is occupying a position in regard to this matter which must have inevitably challenged the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, it takes him until the day 'before yesterday to realize and to know that the language which he used on June 13,1907, was perhaps not actually correct. I will refer just to a few of the letters in connection with this matter. It has been so fully and ably dis-
Storage Company, and in order to meet objections of this afternoon, there is an attempt to separate the action of Mr. Graham from the action of Mr. Macoun and from the action of the minister. I want to say, as the minister himself states here, that this application was made on behalf of himself and Mr. Graham, and that the connection of Mr. Macoun with the matter as secretary of the original company, and as associated with the subsequent company with which this is amalgamated, is distinctly admitted. So that every step, whether by the minister, or by Mr. Macoun, or by Mr. Graham, shows that they are identical, they are all representing the company. Now what is the next step in the matter ? I might next refer to the peculiar attitude of the Minister of Agriculture. He tells us, when this letter is read to him, that we cannot depend upon him, that his language is not exact, that it is a little loose. Well, the minister can take that position if he likes, but when his attention is called to the fact, not only by his own letter, in which he admits that the Minister of Militia has made application on behalf of a company with which he is connected, but when the matter is referred to on several occasions and his attention is practi-	cussed on this side of the House that I only require to quote a few letters and add a few references to the position which has been taken by prominent men in Canada and Great Britain on matters similar to this. There is a most important letter directed to the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on August 15, 1907. I am not going to read that, but I am going to say that there are in it a great many important statements, statements which are in conflict, I x-egret to say, with statements made by the Minister of Militia and Defence. It is one of the unfortunate circumstances in connection with this matter that when you find a minister of the Crown in the race with outside individuals for persona] gain you are apt to get these unhappy conflicts, and although we in this House are prepared to take the statements of the Minister of Militia we must bear in mind that the position does not add to the dignity of parliament or to the dignity of the minister, aud we must also bear in mind that we are not the court of last resort and that although we may be prepared to take the statements of the Minister of Militia in contradiction of the statements of Mr. Williams, a warm supporter of the government and, I assume, a respectable man, the public may not be quite so anxious to take

them without a grain of salt. We have to bear in mind too that statements are contained throughout this correspondence in which the testimony of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) is invoked from time to time, and it is a significant fact, that, so far in the progress of this debate, although that hon. gentleman has not been absent from the precincts of this House, he has not seen fit to come to the rescue of the Minister of Militia and corroborate his statements by adding his testimony in contradiction of those of Mr. Williams. Although we have a number of statements introducing the name of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals showing us that by his knowledge a great many of these matters conld be established, we have not the testimony of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals in any way in contradiction of them. There are ways and ways as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals says, of doing things and if it is true of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, who departed from the government some years ago, how much more true do we realize it to be now with our knowledge of the devious ways which have been laid bare by our investigations within more recent times ? There are ways and ways of doing things and that is what we are complaining of. On December 5, 1906, the day that the resolution was introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. L. S. Macoun writes a letter which is put forward now as an application made by that gentleman for this subsidy. You cannot read an application into the wording of it, but you can read this in it, that he was very promptly acquainted in some way with'what was going on. We must recollect this point too that when we come to deal with this question of the letter of Mr. Fisher, which he wants to qualify, as I understand it this is the only application that was ever made, and it is made, not by the Minister of Militia, but by the secretary of the company and it is the company that was applying at that time. When the Minister of Agriculture speaks of the application of the Minister of Militia he speaks of the application made by the secretary of the company Mr Macoun. on behalf of Sir Frederick Borden' who was admittedly the chief promotor of the scheme at the time. I do not think I need read that letter. The next letter I will read, it is as follows :
St. John, December 7, 1906. Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I beg ito make application for assistance to a cold storage warehouse which I and associates desire to establish at the port of St. John. The application is made by me under the terms of the proposed Act in accordance with resolution of yourself before the House of Commons. I will make a more formal application when the matter can be Mr. LENNOX.
dealt with in exact terms, but I desire to lodge the present application with you. I have already had correspondence with yourself on the subject of cold storage, and am very glad to find that vou are disposed to place the government's assistance on a more liberal basis. St. John is well situated for a cold storage depot, and I feel that a pretty strong case oan be made out for a grant of assistance by you for a warehouse here. If it is necessary to make for the present any more formal application will you kindly advise me of its necessity.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) F. E. WILLIAMS.
That is a pretty definite application and it is a more definite application as I understand it than the application I have referred to on page 23 of this return and which has already been read to the House.
On December 13, 1906, the following letter was written by the Minister of Agriculture to Mr. Macoun :
L. S. Macoun, Esq., General Broker,
Ottawa, Ontario,
Dear Mr. Macoun,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 5, with reference to the Bill I am introducing to provide better cold storage facilities for perishable products.
I note your application on behalf of 'Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage, Limited,' and shall be glad to furnish you with all the information available when our departmental arrangements are completed. In the meantime I have obtained and beg to send you herewith ' Hansard ' report of the debates in the House on the subject up to the present time.
Yours very truly,


SYDNEY FISHER.
[Stage Direction]
On the same date December 13, 1906, the following letter is written by the Minister of Agriculture to F. E. Williams and Company :
Messrs F.   E.@: Williams & Co., Ltd.,
St. John, N.B.
Gentlemen,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 7th with reference to the Bill I am introducing to provide better cold storage facilities for perishable products. I note your proposal in that connection. If the Bill receives the assent of parliament, when our departmental arrangements are completed I will be glad to furnish you with all the information in regard to the details. In the meantime I obtained and beg to send you herewith ' Hansard ' reports of the debates in the House up to the present time.
Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
There is a difference between these two letters which I have not noticed before and I think it worth while to call attention to it. In answering the vague letter of Mr. Macoun which merely asked to be informed of the proceedings from time to time Mr. Fisher says :
[Stage Direction]
I note your application on behalf of Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage, Limited.
But In the corresponding place in the other letter he says :
Frederick William Borden: I am willing to take my chance.


George Eulas Foster: Does he deny there was any proposition made for a compromise ?
I note your proposal in that connection.
Is there any significance in that distinction ? Is the Minister of Agriculture then

I don't know-forming the Idea vaguely in his mind that he will not give Mr. Williams too good a chance and that he will put him off with vague phrases in the meantime. He also uses the phrase in the letter to Mr. Williams :
If the Bill receives the assent of parliament.
Which casts a certain doubt upon it and which may have some significance having regard to the fact that the phrase is not used in the other letter and having regard to the other matters which subsequently arose. On the 8th of April Mr. Williams writes again :
Bon. Sydney Fisher,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-Some time ago I made an application to your department for a grant for a cold storage plant to be established in St. John. Previous to this I had put in an application to Hon. Mr. Brodeur for a grant from the Marine and Fisheries department. The last time I was in Ottawa Hon. Mr. Brodeur informed me that they were going to merge the whole grant for cold storage in the Government Cold Storage Act. I had the pleasure of meeting and talking the matter over with your good self in the presence of_ " 11; HT Emmerson, Sir Frederick Borden and Hon. Mr. Brodeur.
That part of the transaction is not denied as fully as it might have been :
At that time Sir Frederick Borden had a proposition which he was trying to carry out and wanted my friends and myself to go in with him, he and his son-in-law being the prime movers in this scheme.
That is denied as I understand it by the Minister of Militia but I can only say


Frederick William Borden: It is utterly false.


Haughton Lennox: I accept the proposition of the Minister of Militia but I must again express regret that in the race for this private gain between a minister of the Crown and an outsider, the public may well reserve doubts upon the question.


Frederick William Borden: How sorry you are for that.


Haughton Lennox: I regret it very much.


Frederick William Borden: I am sure.


Haughton Lennox: I hope the minister who is so prompt to-day in asking people to accept his statement will accept mine with the same candour.


Haughton Lennox: He says now it is utterly
false.


Frederick William Borden: I say the statement contained in that letter is false.


George Eulas Foster: That there was any compromise proposed ?


Frederick William Borden: No, not
with me. I never had any talk with the man on business lines.
Mr. FOSTER, Mr. Macoun seems to put it exactly the reverse.


Frederick William Borden: I don't
know anything about that.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Emmerson all along assured me that my proposition was first in the hands of the government and he and Mr. Brodeur had promised to give me a bonus from the fishery department and now that is merged into your department I should have first consideration, and I would like to know by return mail if my application is to be granted for a cold storage warehouse in East St. John, or is the application of Sir Frederick Borden to be accepted instead.
Mark the language there. That statement that Sir Frederick Borden is making an application is not denied but is rather corroborated in the correspondence :

Hen.-ErR, Emmerson-now-being out of the government I have to turn to you direct. Kindly give me a direct reply as soon as possible and you will very much oblige me, as I have other plans which I want to carry out if I am not to receive the government aid.
I am inclosing copies of some of my letters to Mr. Emmerson on this cold storage subject, which will convey to you my ideas and feelings regarding the matter.
As I understand it these are letters complaining very distinctly of the position the Minister of Militia occupies in reference to this matter, and Mr. Williams brings it to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture in the most direct possible way, and this would be calculated to prevent the Minister of Agriculture making any unconscious slip with regard to the position of Sir Frederick Borden in the matter. It is hard to realize how the Minister of Agriculture could have made any slip when he came to write the letter of the 11th of April. This letter con-eludes :
I trust it will not take too much of your valuable time to peruse the same and become a little acquainted with the co-id storage proposition in St. John.
Yours truly,
(Ssd.l F. E. WILLIAMS.
On the 11th of April, 1907, with the definite statement before him that Sir Frederick

Borden was connected with this other company the Minister of Agriculture makes this reply :
April 11, 1907.


Messrs F.   E.@: Williams,
St. John, New Brunswick.
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 8. I may say that we have not yet made any grant for a cold storage warehouse in St. John. Sir Frederick Borden has made application on behalf of a company with which he is connected, and I have viewed his application very favourably.
Not a question of being interested in the valley of Annapolis, not a question of being interested on behalf of constituents, not ' has recommending or interesting himself in a scheme,' but 'has made an application on behalf of a company with which he is connected
And I have viewed his application very favourably.
We are bound to take the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. It always affords me great pleasure to do so, but it does violence to my judgment. I find it is only my extreme confidence in the hon. gentleman and a parliamentary rule that enables me to do so, because if it were some one with whom I was less acquainted, in whom I had less faith, I would say that was about as conclusive and as damning as it could possibly be upon this question.
None of the applications

Again applications.
None of the applications, however, are in a position to be passed upon absolutely.
I cannot make any promises without definite plans and specifications and full information as to what the people applying for may bo prepared to do.
Yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
Then we have this letter which is most important, and which nullifies many of the interjections of the Minister of Militia this afternoon. Mr. Graham wrote this letter on April 13:
Belleville, Ontario, April 13, 1907. Hon. Sydney Fisher,
*Ottawa.
Deair Sir,-Sir Frederick Borden requested me to interview you dn reference to aid for our cold storage propositions at St. John and Halifax. It is our intention to complete the one in St. John this season.
Mark you, he receives the request or the instruction from the gentleman who is the chief promoter of this scheme. This brings it down as late as April 13th, long after the time when the Minister of Militia points out to us he had taken fright from the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was increasing the grant to cold storage plants- willing to take a little out of the public Mr. LENNOX
treasury as a minister of the Crown, to benefit in competition with outsiders but when a large proposition was made he took fright. Down to the 13th of April, at all events, we have the most cogent evidence that he was the prime mover in this concern and suggested to his chief subordinate, Mr. Graham, to interview the Minister of Agriculture ' in reference to our cold storage propositions.' The letter continues:
-when I reached Ottawa Thursday night I learned from Mr. Macoun that you had advised him that everything had been arranged in connection with this matter and therefore it would be unnecessary for me to bother you any further dn reference to ithe matter in question. This will explain why I did not interview you in regard to the matter and if any further application or information is required please advise.
Yours truly,
«. J. GRAHAM.
That was only two days after the Minister of Agriculture told Mr. Williams that no plans had been completed and
None of the applications, however, are in a position to be passed upon absolutely.
And led Williams to understand that he was not then at all events definitely committed to the adoption of Sir Frederick Borden's scheme.
Frederick William Borden: I might say to the hon. gentleman that on April 1st I left Ottawa for England and was at that time on the sea.


Haughton Lennox: Of course I take the minister's statement for that, I did not know it. I do not think that matters at all, because this man is speaking on behalf of the company. I did not understand the minister to deny that Mr. Graham was correct in saying ' Sir Frederick Borden requested me to interview you.'


Frederick William Borden: Since I am appealed to I have no objection to saying that I saw Mr. Graham a great many times prior to my leaving for England, and it is quite possible I may have advised him to see Mr. Fisher with reference to carrying out the idea of constructing this cold storage at St. John, but I have no x'ecollec-tion of any particular occasion, and I am quite sure I did not advise him to consult Mr. Fisher with reference to any particular plans or schemes.


Haughton Lennox: It is only another of those unfortunate contradictions. I am bound, on account of the parliamentary rule, to take it that Mr. Graham is not correct in what he says.


Frederick William Borden: No, I did not say that.
9409	MAY 29, 1908	9410


Haughton Lennox: He says: ' Requested me to interview you ' which is an entirely different thing.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman is putting an improper and unfair construction on the letter.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think so. When this gentleman says ' X am requested by Sir Frederick Borden,' I understand that he means that Sir Frederick Borden is the moving spirit in it.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Macoun says that this gentleman is their hired man.


Haughton Lennox: If it were only that Sir Frederick Borden was advising him he would say so. However, I am quite willing to have the minister's explanation as he gives it. My attention has been called to this that both the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) and the Minister of Militia have made statements in the House impugning the standing of Mr. Williams.


Sir   FREDERICK@: BORDEN. I made none.


Haughton Lennox: I am advised on reliable authority that I should contradict this and say he is one of the most prominent, reliable and successful merchants in St. John, thoroughly able financially to carry out the whole cold storage enterprise without assistance, that he is a very large -importer- of fruits -from- the- West Indies, does a large provision business in all lines and understands the ins and outs of the cold storage business while not one of the members of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company knows anything like as much.


George Eulas Foster: And at his first application had the endorsation of the most prominent Liberals in St. John.


Haughton Lennox: And had the recommendation, if that is worth anything-it used to be worth a great deal-of the ex-Minister of Railways, and had the promise and the assurance of the ex-Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
The next letter is dated April 16th, 1907:


Mr.  R. J.@: Graham,
Belleville, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-I beg .to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 13, and note wthat you state in regard to youir visit to Ottawa last Thursday. This is quite satisfactory.
Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
What do these words ' this is quite satisfactory ' mean? They mean that everything contained in that letter is substantially correct, that there is nothing to qualify or contradict, and therefore that everything has been arranged in connection with 299
the matter as he says. That letter is signed by the Hon. Sydney Fisher.
Then we have a letter of the 3rd June, 1907:
The Hon. Sydney Fisher,
. Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-I received blanks for application for cold storage warehouses. In your letter of April 11 you gave me to understand that nothing could be done unless plans and specifications were submitted and you also stated that you looked favourably upon giving this grant in St. John to Sir Frederick Borden I have already spent considerable of my money going to Ottawa and endeavouring to obtain a grant for the cold storage warehouse in St. John, and I do not feel like spending any more money in getting up plans and specifications if the preference is to be given to Sir Frederick Borden. I have written very strongly on this matter. I would again kindly request that you inform me plainly if it would be worth while proceeding to get plans and specifications ready to submit .to you.
Was that ever put right iu regard to that matter ? Was he ever told that Sir Frederick Borden was uot making an application? Was he ever told that Sir Frederick Borden was not the favoured applicant or that he was wrong in assuming that he was shut out? I do not understand that he was. I understand that that letter remained unanswered and is unanswered to-day. Was this man led to understand that he was not in the running, that he might as well give it up? He puts it plainly when he says he wants to know if there is any -nse-of-sneiiiiine- more money to prepare plans and specifications, because if not he wants to give the matter up. He calls attention to the fact that he has written protesting against the government giving a grant to a cabinet minister in preference to an independent outsider, and he finally appeals to the Minister of Agriculture asking him to inform him plainly if it would be worth while for him to proceed to get plans and specifications to submit to liim, and be gets no answer. When the First Minister writes to him calling his attention to the fact that he lias put in no plans, what does it amount to? It amounts to the refinement of cruelty to make such a statement in the face of the fact that that letter remained unanswered. I have nothing more to say about the letters. If ever a complete case was established of a minister of the Crown having taken a position Inconsistent with his high office by putting bimself in rivalry -with an outsider for a grant of public money, I venture to say that that was the position occupied by the Minister of Militia, not upon controverted testimony, but upon bis own admitted statements in the House. What does that lead to? I want to call attention very briefly to what follows. I do not want to take any position that I cannot adequately susta'in. An hon. gentleman said yes-
[Stage Direction]


terday that probably this was an infringement of the Independence of Parliament Act. I am not setting myself up as an authority, but speaking from my own view of things I cannot see it in that light. But there is some thing far more important than the mere question of the Independence of Parliament Act. There is the unwritten law that guides the conduct of ministers in the great parliament which we copy and try to emulate, which ought to be and generally is far more effective than any Independence of Parliament Act. I am not going to say whether the minister should take the position that was suggested to him, I think in the kindliest spirit, by the hon. gentleman who commenced this discussion the day before yesterday. To a great extent he relied upon reading the correspondence which had been brought down by the government in this matter. He made no hostile criticism of it, but rather appealed to the hon. gentleman's own sense of the fitness of things, and I am prepared as a younger member of the House to leave it just in that way to the hon. gentleman whose position is assailed, necessarily assailed by the circumstances that have been detailed, and to call to his attention a few examples in the hope that in this parliament-which has had great traditions in the past and which I hope will maintain those high traditions in the future -these examples may illustrate the position that a minister of the Crown should occupy in a case of this kind. The right hon. gentleman who leads the House knows the absolute freedom from entangling and suspicious connections which that great parliamentarian, Mr. Gladstone, always insisted upon. It was one of the very bright spots in his brilliant career that he insisted upon all the members of his government keeping free not only from business connections which would in any way embarrass the actions of the government, but all connections which would at all bring suspicion upon the high position which he was determined should be occupied by himself and his ministers. Then I call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the case of the Rt. Hon. W. H. Smith-to one circumstance in his life which is related in a letter he wrote to the president or other high official of the Bank of England at a time when it was in an embarrassed position. The bank had applied to Mr. Smith for assistance, and had suggested that he take a directorship in the bank or shares by way of recognition of the assistance he gave. What did Mr. Smith do? He said no. He wrote back :	* I will advance to the bank
£100,000 for its temporary assistance, but I will not take a scratch of a pen in return; I will take neither a directorship nor a share in the bank, because I want not only to be free from any entangling alliances of that kind, but I am determined Mr. LENNOX.
to preserve myself free from the possibility of suspicion.' I draw attention also to the case of Sir Richard Webster. The right hon. gentleman who leads the House will remember that in the Parnell case Sir Richard Webster, occupying the position of Solicitor General, not a member of the cabinet, acted on behalf of the * Times ' newspaper, and in connection with the Parnell incident dealt with political questions, and the right hon. gentleman will remember the position taken by many of the prominent men in the House of Commons in discussing that question, as to the evil effect of people associated with the government of the country taking sides on questions with which they would afterwards have to deal in the House. If that is true of questions which may be discussed in the House of Commons, how much more injurious is it for a minister of the Crown to sit in Council, assisting in determining whether it shall or shall not be the policy of the government to grant the public funds in aid of any public enterprise, joining in trying bis own case, and then to go as an outside individual and put himself in the position of getting the benefit of that which he voted secretly in the cabinet council. Then take the other minister of the Crown, the hon.' gentleman who introduced this resolution on December 4, 1006, the Minister of Agriculture, and what position does he occupy? Did he take the country into his confidence? When he explained that he had been incubating this matter for months and years, did he tell us, that already not only had he formed an opinion that it was a desirable thing to do, but that he was in negotiation with certain parties, and to whom he had practically committed himself.
Then, we had the instance of Mr. Chamberlain referred to, but the fact was not referred to that, as I understand it, Mr. Chamberlain, on going into the government dissociated himself from the business interests with which he had been so long financially concerned and of which he had been the guiding spirit in the early years of his life on the ground that he was going into an office whose duties might be antagonistic in those interests. He severed completely his connection with business concerns that might, at some future time, have dealings with the government.
George Eulas Foster: That is quite different from the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture.


Haughton Lennox: Yes. But it is probably like the hon. gentleman's other statement; he will be likely to revise it as he has revised many other statements he has made on previous occasions. And not to be beggared for authority, let me give a high one, cited here to-day. Would it not be well to adopt the principle advocated by Sir


Rt.   H@: I have followed this Mr. LENNOX
discussion from the first word to the last with a good deal of interest, and some curiosity also, because the subject was not altogether new to me. Shortly after my return from England last year, I was called upon by a letter received from the gentleman whose name lias been often mentioned during this debate, to give some attention to it. Before I go any further, I must say to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and to those who have spoken on the same side of the House in regard to this matter, that in my humble estimation they have been extremely unfair, both towards my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, and still more towards my colleague the Minister of Militia. The hon. member for North Toronto, as has been said, introduced this motion in a speech which, in some respects, was moderate and fair enough, but which in some particulars, I think lie will agree with me on reflection, was the reverse of fair and moderate.


George Eulas Foster: Will the Prime Minister kindly point out those particulars ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will certainly. As I said, shortly after my return from Europe, I received a letter from Mr. Williams, which was read by the hon. member for North Toronto, and which therefore I will not read again, calling my attention to what he deemed to he an injustice committed towards himself by the Minister of Agriculture, in this, that he had been an applicant for a subsidy voted by parliament for the establishment of a cold storage, that his application had been denied, and that the same subsidy had been given to a company in which the Minister of Militia had interested himself. He did not put tlie latter fact to me in the words I have Indicated, on the contrary, lie stated in so many words that the subsidy had been given to a company in which the Minister of Militia had a prominent interest-I forget the exact words at the present time ; but I know my hon. friend will agree with me that that was the sense of the letter which was addressed to me. It was my duty therefore under the circumstances to give some attention to the matter, and I did it all the more readily because I understood that Mr. Williams was a very respectable citizen of the city of St. John, and also a prominent Liberal. It is of no particular interest to the House to remind it that the policy which had been introduced by the Minister of Agriculture of bonusing plants for cold storage in different parts of the country, had been received with great favour by both sides of this House. The Minister of Agriculture had also come to the conclusion that it would be in the public interest that such a plant should be established in the city of St. John, and I
9417	MAY 29, 1908	9418
think we can all agree with that when we consider the important shipping facilities which are afforded by the city and harbour at St. John. After looking into the matter 1 found that two applications had been put into the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. One was by Mr. Williams himself, one was by Mr. Macoun, who is the son-in-law of the Minister of Militia, and Defence, and who acted in behalf of the company of which it is no use to speak at any length at this moment. Both these applications had the support of friends. Mr. Macoun's application was supported by the Minister of Militia, who was a colleague of the Minister of Agriculture. The application of Mr. Williams was supported by my then colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals of that day, the present member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). As is natural under such circumstances the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Railways of that day favoured, as best they could, the interests of their respective applicants. Under such circumstances X put it to my hon. friend from North Toronto. (Mr. Foster), I put it to any man in this House : What should be the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture ? Here were two parties, both respectable, both represented to be able to carry out this contract, both represented to be able to perform the duties attached to it and both having the support behind them of their respective friends. What was the
___Minister of Agriculture to do ? If mv hon.
friend from North Toronto had been Minister of Agriculture, what would he have done ? What could he have done ? In what manner could he have disposed of the question ? Would he have given the subsidy to the one or the other ? Would he have given the subsidy to Mr. Macoun in behalf of the corpnanv which he represented, or would he have given it to Mr. Williams ? If he had given it either to one or to the other, simply upon the ground ot-showing favour to one or other of the parties, either to the partv represented by the Minister of Militia, or to the party represented by the then Minister of Railways and Canals, such a conclusion would have been most unsatisfactory. The Minister of Agriculture thought, and thought very properly, that under such circumstances he would give the subsidy to the party who, in his opinion, could show that he was the more deserving, the better equipped and the more likely to carry out the intent of the Act ; that is to say, to promote the commercial policy which was involved in the voting of the subsidy by parliament. Mr. Macoun, in behalf of the company which he represented, filed his plan and specification, showed to the ministers, in black and white by an actual document deposited in his hands, how lie was prepared to earn the subsidy voted by parliament, what he proposed to do, the buildings, the equipment and the plant which he proposed to erect. The Minister of Agriculture very properly asked the same thing of Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams made his application. It is of no use to refer to the fact that Mr, Williams had, long before the matter came into the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, made also to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a similar application. It is of no use to look into that. It is not a case of first come, first served, because the subsidy should go to the one most deserving of it. At the time that Mr. Williams applied to the Minister of Agriculture he was given the same answer : File your plans and specifications and then I will be in a position to judge, But, I call the attention of the hon. member for North Toronto,, of every hon. gentleman who spoke on that side of the House and of every hon. gentleman who sits on that side of the House also, to the fact that with every one of these requests of the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Williams, very much, it seems to me, to his own injury, and very illogically, refused to comply or to give a direct answer. It is evident from the correspondence that Mr. Williams would not file his plans and specifications unless he had an assurance in advance that his plans and specifications would be adopted. Let me here, to emphasize this point, quote the letter of Mr. Williams in which that is made very clear. It was written to the Minister of Agriculture on the 3rd June,
1007.__This letter has been quoted more
than once bnt.T quote it again to~olliicli (lie point which I have just been making
Dear Sir,-I received blanks for application for cold storage warehouse. In your letter of April 11, you gave me to understand that nothing could be done unless plans and specifications were submitted, and you also stated that you looked favourably upon giving this grant in St. John to Sir Frederick Borden. I have already spent considerable of my money going to Ottawa and endeavouring to obtain a grant for the cold storage warehouse in St. John, and I do not feel like spending any more money in getting up plans and specifications if the preference is to be given to Sir Frederick Borden. I have written very strongly on this matter. I would again kindly request that you inform me plainly if it would be worth while proceeding to get plans and specifications ready to submit to you.
If this means anything it means that.M1'-Williams, the writer of this letter, would not file plans and specifications unless he was told in advance : Yes. you may go to the expense, you may prepare your plans and specifications, you will get the contract. Could such an answer be given by the Minister of Agriculture ?


George Eulas Foster: Does the Prime Minister think that is a fair interpretation ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, I do think so.


George Eulas Foster: Of these words ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do think so. What else could it be ? Could any other answer be given than the answer which was given ? I ask my hon. friend that question now.


George Eulas Foster: I think I would have to take into consideration the immediately preceding announcement which had been made by Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams had been an applicant for more tban a year, first under one and then under another and he had been shunted off, properly enough, from the Minister of Marine arid Fisheries under his systems to the new system under the Minister of Agriculture. He transferred his long pending claim or application to the proper minister and made it on the 7th day of December, 1900. It was not long after that until,in a communication, he was told by the Minister of Agriculture : Sir, Frederick Borden has made application and I look favourably upon his application. Now, you have a defenceless private individual pitted against a powerful minister and the ministes who is to decide upon these applications telling him to his face that he has an application in from a minister and ' I look very favourably on it.' From that day to this Mr. Williams could get no statement from the Minister of Agriculture that if he went to the expense of getting plans and the like of that he would even get fair consideration.


Wilfrid Laurier: When my hon. friend rose I did not expect that he would interject a speech into my speech. I should have known better because I have known my hon. friend for a long time. I blame myself and I do not blame him. ije is true to his nature and therefore let us now go on with the argument.


George Eulas Foster: I wanted to give all the information I could.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture spoke very frankly and I think the very frankness of the Minister of Agriculture is something which my hon. friend from North Toronto cannot understand.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps so; I am so used to the frankness of the First Minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Agriculture said frankly and fairly : I have an application also from Sir Frederick Borden which I view very favourably. He did not tell him That he need not apply any more. He did not put him off, but he told him that : Although I look upon this application favourably and even very favourably I am bound to give you satisfaction, I am bound to hear you, I am bound to consider your applications ; file your plans and specifications and I shall decide accordingly between the application supported by Sir Frederick Borden and the application


Wilfrid Laurier: supported by Mr. Emmerson, because there "was on the one side Mr. Emmerson and on the other side Sir Frederick Borden.
The Minister of Agriculture could not have done otherwise than to ask Mr. Williams to file his plans and specifications so that he might judge between the two applications which had the better equipment and to which the subsidy should go in order best to accomplish the object parliament had in view in voting it. I believe that no other decision could have been arrived at by the Minister of Agriculture. But, my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is prejudiced upon the question and he has started with the object of finding the Minister of Militia at fault, and the whole of his speech, although very dulcet in tones except the latter part of it. tended to endeavour to place responsibility upon the Minister of Militia. If Mr. Williams had followed the advice given him by the Minister of Agriculture and filed his plans then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) would have been in a position to determine whether the Minister of Agriculture had done right or wrong in granting Mr. Ma-coun's application, but since Mr. Williams would not put his plans and specifications before the Minister of Agriculture what other conclusion could the minister arrive at than to give the subsidy to the party who had complied with the rules and regulations and filed his plans and specifications ? I do not think anything else could have been done than what the Minister of Agriculture did. Mr. Williams is a political friend of mine though not a personal friend, and when I looked into the papers I wrote him my opinion very plainly. I told him that since he had refused to comply with the request to place his plans and specifications before the department, the Minister of Agriculture could have taken no other course. I rely on the spirit of fair play of every man in this House to say if such is not the casq although of course my hon. friend from North Toronto will not be convinced by anything we can say to him. _ Since there were two applicants before the minister and one of them refused to comply with the very reasonable request made him, it seems to me there can be no cause for complaint. If my memory serves me right the Department of Agriculture asked Mr. Williams not once but on two or three occasions to file his plans and specifications. Last fall when I was appealed to I looked into the matter with some care and consideration-I do not say I looked into it minutely so as to become acquainted with all the details, but I looked into it sufficiently to satisfy myself as to the salient points and these salient points I have stated to the House and upon them the Minister of Agriculture gave his decision.


Robert Laird Borden: At what date were the plans and specifications furnished to the Minister of Agriculture ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot Bay.


George Eulas Foster: June 11.


Robert Laird Borden: If it all depended upon an examination of these, why should the Minister of Agriculture look so favourably upon either one application or the other on the 11th of April ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no doubt he looked favourably upon the application because he saw in it elements of certainty and elements of progress, and I understand the result has been that the company has exhibited great diligence and great enterprise in the undertaking. At all events the Minister of Agriculture stated frankly to Mr. Williams that he looked favourably on the application of Mr. Macoun, and Mr. Williams knew he had a strong competitor and it was open to him to make the best case he could before the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture came to the conclusion, and I believe rightly, that he would give the subsidy to Mr. Macoun's company, and in view of the circumstances before him I do not see how it would be possible for him to come to any other conclusion. I have said that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Foster) had been very unfair in some of his statements, and in reply to his request I will give him an example of that. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) quoted from the letter which I wrote
It was the intention of the Minister of Agriculture, should your application he filed, to consider it in connection with the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, the one on whose behalf Sir Frederick had interested himself.
and this is how the hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Foster) commented on that:
There again the Prime 'Minister declares that Sir Frederick Borden was interested in this company.
Nothing could be more ingenious and unfair than that comment. I said that Sir Frederick Borden had interested himself on behalf of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company and my hon. friend has twisted that into a statement that I said that Sir Frederick Borden had an interest in that company. Of course, the distinction between the two is very obvious. Interesting one's seif on behalf of a company and having an interest in that company are two things absolutely dissimilar.


George Eulas Foster: What did the Prime Minister say ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Prime Minister said that Sir Frederick Borden had interested himself on behalf of that company and therefore I think the hon. gentleman should admit, now that I call his attention to it, that it was an absolutely unfair comment for him to state that I said Sir Frederick Borden had an interest in that company. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) need not look at me in that fashion ; the hon. gentleman deserves the compliment I pay him when I say that I do not know any man in this House who has so loose a tongue in making insinuations, nor do I know any one who has so thin a skin when he is retaliated on. If it were a fact that the Minister of Militia had had an interest in the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company which got the contract, there would be something to be said as to the motion of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox).


Robert Laird Borden: Of which company is the Minister of Agriculture speaking in the letter to which I have already referred ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The company for which Mr. Macoun first applied was the Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage Company.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, yes, it is mentioned there.


Wilfrid Laurier: But this
company did not get the contract, the contract was awarded to another company known as the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company.
Mr, PORTER. After an amalgamation.
-Sir WILFRID -LAURIER._____Where does
my hon. friend see that.


Frederick William Borden: There is no amalgamation.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my
hon. friend see anything to show that there is an amalgamation between the two parties ? The statement is made and not contradicted that the Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage Company, though incorporated, never was organized.


Edward Guss Porter: 
Frederick William Borden: His interest.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall read the whole letter:
As I have arranged with the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company to amalgamate my interests with theirs, re cold storage at the city of St. John, you will be good enough to substitute the name of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company in the agreement-


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.
Sir WILFRID LAUIilER (reading) : -instead of my own.
The point we were discussing was whether or not the Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage Company had been amalgamated with the New Brunswick Cold 'Storage Company and the evidence given of this amalgamation is the letter of Mr. Graham that he has amalgamated his interest, not the interest of the Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.


Edward Guss Porter: He had no interest except in that company.


Frederick William Borden: Then you accept everything? There is no connection that I can see between Mr. Graham and the Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Graham's letter said it was on behalf of the other company when he made the application.


Frederick William Borden: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where do you find any evidence of amalgamation between the two parties? And moreover what has that to do with it in view of the statement made against the Minister of Militia that the contract awarded was a contract to a company in which he had an interest. It matters not what happened before, but the contract was awarded to the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company and we have the word of the Minister of Militia, which has not been contradicted, that he has no interest whatever either directly or indirectly in that company. He made that statement as full, as complete, as deliberate as it could be made. No one has questioned it or can question it, unless it may be for the purpose of contradicting it by direct evidence. The minister has stated more than once to the conviction of everybody that he has absolutely nothing to do with this company. If the Minister of Militia had been connected with the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, then I would understand the lecture which has been given us by the member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) as to the character which ought to prevail in public life in this country. I have no exception to take to the statements of the hon. member on this point, I agree with him entirely. But whilst it is very true that the code of ethics in Great Britain is what he has stated it to be, that no public man should be interested at all in any company or association which may have anything to do, directly or indirectly, with the government, is. he prepared to say that that has been


Wilfrid Laurier: the code of ethics in this country? Is he prepared to say that the same code of ethics which has prevailed in England and which I agree with him ought to prevail in this country, has been the code here ? Surely he ' knows the history of this country too well not to know that this has not been the code in this country. I do not care to quote examples and would not quote them, but for the fact that one has been quoted to-day, the case of Hon. Thomas White, who was owner of the Montreal * Gazette.' Mr. White was one of the most honourable men who ever sat in this House, but he was connected with the Montreal ' Gazette ' which had a large printing contract with the government of that day. Some exception was taken to this, and the answer was that the law of the country allowed it, and that (he seat of the member could not be imperilled, that a member of the government or of parliament could be associated in a company which had dealings with the government. That was the code of ethics twenty years ago. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) says that we should have another code of ethics, that we should not be satisfied and that we should make it the rule that no member of parliament and especially of the government should be connected with auy association or company that may have any dealings with the government. I subscribe altogether to this * doctrine. It Is new in the political life in this country, but it is not too late to accept it. I am prepared to accept it in its entirety. My hon. friend lias quoted Sir Henry Lennox, Mr. Chamberlain and other men in Great Britain who, in order to be absolutely above reproach, have taken some action on which the hon. member has commented favourably. Mr. Chamberlain stated in the House on a charge brought against him that he had severed his connection with all the companies with which he had been associated, and which had contracts with the government. How is it that my hon. friend did not give the credit to the Minister of Militia of having done exactly the same thing in this matter. The Minister of Militia followed the example of Mr. Chamberlain. The minister stated so himself in the speech he delivered yesterday, saying that when he found the Minister* of Agriculture had introduced a Bill which was to provide for large subsidies he severed his connection absolutely with this organization.	,


Haughton Lennox: My reason is that the Minister of Militia retained his connection with the company until he accomplished all that he set out to accomplish, and as his son-in-law remained the beneficiary of that contract the severing of his connection -was too late to prevent the driving off of other independent applicants.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: 
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, the motion which has been preferred by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has received better favour at the hands of the government than the civil service resolution which was offered to the House a few days ago and summarily rejected. On that occasion the Prime Minister himself declared that he was entirely in sympathy with the resolution, and the Minister of Finance came very close to making the same statement. Yet although all the members of the government were presumably in favour of the resolution, they could not accept it because it was tantamount to a vote of want of confidence, while here is a resolution which supervenes upon a discussion which, according to the right hon. gentleman, has not been at all a non-partisan discussion as the other most assuredly was, according to his own admission; here is what he has declared to be an unfair, severe, unwarranted and unbased attack on the Minister of Militia and Defence, upon the Minister of Agriculture and upon the government, confined not to the member for North Toronto, but, as the Prime Minister has just said, participated in, and in much the same spirit, by every member who has spoken on this side of the House; and yet he accepts the resolution as one that is not a want of confidence at all.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: What connection is there between the resolution and the speeches?


George Eulas Foster: I am talking now to the Prime Minister, who is listening very, attentively, and I, do not want to be drawn off from the effect that I think I am producing upon him. Why does the Prime Minister adopt such different courses in the lapse of less than two days? What is the consistency in it?


Sir WILFRID  PALTRIER@: 'I told mv hon.
friend the other day.
Mr. FOSTER, I do not think the. Prime Minister could show as much. He denominated my speech as a very unfair one, and I asked him to point out the clauses in which I had been severe or unfair. After due. cogitation he pointed out one little clause in which It is very much the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee as to what the Prime Minister said and as to what I said ; and he quotes that as an example of my unfair and biased and uncased attack on the Minister of Militia and Defence. The Prime Minister in his letter speaks of ' the one on whose behalf Sir Frederick Borden had interested himself.' I made a running and quick comment on that as follows ;	' There again the Prime
Minister declares that Sir Frederick Borden was interested in this company.' If I had said that he had ' interested himself ' in this company, there would have been no criticism on the part of my right hon. friend, because then I would have been absolutely quoting his words ; but as I did not absolutely quote his words, but declared that Sir Frederick Borden was interested in this company, be cites that as an example of very unfair attack. Well, if I never get any more rasping criticism

than that, I think I shall pass through this House and this world quite lightly.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? Did not that sentence and the whole speech of my hon. friend mean that Sir Frederick Borden had a substantial interest in that company?


George Eulas Foster: I will tell my right hon. friend exactly what I meant and what I concluded, and my conclusion would have been absolutely absurd if I had not been convinced, after a thorough study of the documents, of the course I was pursuing, and of the trend of the whole matter under discussion. My opinion and my belief Is- and I cannot find that it is shaken in the least by what the Prime Minister has said -the documents all point that way, that Sir Frederick Borden, one of the Prime Minister's own ministers, sat with him at the round table of the government, was privy to, took part in the preparation and bringing to the point of passage in this, House, of legislation which provided subsidies out of the revenues of the country for a cold storage establishment, that Sir Frederick Borden upon his own admission during that very autumn, when this was being discussed and prepared, busied himself in incorporating a million dollar company for the double purpose of taking over property belonging to himself and going into the commercial cold storage business for the subvention for which the government's policy as aided in by himself was carefully thought out and brought up to the point of enactment. Am I wrong in that?


Duncan Ross: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Militia and Defence put words into my mouth that I did not use in my speech. He said that I charged him with procuring legislation of this kind in order that he might himself take advantage of it. He may search my whole speech through and he will find no statement of that kind. What I did say was this, that Sir Frederick Borden helped to prepare, was privy to, and as one member of thg cabinet was responsible for. that very legislation of which he proposed at the same time by the formation of this million-dollar company to take advantage.


Frederick William Borden: That is not true, that is all.


George Eulas Foster: Is it true or not that Sir Frederick Borden, during the autumn of 1906, procured the incorporation of a mil-lion-dollar company with the express purposes of taking over his own properties in part and of going into commercial cold storage business in part ?


Frederick William Borden: Go on.


George Eulas Foster: Will the Minister of Militia deny that? Will the Prime Minister deny that? Well, I have as good authority


George Eulas Foster: as can be obtained on that side of the House, the authority of the minister himself, who stated it in this House. That company was called the Canada Lands and Produce Company, and application was made by Mr. Macoun. As to Mr. Macoun, I asked frankly, and I found out-and it is nothing against Mr. Macoun, nor is it the least argument why he should not be engaged in that or any other business-


Frederick William Borden: You had a good deal to say about the son-in-law business the other day. You thought it was a reason then.


George Eulas Foster: I neither thought so, nor
said so.	"


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: No. But there is the statement of fact: Mr. Macoun, the son-inlaw of the Minister of Militia and Defence, makes application the second day after the legislation is announced by the Minister of Agriculture, for a subsidy. For whose company, I ask the Prime Minister ? For Mr. Macoun's company ? For Mr. Graham's company ? He made application, as he himself states for ' our ' company, the Canadian Lands and Produce Company, for which the Minister of Militia and Defence himself declared he procured the incorporation and told the House the reason why he procured it.


Haughton Lennox: He and Mr. Graham ?


George Eulas Foster: He and Mr. Graham and Mr. Macoun. Mr. Macoun makes application to the Minister of Agriculture, not for himself, but for the company which he calls 'our' company-because he is interested in it, I suppose. Now, we believe what Mr. Macoun says, and in his letter to the Minister of Agriculture he states that Mr. Graham was hired, his services were procured, because he was a practical man and they proposed to have Mr. Graham to manage their cold storage operations. Search the whole records through, and what other men do you find connected with the company than Mr. Macoun, the Minister of Militia and Defence and Mr. Graham ? Mr. Graham is the manager, the practical man ; Mr. Macoun is the secretary-so he denominates himself-and Sir Frederick Borden is the chief incorporator, according to his own statement tnade before the House on Wednesday. This is the first application and it was put in on December 5, one or two days after the legislation was announced by the Minister of Agriculture. Now, on the other hand, we find Mr. Williams, a private individual, who, from October, 1905, up to that time had been pushing an application
for cold storage before the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and who, at last, was told that he must now make his application to the Minister of Agriculture who was bringing in wider legislation. So, Mr. Williams puts in his application to the Minister of Agriculture on December 7, 1906. Strictly speaking, Mr. Macoun's application is for information and not for a subsidy, but it was evidently taken by the Minister of Agriculture as a general application, and he so replies to it in his letter to Mr. Macoun. Mr. Williams' application was absolutely an application for a subsidy according to the terms.of the legislation-it is a bona fide straight application ; he states what he wants and asks for the subsidy. Now, I think the Prime Minister left out some very important things. He said : What was the Minister of Agriculture to do ? Here were two applications, one supported by the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) and the other supported by the Minister of Railways and Canals. It does not seem to me that that is the way in which it ought to be put. Is the Minister of Agriculture there simply to balance between two of his own colleagues as to which of them he shall select as the recipient of a favour? The Prime Minister was nearer right when he said it was the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to choose the application which, in the end, he thought to be the best and the company that would pro-, * I
bably best carry out the enterprise. But
I ask the Prime Minister to take this into * consideration-Mr. Williams did not come without recommendation. The Minister of Militia and Defence, in that rather cross and heated manner in which he commenced his discussion of the matter, declared that Mr. Williams was a very unworthy man and a disappointed man, and that his statements were untruths and misrepresentations. The Prime Minister came nearer the truth, I think, when he stated that Mr. Williams,, so far as he knew was a very estimable man. So others thought. Mr. Williams came here with Mr. McAvity's recommendation behind him with the statement that he would receive all the support that could be given him in his application. He came with the recommendation of Mr. McKeown behind him, one of the lights of the Liberal party in the city of St. John. He came with the recommendation of Mr. Robertson behind him, with the recommendation of Mr. Trueman behind him and the hard steady work of Mr. Trueman for months and months in his favour, besides recommendation from citizens not so partisan as these I have mentioned. They vouched for his character, and they vouched for his ability. Now, here is what the Prime Minister overlooked : After Mr. Williams had put in his application on December 7, he attended in Ottawa himself with Mr. Trueman, his worker, and probably his solicitor. He attended here in company with Mr. Bmmerson, and conference after conference was heid. And it was during these conferences that Mr. Williams came to the conclusion that there were forces against him in the shape of the Minister of Militia and Defence that he found it would be difficult for him to overcome. The Minister of Militia has the advantage of being on the floor of parliament. He stands up and faces you, Mr. Speaker, and says: Mr. Williams' statements are untruths and misrepresentations, and I content myself with a general denial of them. And his word must be accepted. Mr. Williams has not a seat in this House; he is a private party, a business man. He may have all character, means, reputation and position, but his word does not go in this House against the statement of the Minister of Militia for the word of the minister must here be taken. So, we must have a little sympathy for Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams states that w'hen he came and pressed his application he found the Minister of Militia and Defence entrenched. And he found the Minister of Militia and Defence ready, and able, and willing, to say to him : Mr. Williams, I have an application in, and my application is favourably received by the Minister of Agriculture. And Mr. Williams' statement is that the Minister of Militia and Defence gave him to know, squarely and plainly, that he had not much chance in competition with him.


Frederick William Borden: That is false-Mr. Williams' statement is false.


George Eulas Foster: I am giving Mr. Williams' statement of it. Now, a man who is vouched for by the names I have given, a man who has passed all his life in the city of St. John, a reputable man, a successful business man-his statements are worth something outside of this House, and you cannot ignore them inside this House. Mr. Williams stated that the Minister of Militia and Defence told him that he could get a subsidy and that he had influence to make it impossible for Mr. Williams to get it.


Frederick William Borden: I never said that.


George Eulas Foster: pool our issues. Williams says that was done in the presence of Mr. Trueman, that Mr. Trueman was to prepare the agreement, that Mr. Trueman did prepare the agreement, and that the agreement was placed before the minister, and then the minister refused an arrangement.
me, the Minister of Railways and Canals on the one hand, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the other, would be interested in Mr. Williams' company ; that would be the inference.


George Eulas Foster: I would not make that inference.


Frederick William Borden: That is not true.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Macoun, the son-inlaw of the minister, states that Mr. Williams did make a proposition, that it was considered, and that it was not agreed to by our company, that is by himself, and the Minister of Militia, and possibly Mr. Graham, because Mr. Williams wanted too much. If Mr. Macoun is to be believed, there was something then in that. But Mr. Williams wrote to the Minister of Railways and Canals a letter on February 20, in which he detailed to the minister the circumstances of the case, and I think I had better read that letter and the reply of the minister thereto. I have not the letter that was written to the Minister of Railways and Canals, that is on the other file, and is with the ' Hansard but I will read Mr. Emmerson's reply. Mr. Emmerson, writing on February 28, 1907, says :
Dear Mr. Williams,-I am duly in receipt ot your letter of the 20th instant, inclosing a memorandum of agreement between your self and Mr. L. S. Macoun.
Why was it with Mr. L. S. Macoun ? Mr. Williams says it was with Mr. Macoun because the Minister of Militia suggested that it be made with Mr. Macoun so that liis own name should not be brought into it. Now here is the memorandum of Mr. Williams to the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Minister of Railways and Canals acknowledges the receipt of that memorandum and goes on :
I may say that I am now taking up this matter with the Department of Marine and fisheries, and I will advise you later as to the outcome.
Yours truly,


H. R. EMMERSON.
Frederick William Borden: With the Department of Militia and Defence, according to that; it was not in connection with the Department of Agriculture at all.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly, and why ? In that letter Mr. Williams details exactly what he says took place, and he says that he has Mr. Brodeur's influence, and he has of course Mr. Emmerson's influence [DOT] Mr Emmerson and Mr. Brodeur had been working together in order to get the subsidy. Mr. Williams invites and asks for the influence of the Minister of 'Marine and Fisheries as well.


Frederick William Borden: According to the reasoning that has been applied to Mr. FOSTER.


William Pugsley: If you treated them in the same way as you treat the Minister of Militia.


George Eulas Foster: I take issue with the Minister of Public Works, because of the statement of the Minister of Militia that he got up a million dollar company that he was the chief promoter in it, along with the two others, Mr. Macoun and Mr. Graham. We have not any such statement from the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that they are interested in the Williams company.


Frederick William Borden: What was the date of the letter you just read from Mr. Emmerson?


George Eulas Foster: February 28, 1907, and the letter that was writen to Mr. Emmerson was on February 20.


Frederick William Borden: And Mr. Williams' application to the Department of Agriculture was on the 7th day of December prior to that. This was evidently to the Marine and Fisheries Department. He seems to have been wobbling a little from one side to the other.


George Eulas Foster: Not at all, the statement I made is absolutely true, the application of December 7 was to the Minister of Agriculture, and you will find it if vou care to go through the papers. Mr. Emmerson takes it up with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in order If possible to influence the Minister of Agriculture to do the right thing by Mr. Williams. Now I want to cal] the attention of the Prime Minister to another thing. These things that I have been speaking of must be taken into account with Mr. Williams. Having gone through that rough experience personally, he comes to the conclusion that he has fought a pretty hard fight with the Minister of Militia. Then shortly afterwards when he asks for something a little more final, he receives that letter from the Minister of Agriculture, who tells him that he has received an application from Sir Frederick Borden on behalf of a company with which he is connected, not in which he is interested, but with which he is connected-the Prime Minister knows that is the verbiage of the letter,-aud he tells Mr. Williams right on the top of that that he is very favourably inclined to the proposition of the Minister of Militia and Defence. You must take that in connection with all these personal conferences that Mr. Williams went through with here, from December 7 until that date in,
[DOT]which he personally and by Mr. Trueman's aid, did all that he possibly could in order to forward his application. Now the next thing that I think tne Prime Minister does not take into account is ty is : Mr. Macoun had made an application on December 5. Mr. Graham is specially instructed by the Minister or Militia to go and see the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Graham starts from Belleville and comes to Ottawa. When he gets to Ottawa he confers with Mr. Macoun, and Mr. Macoun, who made the application for the minister's company, informs Mr. Graham, who is in the service of the minister's company, that lie himself has seen the Minister of Agriculture and that everything has been settled between them.
The Prime Minister remembers that letter and he remembers the letter of the Minister of Agriculture just three days afterwards written to Mr. Graham telling him he has received his letter, that is all satisfactory, or -words to that effect. Now, the Prime Minister must give some force and some weight to transactions, letters and words of that kind. Is it reasonable that Mr. Graham came upon that date, the 11th day of April, and made application for a compnny other than the minister's company? is it reasonable that when he came here Mr. Macoun. who was the secretary of the company and who had made application for information on the 5th December^ met him and said to him :	It is all
right;-Mr.-Graham : you do not need to go and see the inin isteF; 7iVAnTTh ave- -had a conference and we have settled this matter satisfactorily, and then, on the top of that, for Mr. Graham to get a letter from the Minister of- Agriculture telling him that he had received his letter giving this information to the minister and that it was satisfactory? Prom that very day, it seems to me, that Mr. Graham, Mr. Macoun and the Minister of Militia and Defence had that subsidy in their pockets for their interest, whatever it might be. That is,
I think, a reasonable conclusion to come to from these circumstances plainly as they are placed upon the records and plainly as they appear.
Now, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture was very positive day before yesterday about two things. He taxed me with unfairness because I had not read his reply to Mr. Macoun's application as well as his reply to Mr. Williams' application, if he had been listening to me he would have known that I had read both of them and that they are expanded in ' Hansard.' He was equally certain that Joseph Chamberlain made screws and all other kinds of goods and sold them to the British government while he was a member of the government, but it turns out that it was absolutely foundationless and it has been read twice over to-day that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain dissevered himself from all connections of that kind before be went into the government. Now, I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to revise another statement, or rather to give us some information. He states in a letter that he has received an application. I will read it so as to be sure :
April 11, 1907.


Messrs F.   E.@: Williams,
St. John, New Brunswick.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 8th. I may say that we have not yet made any grant for a cold storage warehouse in St. John.
The minister's mind was running upon a grant.
Sir Frederick Borden has made application on behalf of a company with which he is connected.
What for? The context shows that it means the grant.
-and I have viewed his application very favourably.
What application? The application for the. grant.
None of the applications, however, are in a position to be passed upon absolutely.
Now, will the Minister of Agriculture tell us what he means or what Mr. Macoun meant, Mr. Macoun, m the first place, by telling Mr. Graham that he had had a conference with the Minister of Agricul-ttmTltndTETiTMtrdwtd

^	ssitisfaetoriiy, and he. himself, in replying to Mr. Graham's intimation of this by saying in his letter that it was satisfactory. What does he mean by that? Will he tell the public what took place at that secret conference between him and Mr. Macoun where this was settled? Mr. Williams could not have any windfall like that. Mr. Williams was not in it at all, but Mr. Macoun goes to the minister and has his conference. Here are the instructions of the Minister of Militia and Defence to Mr. Graham to come up and interview the Minister of Agriculture and see about these things carried out by Mr. Macoun who had had his conference, and as he says to Mr. Graham had settled it satisfactorily and as the minister afterwards said it was satisfactory. That is one question I would like the Minister of Agriculture to answer. The other is this. He writes to Williams:
Sir Frederick Borden has made application on behalf of a company with which he is connected.
When did Sir Frederick Borden make application and will the minister bring down the application that he made? We have a right to either the answer as to the fact or a right to the papers upon the fact.


Haughton Lennox: Or both.


George Eulas Foster: Or both. Will the minister say that the application of Sir Frederick Borden that he refers to for a company with which he is connected was the application put in by Mr. Macoun on December 5 ? If he does what becomes of the Prime Minister's contention that the Minister of Militia and Defence never made an application? Or will he say that he refers in that letter to another application, to an application made personally by the Minister of Militia and Defence? If so, I think that would elucidate it and be equally destructive of the supposition that has been put forward by the Prime Minister in regal'd to this matter. Those are certain points that I think this House will require some information upon and if I insist upon it being given as strongly as I possibly can, and as calmly as I possibly can, I hope that nobody will declare that I am crooked mentally and morally and that sort of thing.	'


Frederick William Borden: That is all settled.


George Eulas Foster: That is all settled. I will not refer to it again, because the minister took it back as soon as he said it. These are some things that will have to be elucidated. The Prime Minister seemed to see nothing in all this other than what was proper for a cabinet minister to do. I know there are men in my right hon. friend's cabinet who, if they were on the deciding bench, as the Minister of Agriculture was in a case like that, and if it were patent as it seems to be in this case that a minister had a direct interest in a company, would have counselled their brother minister not to pursue it any further, that it would be an improper thing for a minister to form a million dollar company or to be the chief man in it and to apply either through Mr. Macoun or himself or both for a grant under the legislation which had been passed by this House and to press his claim before one of his colleagues and against the outside public for this subvention. I think there are men in Sir Wilfrid's cabinet who, under these circumstances, would have taken some sort of a position like that. If they are not there now there have been such men there. Could the Prime Minister think of such a thing as Mr. Gladstone or Lord "Salisbury sitting as Prime Ministers in Great Britain and having a sordid thing like that carried out, they privy to it, and allowing it to go on? Tire Prime Minister says, as a sort of apology : Our tone has not been so high. Yet he has been cited to-night the instance of Sir John Abbott, a man of great honour and of much the same ideals in reference to public life as those which are held in England, and which the Prime Minister declares he holds in common with the English nation ; Sir John Abbott resolutely and promptly divested himself of everything Mr. LENNOX.
that could possibly militate against his being unprejudiced, fair and without the shadow of an accusation when he took the premiership and entered into the cabinet of this country.
That shows as high a spirit as was shown by these illustrious examples that have been quoted to-night. But, the Prime Minister says that the Minister of Militia divested himself the moment he saw himself coming to the point where there would be a reception of subsidies from the government. But for how many long months did he proceed first in incorporating his company, then in attempts to float his company in England and maybe elsewhere according to his own statement and then making his application for a grant to his own company the Canada Lands Produce Company? All that was done and done while the Minister of Militia was the company or a prominent man in the company, and down to a few weeks or months ago the Minister of Militia had not ceased to interest himseif in that same company, or if not in that same company in a company with which was amalgamated the interests of his old company, at least in so far as they referred to Mr. Macoun and Mr. Graham. The question has been raised, and it is of some moment:	Who
were the men interested in the old company, what money did they put into it, what interest did they have, where do these interests lie to-day. I put this to the Prime Minister: What show had Mr. Williams in the competition against the forces that we have described. Look at the situation in the city of St. John. There were men who years ago had obtained a most valuable franchise but did not put it into force ; they had an issue of $60,000 of bonds guaranteed principal and interest by the local government for cold storage plant of a certain kind. They did not seem to be much in the line of carrying out that project, but when Sir Frederick Borden went to the city of St. John, or when Mr. Graham his manager went to the city of St. John and when they made the statement to Mr. McAvity and others :	See here, we have practically
got a subsidy from the Dominion government-read that letter from the Minister of Agriculture that Sir Frederick Borden has made an application for a grant for a company with which he is connected, and that the Minister of Agriculture views it very favourably, and add to that the statement which they are so apt to make: We are sure of the subsidy. Now Mr. McAvity and the rest of you, will you kindly tell us whether you will pool with us or not, can you get along with yourselves; you can't get this subsidy because we have a cinch on it; in view of that what chance had these gentlemen except to pool with these newcomers and amalgamate their interests ? Mr. McAvity was the very man who wrote on behalf of Mr. Williams and said that the influence
9437	MAY 29, 1908	9488
of himself and others of the party would be behind him in his application for the cold storage subvention. But Sir. McAvity fell away, and Mr. Trueman fell away, and every one of them fell away and Mr. Williams was left high and dry. And yet under all these circumstances the Prime Minister thinks Mr. Williams was in fault because, having these multiplied instances before him, he did not go to the expense of preparing plans and specifications and putting them in, when on the 11th of April from this correspondence it appears as if the whole thing was settled between Mr. Macoun, Mr. Graham, and the Minister of Agriculture. Let me show the Prime Minister how positive these men were. When in the end Mr. Graham put in his application and filed it with Mr. Rud-dick on the 11th of June, the Minister of Agriculture says :	I did not sign the contract I kept it open until November to let Mr. Williams have a chance. But watch the confidence of Mr. Graham and these gentlemen. After having been told by Mr. Macoun, it is all settled ; after having the letter of the minister saying it is all right; after having all these things they go ahead and make their plans and get their sites, and go ou with their operations and on the 11th June Mr. Graham makes his application, and listen :


Professor J.   A.@: Ruddick,
Dairy Commissioner, Department of Agriculture.
Dear Str?=dierew*th-4-ioolnsn airolioatioTi for cold storage subsidy at SC Jahn,~ .New-Brunswick. Attached ore all the papers required by the Cold Storage Act including schedule ' A * filled out as required by the Aot; exhibit ' I ' showing the installation contracted for with the Armstrong Company.
They were so certain of it that they went out and made a contract for a most important part of the plant with the Armstrong Company. That is an indication which has some weight and it all goes to show that Williams seems to have been well advised when he came to the conclusion :	It is
not worth while for me going on any further and putting in plans and specifications for I am as certain as can be that unless the Minister of Agriculture will give me some assurance that it has not passed beyond the ken of decision there is no use of my going to any more trouble or expense ; the only thing left for me is to put my grievance before the Prime Minister and maybe some one coming after me will reap benefit from my misfortunes in that it may make it impossible for a minister of the Crown to take such a position in the future.
I do not want to carry on this discussion further. Now Sir, I have looked over my speech-I make a good many speeches in this House

Some bon. MEMBERS Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: That is one statement of mine which always draws a hear, hear from the government benches. Sometimes I make pretty strong speeches but I call the Minister of Militia and Defence to witness that this speech of mine, considering the material I had at hand, was a mild-mannered treatment of the whole subject from top to bottom. Suppose I cry peccavi and say I did not quite rightly quote the first Minister with reference to that ' interest ' business, what else has the Prime Minister to find fault with in that speech? Was it because I suggested at the last, in an earnest manner for I felt earnest, that the Minister of Militia would do well to hand in his resignation as any English Minister certainly would have done and no longer embarrass the government which he loved in his heart and which he supported in his practice Was that it ? Why, when I treated it in such a mild and broad and non-partisan way, why -did the Minister of Militia get up and call me crooked mentally and crooked morally ?


Frederick William Borden: That was in a moment of weakness.


George Eulas Foster: It was, and will he make another confession, and in answer to the question as to why he should go out of the range of this discussion entirely and import another and old-and maybe some time or another-recurring discussion of an entirely different thing connected with my private business, now was that also in a moment _fiL .weakness ?
Sir FREDERICK~BORDEN!-rnjtnrotr think so.


George Eulas Foster: Strong then ? He had the good sense after he had done it, to say it had nothing at all to do with this subject. That is down in * Hansard ' and you cannot get it out. It is in the revised ' Hansard ' and there it stands. Was that in a moment of weakness ? it ought to have been. If I had wanted to have provoked the Minister of Militia I could have done it. Is it to be part of the warfare that every time I bring up a subject before this House I am to be slugged, as the Prime Minister invited the member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) to do only two sessions ago ? When we were discussing a question and a certain part of the question was reached, he nodded to the member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) to get up and attack me on my private record. I saw him do it, and I saw the accordant action by the hon. member. The Prime Minister says I am thin-skinned. My skin is inches thick now.	.


Duncan Ross: Then there cannot be anything but skin.


George Eulas Foster: Well that is one of the bright remarks that will come from that wide western area under the hat of my hon.

friend. He is generally good natured about it and' I do not get cross with him. I did not get cross yet with the Minister of Militia although he was not justified in pitching to me in that way on that subject.
Amendment (Mr. Lennox) agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIEIt. I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee of the Whole forthwith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Customs-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, $1,705,000.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: The other evening as reported at page 9502 of ' Hansard,' the Minister of Customs said that we generally passed his estimates in five or ten minutes, and he did not think a longer time was necessary that night. Of course he was mistaken in that, but if he was anxious to get through I do not understand why he did not give the information as to how the contingencies were to be expended, and particularly the information in regard to the remark of the leader of the opposition as to the repealing of the Civil Service Act in this general and very rough way in this item. This has been going on for years in this country, the evil is increasing. I wish to quote from ' Hansard ', at page 9502, just what was said on this point :


Robert Laird Borden: This is a matter which is very strongly criticised in the civil service report and that criticism I entirely concur in. If your Civil Service Act at present does not permit you to carry on the business of the country as it should be carried on, why not amend it? It is not advisable to have a provision in item after item declaring that it is in contravention of the Civil Service Act.


Mr. PATERSON.: This has been going on for years and years.


Robert Laird Borden: And unless it is stopped it will go on for ever.
That is all I can find ou that point and 1 must protest against the minister's action on not furnishing the information. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) drew the attention of the minister to the commissioner's remarks on the subject, at page 29 of the report under the title of * Customs.' The commissioners there say :
This is one of the three departments whose outside service is recognized by the Civil Service Act. The salaries of officers in the outside service are duly scheduled, but unlike the other two departments (Inland Revenue and Post Office), no annual increments have been given. The chief positions in the outside service of this department are political appointments. Every collector of customs has been appointed from the ranks of the party n power at the moment. Many of the inspectors are in a similar position, and, under a clause in the Civil Service Act waiving the examination of persons appointed to positions Mr. FOSTER.
requiring special and technical qualifications, almost all the appraisers in the outside service of this department have been appointed without undergoing the Civil Service examination. By no chance can an officer of the Customs Department (outside 'service^ be removed from one point to another. If a vacancy occurs in a colleotorship at any one point no capable officer can be sent to fill the position from any other point. In the service of this department .there are many anomalies and incongruities. In order to avoid the necessity of examinations a new class has been created under the name of examining officers,' a class not found in the schedule to the Civil Service Act. In Montreal no officer is graded as ' cashier '; in Toronto there is a cashier. At the last session of parliament the Minister of Customs obtained a grant of $100,000 which has been distributed in amounts of $100 or $150 to officers within the limits oi salaries laid down by the Civil Service Act. No officer at the apparent maximum of his class participated in the bounty. Ihe salaries in the outside service seem to have been graded by the amount of revenue received. A first-class collector, say of Montreal or 1 pronto, receives $1,000 per annum. It would appear that if the revenue was quadrupled no increase of salary could be given lhe salaries of the other employees m .the Customs seem to have been graded proportionately to the salary of a colieotorship.
Stopping there for a minute, I would like to know from the Minister of Customs what he is going to do about it. Is he going to pay auy attention to the criticism of his own appointed commission in regard to this matter? The item before the chair calls for an increase of $100,000 for the very matters criticised by that commission, and the Minister of Customs seems to think that because these things have been going on for years and years no further justification for them is needed. That is all the answer that he gave to the leader of the opposition. I understand that he complains that we were unfair the other night in not giving him supplies. I put it to him as a reasonable man and an old politician would be expect to get much Supply after an answer of that kind to an important question put by the leader of the opposition, or by any other reputable member of this House? The people on both sides expect us to criticise the expenditures of the government. If there is any fault found with us it is that we do not get enough information from the government before we pass the supplies, so that we could distinguish between what is proper and what is improper expenditure. In answer to the leader of the opposition, the heal of the critics of the government. the Minister of Customs did not say one word to justify this constant repealing of the Civil Service Act, except that the practice has been going on for years and years. That was not only no answer, but it multiplied the grievance the bon. leader of the opposition mentioned. The Civil Service Act does not contemplate any such thing as we are being asked to do,

and the Minister of Customs must expect that we shall require some full and reasonable statement of what the policy of this government is going to amount to, so that we shall understand what we are committing ourselves to when we are asked to vote an increase of $66, for salaries and contingent expenses and the like of that ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' For my part, representing the people that I do, the time has come when I must insist as far as I am able on the government announcing some defined policy as to how far we are expected to repeal the Civil Service Act in this crude, rough, slipshod and improper way. I pause for a minute to allow the Minister of Customs, before I proceed further, to give us an idea of the policy of the government with regard to this, I trust he will not ask me to enlarge upon it further.


William Pugsley: Carried.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg the minister's pardon; it is not carried.


William Pugsley: No one is speaking.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) had better not begin any little performance of that kind. I have seen it tried here before, but I never saw it work. I was astonished, the other evening, that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) treated this subject in so very casual a manner. We pointed out ma uv ~cirecs~ in - -hts -denar-tmen t and others in which the Civil Service Act is wiped out for the time being-apparently, whenever it is found convenient to wipe it out. The Minister of Customs said he did not care very much about it-he did not seem to be very much concerned. What is the use of a Civil Service Act? What does it mean? Has the minister any idea why it should be kept there if it is to be dispensed with whenever it is found convenient to dispense with it? Is it beyond the bounds of human ingenuity to devise such amendments-these hon. gentlemen have had the opportunity for twelve years-as to make this step unnecessary? There will be cases, no doubt where considerable inconvenience would result from very strictly adhering to these terms


William Paterson: In that sentence the hon. gentleman answers himself.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister think so? Then, his idea is that the proper course for a judge would be to dispense with a statute whenever he found it inconvenient to follow it. That is the idea of one of our chief lawmakers as to the binding character of the statute.


William Paterson: You say it is to be dispensed with sometimes.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Duncan Ross: Shall the item carry?


Robert Laird Borden: If the Minister of Customs decides to treat with contempt a matter which has been made the subject of recommendation by three men appointed by this government, presumably for their ability and character, and if he decides to treat the committee with contempt as well, I suppose we cannot very well prevent it. But I would like to take up another matter and ask him wnat he has to say about the defalcation of the Collector of Customs at Huntingdon ? The matter has already been brought to the attention of the House and I will give him the circumstances. In 1905, according to the minister's own answer in this nouse, given on the 18th of last March, upon inspection of the out-port at Huntingdon, B.C., by Inspector Clute, irregularities were discovered and Mr. Donald Fraser, sub-collector, was thereupon placed under suspension by the inspector. A thorough investigation of the outport was then made and deficiencies to the amount of $4,241.46 were found to exist, which amount was paid by Mr. Fraser to the inspector of customs at that time. When the report of the inspector was received by the department, an order in council was passed dispensing with Mr. Fraser's services. The first information I want is, on what date was the report of the inspector received by the Department of Customs?
Mr7 TLATERSON,-FirsLT may sav. with reference to the point broughtupbyHEEe-hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), it is not my custom to treat my fellow members with any disrespect whatsoever. The course I have taken has been taken because I will not lend myself to helping to place an obstruction in the way of getting votes for the pay of men who have discharged their duty. Therefore, I intend to confine myself to the item. The member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) may have had his own reasons for being away; I find no fault with him; but this matter was fully explained the other night when the subject was under discussion. 1 think the leader of the opposition should not find fault. He had a full explanation given, and he must have been satisfied with that explanation, for he went home, I trust, and to his couch and slept peacefully, notwithstanding this clause 'notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act.' Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Lincoln not to ask me to repeat wnat satisfied-if anything would satisfy- the leader of the opposition on this point.


Robert Laird Borden: What did the hon. gentleman say?


William Paterson: I said that this clause was put in for one sole purpose-that, in many of the ports the business of the country required that we must either appoint a larger staff of additional officers or we must continue to pursue the course which has been pursued year after year and put in this clause in the estimate to enable us to pay men who work oyer-time, which is contrary to the Civil Service Act. And my remark that this has been passed year after year was for the purpose of showing that, if this had been improper, it would have been criticised before, but had never been criticised before.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It has been criticised every year.


William Paterson: Never before. And the Civil Service Act is not designed to apply to such cases as these. What was in mind when this provision of the Civil Service Act was adopted was that a clerk may have shown special aptitude and the government desires to give him an allowance of over ?50 as provided by the Act. But, so far as the matter before us is concerned, this has never been criticised.


Robert Laird Borden: I myself criticised it for six years.


William Paterson: Not on this item. .


Robert Laird Borden: But I have referred to the general practice, so it is no use for the minister to say that.


William Paterson: We are not discussing other items now. I want to keep the leader of the opposition and other hon. members to the item; and I say that this item has not been criticised before. If you ask whether we are going to continue it or not, I say we are going to continue it. It would be my idea to carry it on even if the new Civil Service Act comes into force, if necessary. I said that the leader of the opposition had answered himself, because he said that it would be impossible to have a Civil Service Act in which you will not have occasion, time and time again -he did not use these words-to do exactly what is done now.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not express myself in that sense. The minister thoroughly misunderstood me. I have stated my view many times, and I should think that every man on the treasury benches would understand it. I say: Amend your Civil Service Act so that, in cases of emergency, such as the minister has mentioned, the service could be performed for the country without violation of the law; do not violate the law in fifty or a hundred items of your estimates every year. I am sure I have said that ten times during the last five years in this House.


Mr.  R. L.@: 


William Paterson: That is, we should introduce a Civil Service Act providing that, where the minister considers it necessary, it may be dispensed with.


George Eulas Foster: That would be your amendment.


William Paterson: Certainly, and what other could the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) suggest ? I think we had better leave it as it is in the Civil Service Act, so that we can make the exception whenever it is necessary and defensible. In reference to the matter at Huntingdon, that.is in the hands of the Department of Justice and is being dealt with.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know at what date the report of that inspector was received. I will tell the minister candidly why I am asking. I understand that no action was taken against the collector for certain reasons, which will be detailed later, but that since the 18th of March, when the matter was brought up, some further steps have been taken. I want to know at what time the report of that inspector was received.


William Paterson: I cannot give the date.


Mr.   I@: 1 think it will have to be given before this item passes, because I have some comments to make upon the action of the department in that connection.


William Paterson: I would like to hear them now.


Mr.   I@: I cannot make them unless I know at what date that report was received. I want to know how long the department has been guilty of negligence in dealing with this matter.


William Paterson: Do you assume there was negligence ?
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I say if the facts which have been submitted to me are correct, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the department has been guilty of negligence.


George William Fowler: It argues a strange state of mind on the part of the Minister of Customs to ask if there has been negligence in dealing with a matter that occurred in 1905. The minister perhaps does not realize that we are now in 1908.


William Paterson: Yes, and this year is getting on, too.


George William Fowler: Which adds considerably to the negligence which already exists. Now surely the minister, realizing that the opposition is in an inquisitive mood, ought to be prepared to answer these questions.


Robert Laird Borden: I have read the re-nlv of the minister, but it does not give the information I have asked for. In addition to the information already given. I could refresh his memory by informing him that
9445	MAY 29, 1908	9446
so far as I understand, it was Mr. Inspector Clute who made the inspection in the first instance, and reported a deficiency of $4,241.46. But I am asking for the date when Inspector Clute made that report.


William Paterson: It would not be long prior to the 18th of March when I gave my answer.


Robert Laird Borden: According to the answer which the Minister gave on the 18tli of March, the inspection was made by Mr. Clute in September, 1905. Am I correct in understanding that the report of Inspector Clute had been received by the department, say, in October, 1905, or thereabouts?


William Paterson: I fancy it would be a little later than that, it takes a little while to make a report.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it true that since the 18th of March a further investigation has been made by Mr. Inspector Busby ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why was that further investigation so long delayed ?


William Paterson: The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) said he understood that this collector had stated that he had secured more, or had not given it all up. At any rate, he intimated there were further defalcations of which this man had been guilty.
Mx-. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. member for Brantford spoke also on the 19th of March.


William Paterson: It would he close to that time that the second investigation took place.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: Ij. BORDEN. The hon. member for Brantford on* the 19th March, debating some other question, made this statement :
I gave him (the Minister of Customs) one instance in his own department yesterday, and if we discovered that much by asking a single question, is it not likely that there are others to be discovered ? The minister told ns that he had investigated this matter, but if my information is correct he did not get at the bottom of it.
My information is that this particular party who had to make $4,200 of a refund and who has not been prosecuted, has made a public boast that he is ahead of the game.


William Paterson: Are you accusing me of taking the money ?


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: I am not accusing you of taking the money but I am accusing one of your servants, and I am pointing out that you have not administered any punishment to him, and although you have asked him to disgorge $4,200, I do not think you got all the money back. Do you hear that ?
Mr! PATERSON. I did not hear that.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, listen to it again. I am told that this man who refunded the $4,200 has made public boast that he is $10,000 ahead.
That is what the minister no doubt alludes to ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Mr.   I@: There was afterwards an investigation made by Inspector Busby. What was the result of that investigation ?


William Paterson: Within a day or two after the statement of the hon. member for Brantford I wired for Inspector Busby to go and make a thorough examination or a further examination into the facts of this case. He went. Inspector Clute, only a few months before he discovered the defalcation, went there, inspected the office and reported everything as being proper. Then we got some outside information that led us to think that there were things that were not right and so I ordered him to go back and make another examination. He went back and discovered what is alluded to there and he secured a large amount of money from this officer. We supposed that we had got at the bottom of the defalcation. It was Inspector Clute's duty to do so. He has since been superannuated. He was a very old officer, he had been in the service for a great many years, but I felt rather annoyed that he should have made an examination of that port only a few months before and that the defalcations were not discovered at that time. I wrote him a very plain letter on the matter. Then he made his report and I had supposed that he had covered the ground thoroughly. The hon. member for Brantford said what he did the other day and I instructed Inspector Busby to go and make another thorough examination and report.


Robert Laird Borden: Speaking on the question of negligence, at the idea of which the minister was so much shocked when I mentioned it a moment ago, does not he ithink it a fairly good evidence of negligence on the part of the department that a matter of this kind should be allowed to go for two and a half years without proper investigation? The minister takes no action until he receives information from a member of the opposition.


William Paterson: I do not see that there was negligence.


Robert Laird Borden: Would not one have supposed that a department so well organized as the Department of Customs would be able, to obtain as much information on this subject as my hon. friend from Brantford?


William Paterson: We should have been if our inspector had done his duty.


Robert Laird Borden: The minster has not told us yeit what the report of Inspector iBusby amounted to. How many more thousands has he reported?


William Paterson: He reports $5,800 more paid.


Robert Laird Borden: Which is exactly in line with the information I have, and the minister will admit that up to the present time this information which came to imyself In the first place and which was handed over by me to the hon. member for Bran/tford, as chairman of the committee which looks after the Department of Customs on this side of the House, has been fairly correct up to date. I would like to give him another piece of information and he can tell me whether or not it is correct, At the time of Fraser's dismissal, I am informed, that Mr. J. B. Kennedy, a member of this House, insisted on full restitution and also that Fraser be prosecuted but that Mr. Kennedy was overruled by the Liberal machine which arranged a compromise by which Fraser was allowed to retain a large amount of public funds and go free. That information comes to me also.


William Paterson: We know nothing of that.


Robert Laird Borden: That comes from the same source as the other information which has proved to be accurate, as the minister admits. Why was it that Fraser, after he admittedly had become a defaulter and had embezzled moneys to the extent of more than $4,000, was not prosecuted? Why was he not prosecuted before the matter was brought up in the House?


William Paterson: The fact is that every defaulter has not been prosecuted in the past


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the only reason?


William Paterson: That is not the only reason. We find that men, under circumstances of this kind, make all kinds of pleas, that it is a breach of trust, that although they have taken the money they intend to return it and they have not in every case been prosecuted. Many cases happened long before I came into the department in which restitution had been demanded and made. As to the degree of guilt, that, of course would depend on the view that the judge might take with reference to the matter. Before I came into office private sureties were taken to provide for defalcations of that kind and in cases of defalcation the sureties were called upon. In some cases they paid part of the defalcations and in some cases they did not. In many cases the department took such money as they could get from the bondsmen and that was the end of it. I thought that system was not satisfactory, and we organized a system by which we put all these men under guarantee company bonds and we have an arrangement with them that whenever we put [DOT]a new officer on, his name is sent to the com Mr. R. L. PORDEN.
pany, he is on then and if the company give three months notice that they will not carry him, of course, we tell the man that he will have to provide other security or' leave the service. If a defalcation takes place we notify the company of it and the amount of the surety is paid. Since I have had charge of the department the revenue has suffered no loss whatever.
Mi'. R. L. BORDEN. I do not know how far Mr. Clute may be in fault. I have no information upon that. I w'ish to be understood as not casting any reflection on any officers of the department in the criticisms I have made. I have no reason to believe, apart from Mr. Clute, that there has been any negligence on the part of the officials. The information at my disposal would not permit me to say that. My information is that this was part of a political arrangement; that the failure to prosecute this man was due to political influence and not due to any negligence on the part of the officers,. Here is a man with a defalcation of over $4,000 ; he is not prosecuted until information comes from a private member of the House. After three years it is found that he has $0,000 of the public money in his hands, and now at last proceedings have been taken. What is the principle which guides the minister in determining whether or not such a man should be prosecuted ?


William Paterson: Prosecutions have not followed on any case in the Customs.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not ?


William Paterson: Restitution has beeu made in every case I know of since I took office. I am a little surprised that the leader of the opposition should place credence in the report that my action in this matter was because of political motives. I thought the hon. gentleman would not harbour that thought in reference to me. I see I have not quite as good a position in his eyes as I thought I had.


Robert Laird Borden: I have had too long a legal training to pronounce judgment before I know all the facts and I am only now asking for the facts. Did I understand the minister to suggest that prosecution or no prosecution depends on restitution ? I think the Postmaster General will tell him that to act on such a principle would be compounding a felony.


William Paterson: I did not compound any felony.


Frederick William Borden: It would seem like it from the explanation given by the minister. If they do not make restitution do you prosecute them?


William Paterson: Under the old government there wrere cases in which restitution was not fully made and in which no

prosecution followed, but I do not think there has been a case in my time in -which restitution has not been made.


Robert Laird Borden: The principle seems , to be that a man may go ahead and steal; if it is not discovered he keeps the money and if it is discovered he makes restitution and there is no punishment.


William Paterson: When irregularities occur the inspector suspends the officer and the commissioner approves of his suspension and the inspector then makes a thorough examination of the books and sends in "a final report. If the defalcation is made good the inspector reports that also and an order in council is passed dispensing with the services of the defaulting officer.


Robert Laird Borden: I can understand that a case may arise where an officer had been carelessi and the defalcation small and where there never had been any criminal intent ; I can understand that in such a case no proceedings should be taken when restitution is made. But here is a case where a man was several thousand dollars behind at a small outport and one hardly believe there was not criminal intent. Did the Minister conclude there was no criminal intent in this case ?


William Paterson: I think it was a bad case, and when the information came to me, as it only came through the remarks of the member for Brantford, we at once instructed Inspector Busby to go thoroughly into it, and the case was handed over to the Department of Justice.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: Ij. BORDEN. Is the man under arrest ?


William Paterson: Inspector Busby telegraphed the otlier day that the man was arrested and pleaded guilty and will be sentenced on June 8.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: Ij. BORDEN. Is there any security for the $5,800 ?


Mr PATERSON.: That has been paid.
Mr. FOWLER, Tell us about the Gardiner case at Fort McLeod.


William Paterson: That was for a small amount and restitution was made. That was dealt with by the guarantee company.


George William Fowler: And there was no prosecution ?


William Paterson: No, they did not prosecute.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If that is not compounding a felony it comes perilously near it. According to the minister's statement, if the man makes restitution, which of course is no punishment, he is not prosecuted for his dishonesty and crime against the country. The people will believe that
the government are encouraging crime by not punishing these men.


William Paterson: I understood the leader of the opposition to say that there might be exceptional cases.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: Ij. BORDEN. I said where there was no criminal intent.


William Paterson: It is very hard to tell about the criminal intent. The rule of the department has been that where there has been tampering with the money we have not been able to overlook it. If a man is overcome with liquor once or twice we stand that, or we stand carelessness, but where there is direct tampering with the funds, we have never hesitated to dismiss the person.


George William Fowler: But you do not prosecute.


William Paterson: Is it to be understood that in every case there should be a criminal prosecution ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where there is criminal intent.


William Paterson: But where there is doubt about it and they say they have a very small salary and intend to pay it back-


Mr. BARR.: It seems to me we have arrived at a most dangerous period in the history of our political life. A man may be caught stealing a loaf of bread to keep his family from starving and he is sent to jail, but a man can steal public money in connection with the civil service and we say : That is all right, pay it back at your leisure. It seems to me it is no excuse to say this has been going on for some time. We know it has been going on in the department of Customs to a very large extent. In the case brought up by the hon. member for Brantford, complaints had been made, an investigation was held and the man was censured. I understand he has not made restitution.
Yet all that was done in that case was the removal of the man for the time being from office. The information we have been able to drag from the Minister of Customs on these matters is very meagre. We need a new Civil Service Act, one that will place civil servants in this respect in the same position as all other classes of the community. Other institutions require their trusted officers to give security, either through a guarantee company or through friends ; but in some cases, in the civil service, a man guilty of defalcation is not even dismissed. We have had the promise of a new Civil Service Act ; but I do not know what advantage we can expect from it so long as there is only one class of the com-

munity who can take advantage of it. If a young man has not a pull, no matter what his ability is, there is no object in his passing the civil service examination. The time has come for removing the civil service from the political arena and awarding positions in it according to merit. So long as \ve permit the machine to recommend those appointed to positions in the service, we shall have the state of affairs that now exists. We have this year the enormous increase of $80,000 for extra work in the Customs Department. Last year the increase was $50,000 and the minister gave a long explanation of why that was required; but this evening he has chosen to take a different course, and he seems to think we should vote it off-hand without any explanation whatever. Now that it is half-past one, it seems to me that it is unwise to prolong this discussion, to hold up this House any longer. The opposition are not responsible for obstruction ; we would not be doing our duty to our constituencies and the country under existing circumstances if we did not do as we are doing. We have said to the government, bring down your important measures first ; bring down your Election Bill, which we have been alarmed about since this House met, which was promised in the Speech from the Throne, and which, if the government had not been afraid, would have been Drought down in the first two or three weeks of the session, but which they are trying to force through in the dying hours of the session.


Duncan Ross: The hon. gentleman cannot discuss the Election Bill under this item.


John Barr: The chairman has no right to complain unless some member raises an objection.


The CHAIRMAN.: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I think I am quite within my duties as chairman in calling his attention to the fact that he is discussing the election law instead of the item before the committee.


John Barr: I must say that it is unusual for any chairman to call a member to order unless an objection is raised by some other , member.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong.


John Barr: The Minister of Agriculture does not know everything yet ; there are several things that he might learn. We have an excellent chairman, and I have no doubt that he means well. But to return to the subject. I think we have reached a very serious crisis in this country. It has been contended by many that the Minister of Customs has not been criticised by the opposition as much as would be for the good of the country. Everybody believes Mr. BARR.
he could not be anything but honest. I have no doubt if his officers were as honest as they should be the work would go on all right. But when you see $80,000 instead of $50,000 last year, for over-work, we know it is utterly impossible for the Minister of Customs, or any other minister, to supervise it and see that it is properly managed. And where there should be the protection of the Civil Service Act, we find that in many cases it is simply set aside. This looseness of administration is intended to allow the appointment of men unfit to fill these positions but who are recommended by the partisan supporters of the government. It is no wonder that we have so many defects in the Customs administration. There is no reason for this large amount spent in over-time


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They do not allow us overtime when we work extra hours.


John Barr: We are servants of the people and are expected to do anv kind of work at ail hours. Many of us who have seen the customs offiers at work know that it is impossible for the minister to know whether they are earning their money or not.
Now, it is not in the interest of the country that we should discuss these items at this hour of the night. I think one of the shortcomings of this House is we do not have regular hours in which to work. It should be understood' altogether that we do not go on after 11 o'clock. If we did so we should make more progress. We (have not accomplished much to-night and the minister knows we are not likely to accomplish much. I think this discussion should close and we should take it up again in more reasonable hours at a future day.


William Paterson: I think the committee understands the position with regard to the Civil Service Act, and I ask the committee not to discuss that question any more. But the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has brought up a question which is important and in bringing which before the committee he is discharging his duty. The subject is one with regard to which he ought to have all particulars, and it is a matter upon which I would like to know the opinion of the House-it is a very serious matter in my estimation. I refer to the defalcation at Huntingdon. I say it is a very serious matter that such a defalcation should take place just a few months after our inspector had made this examination and reported all correct. When the information came to us from outside-I do not know whether from Mr. Kennedy or not- the officer was immediately told to go back to Huntingdon to investigate the report that there had been a defalcation.


George Eulas Foster: That had happened after his previous visit or before?
Mi-. PATERSON. I think it happened before.


George Eulas Foster: He ought to have found it the first time.


William Paterson: Certainly he should. It is impossible for myself or the commissioner or the deputy commissioner to know what is going on in such places as Huntingdon if our inspectors cannot be trusted to make correct reports. The inspector was an officer of thirty years' standing and had given faithful service. It may have been that the length of his service had detracted from his efficiency. He might have been superannuated before, and on the discovery of his error I thought I would not have him dismissed, but recommended that he should be superannuated. I had not the slightest idea, nor had our officers, that when the man went the second time, and especially after the rebuke that was given him, he would have failed to do the work thoroughly. I can only suppose he was incompetent for it. But when the information was given us by the hou. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock'shutt) we made another investigation. There was the further amount of defalcation which he had not discovered and which the man admitted and for which he made restitution on being arrested, and my officers tell me that he is to be sentenced soon. Now I am glad this has come up. We have odd cases like this.


Robert Laird Borden: I have given the minister all the statements that have come to me about this. It is asserted by this same correspondent, whose information seems to be very reliable, that it was perfectly well known at the time when this defalcation took place, that this man had really embezzled, if that is the proper term, a great deal more money than the amount reported, and that this was perfectly well known long before Mr. Busby made his examination. There is another peculiar circumstance about it, but for which I cannot vouch. It is asserted by the person who gave this information to me that the amount for which this man settled in the first instance was in excess of $4,241.46, although that was the amount reported by Mr. Inspector Ciute. If that is correct, it gives a great deal of support to the statement that in that neighbourhood it was perfectly well known that the man had embezzled more than the amount reported. The amount, I am informed, which was returned to the department was in the vicinity of $5,500. I do not know whether that is true.


William Paterson: I am at a loss to know what became of the excess of the $4,200. Would that involve the presumption that Mr. Ciute kept part of the money?


Robert Laird Borden: Not at all.


William Paterson: Then where did it go?


Robert Laird Borden: It went to the department, as I am informed. The information given to me is that, although Mr. Ciute reported a defalcation of $4,200, this man made restitution of $5,500, and I would like to know if that is true.


William Paterson: I am informed that it came in two amounts. The first amount was $3,800, and after a further examination another $400 was discovered.


Robert Laird Borden: Then my information as to the $5,500 is not accurate?


William Paterson: We didn't get it, and that would involve that Mr. Ciute kept the money.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no suggestion against Mr. Ciute at all.
Mr PATr.ii.sON. It must be either with him or with us, and I certainly have not got
1 Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not accuse the minister of having any of it. But it is apparent that there were $4,200 taken and restored nearly three years ago, and a further defalcation of $o,800 which has bM discovered since the hon. member for Braiit-ford brought the subject up m the House, the minister thinks has been restored since. The suggestion made to me in the lette was that the settlement was for $5,o00, although but little over $4,200 had been reported giving credence to the idea that the officers, or some of the persons in the department knew at the time that the report was not an exhaustive report. But it is not worth while discussing if the information is inaccurate.


Mr P ATERSON.: The report came to me that the defalcation amounted to so mucn and restitution had been made of the money.


Frederick William Borden: This information comes from an ordinary every day citizen of British Columbia, a man who has no special means of knowledge. The statements contained in the letters I have read have been matters of common notoriety out there for months, even years.


Mr PATERSON.: I am anxious to learn all* I can about this matter, because I would like to know if the leader of the opposition now would give me any information as to what charges are made with reference to political action in this matter.
M. R. L. BORDEN. I may read again exactly what is said about it:
At the time of Fraser's dismissal, Mr. J. D. Kennedy, M.P., insisted on full restitution, and also that Fraser he prosecuted. Mr. Kennedy however was overruled by the lab-era! machine, and arranged a compromise by

which Fraser was allowed to retain a large amount of the public funds and go free.
that is the statement. It is a matter of common rumour and belief in that part of the country, and certainly that part of the rumor which charged that man with having a large amount of public money in his possession, notwithstanding this settlement, has proved to be absolutely correct. During these two years and a half he has had nearly $6,000 of the monev of this country in his pocket. That was a matter of common notoriety all round that country, as I am instructed, because the man who sends me this information is not in a position to know anything more about it than any other citizen residing in that vicinity.


William Paterson: If it is only a rumour, it is an unjust rumour. If he restored more than the $4,200, what became of the excess? Such monies are paid into the credit of the Receiver General, in the bank.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister asked Mr. Kennedy about it?


William Paterson: I saw iMr. Kennedy some time ago and I said to him, We have found a further defalcation on the part of the collector at Huntingdon, and we are prosecuting him in reference to it. But he did not intimate any such thing as the hon. gentleman has now stated. I have given the hon. gentleman every scrap of information I have.


Robert Laird Borden: I will send out the report of this debate to my informant and ask him if he has anything further to report upon it. He is a very intelligent man and may afford some further clue.


William Paterson: I will be very glad to know it. I want to understand what the sense of the House is in reference to prosecutions in every case in which irregularities take place.
Mr. B'OSTER. In a case in which your guarantee company makes an arrangement do you wash your hands of all liability or responsibility and leave it entirely to the guarantee company to do as they please ? If that is so it strikes me that that is where a great wrong is done. I do not think that the department responsible for the administration of Customs has any right to allow any set of men outside of itself to decide the question as to whether an officer who is a defaulter should be prosecuted or not. I do not think that any department should denude itself of the right to follow and punish a defaulter. It is responsible and the country will hold it accountable.


Mr.  R. L.@: 


George William Fowler: I do not think we should be too hard upon the Minister of Customs. I think the Minister of Customs is commendable because he has pursued a different policy from that pursued by at least one other department of this government. The Minister of Customs has in all cases dismissed the party who defaulted. In some other departments in place of dismissing the defaulter they have promoted him and increased his salary. In the Department of the Interior there is the striking case of Wagner who was employed as an interpreter for certain foreigners and who was proved to have been guilty of defrauding the persons whom he was appointed to protect. He was confined in the penitentiary.


William Paterson: He was punished.


George William Fowler: Briefly but as soon as he emerged from the penitentiary he was promoted. Then, take the case of Joseph Nixon who was also guilty of defalcation in office. He was connected with the lands branch. Joseph was dismissed for a little. He was not punished. He has recently been appointed to a new office of some responsibility and, if my information is correct, an office in which he can pursue the same methods that he pursued in the office he held before. He has been appointed superintendent of stores at Nepigon on the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Mi'. FOSTER. He will be able to make classifications.
Mr. FOWLER, He will soon qualify for that, I have no doubt.


William Paterson: I do not profess to manage my department any better than other ministers manage theirs. I am just as human as they are and I make mistakes just as well as they do. We try to discharge our duties properly. Is it my duty to prosecute in every case ? I have dismissed men from the service in whose behalf there have been pleas made by wives and sisters because I felt that as the administrator of a public department these things get out and have a bad influence upon the service. When this question came up it looked to me to be a very serious thing and I wanted to ascertain what the course of the department had been in the past. I made inquiries and my officers told me that they were not aware that there had been any prosecutions entered, although they were aware that there had been defalcations which had not been made good.
I said : You surely never held out any inducement that if restitution were made that would end it. I will read a list of defalcations that have taken place in the past.


George William Fowler: These have all taken place before 1896,


William Paterson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: There have been defalcations since 1896.


William Paterson: Ob, yes, but I think this is the first prosecution. I did not intend to read that list of names and I am very sorry I have done so but with the consent of hon. gentlemen 1 think the names might be omitted from ' Hansard.'


George Eulas Foster: I do not think the names should be published in ' Hansard.'


Robert Laird Borden: You might allow them to be withdrawn.


William Paterson: Yes, I am very much pleased that the names are not to be published. It is really too bad I mentioned the names.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister will agree that it will be very unwise to lay it down as a principle that there should be no prosecutions.


William Paterson: I do not lay it down as a principle. I should like to know if it should be laid down as a principle that in every case there will be prosecutions. Of course these cases are all open and can be put into court at any time. I may say to the House that many of the men I had to dismiss had my sympathy and it takes all there is in me to be' impelled by a sense of duty to dismiss some of them. Every one knows the man has lost his position because of the defalcations and he goes out on the world branded, and there are pleadings from relatives and friends showing how the poor fellow's life is ruined. Nevertheless I have laid it down as a rule that in every case where there was a defalcation we could not retain that person in the service. Now I will give you my word honestly that I have followed that rule out in cases where if the man had been in my own employ I would have kept him on and I will warrant you that having had his lesson he would have turned out honest and trusted from that time forward. You may not believe it but that is a fact. I am glad this matter came up, because I wanted to say what I have said. I daresay you will find a great many weaknesses in the Customs Department but if you know anything that is wrong there let me know it. If there is any one who is interested in having the department right it is the minister. Whv, bless me. what is it after all. There is a salary attached to the portfolio, but what is that to a man who has a Proper public spirit. Is not the best of all that when a man is administering an office, that after he leaves it the people can say : Well, he did not know everything but he tried to do what was right. That is about ail the compensation there is for a public man.


Mr.   I@: I do not know it would be possible to advise the minister as to any rule to prosecute or not to prosecute in every case. It must be left to the head of the department who is responsible to parliament for his action. The method of inspection however might be discussed. I do not know what your method of inspection is, but Mr. Fyshe who had a great deal of banking experience seems to think that the method of inspection is not very perfect He commented upon the fact that you do not take precautions to keep secret the time at which your inspector would visit a particular collector. In the case of a bank inspector, he comes like a thief in the night and the first thing he does is to count the cash. Has the minister anything to suggest to the committee in regard to the improvement of the s-stem of inspecting. What is the system of inspection ?


William Paterson: In the case we have been discussing the officer kept no records in the office and the information had to be got in the United States which would probably be the inspector's excuse for not detecting it at first. It is a point where a railway crosses the boundary and there ^ were no records to aid the officers in their inspection. When we came in I found only one officer for the whole province of Ontario, namely, Mr. Alexander M. Mackay, who had been a member of the House and was appointed inspector. We found ports that had been three or four years without any inspection, at all and in many cases where defalcations were found, it was pleaded that there had been no inspection for two or three years and that they did not know how to handle the business. There is nothing to prevent the inspectors going to any port when they see fit. Had you not better let me have this money now ? The men need their pay.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you referring
to the first item here ?


Mr PATERSON.: It will be of no use to give us that, as it is only part of the item. The cheques can perhaps be issued if the items are passed, even before the Supply Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we will compromise by letting you have the first one, amounting to $1,S15,000.


Mr PATERSON.: I will take that, of course, if I cannot get more ; but I do not know whether the Auditor General will care to give a credit so that we can issue the cheques, unless the whole hcMn passes. Besides, I want to go away *ext Tuesday, and it would oblige me if the item were passed.


Mr FOSTER.: There are lots of things you can do or have done before you go away.


William Paterson: I am afraid that if we have two days discussion in order to get into. Supply I will have to go without it. Will you give me the next item, which is for the salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors, as well as the salaries and expenses of the statistical branch here in Ottawa?


George Eulas Foster: There is a very easy way for you to get them their salaries.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, the others on Monday.
We will see about
, Rl'- PATERSON. Will you let us get into Supply on Monday ?
us^to fan V' R0RDBN- DM you ever know " .l. '1 [DOT] f man who is not satisfied with
please and a half a day is very hard to


William Paterson: 
Robert Laird Borden: They will get their
von eel fn ql!i,ckly as the outside officers if you get the other item on Monday.
Progress reported.
never was referred to the Liberal committee in any shape or form that I know of. Later on in the debate the leader of the opposition said :


Robert Laird Borden: I may read again exactly what is said about it:
At the time of Fraser's dismissal, Mr. J. B. Kennedy, M.P., insisted on full restitution, and also that Eraser be prosecuted. Mr. Kennedy however was overruled by the Liberal machine, and arranged a compromise by which Eraser was allowed to retain a large amount of the public funds and go free.
There is quite a difference between these two statements, and I would like to know which was the correct quotation from the letter which the leader of the opposition had in his possession.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not observe that it was quoted in that way. The first one was correct. There was no suggestion that the hon. gentleman had arranged a compromise, nor did I say that. It is a mistake in ' Hansard.'


Mr. KENNEDY.: We had no discussion of the matter whatever. It was left entirely with the government.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier Hou< adjourned at 2.18 a.m., Saturday. '



QUESTION OP PRIVILEGE-MR KENNEDY.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called :
w.11' B' IvENNEDYr (New Westminster). As a question of privilege I wish to correct a statement made in the House by the lion, the leader of the opposition (Ml1 R. L. Borden) on Friday last with respect to the case at Huntingdon in the Customs Department. The hon. the leader of the opposition, in quoting from a letter which ne had in his possession, said :
iMormed that Mr. J. B. Kennedy, a member of this House, insisted on full restifiUti°?rail^'alls<) that Fraser be prosecuted but that Mir. Kennedy was overruled by the Liberal machine which arranged -a compromise bv which Fraser was allowed to retain a larre amount of public funds and go free. That information comes to me also.
, 1 t0 £ive « most unqualified denial t m sta!en,ent that 1 was overruled by the Liberal machine, because this matter Mr. FOSTER,

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I -would like to ask the government whether there is any further information as to the use of the government steamer ' Champlain ' as to which I inquired on two or three previous occasions ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I informed my hon. friend some time ago that the government steamer ' Champlain ' acts as a ferry between River Ouelle and Murray Bay. On May 22, I think it was, the following instructions were sent by Mr. Dps-lmrats, the Acting Deputy Minister of the Department of Marine and Fisheries :
Instruct captain ' Champlain * to take people from River Ouelle to Malbaie and Buie St. Paul, next Sunday, making call at intermediate ports and to bring back party the same day. the rate of passage to be five cents per mile and Mr. L. A. Taschereau to deposit $40 with the department.
There was no complaint, as I understand, on that day but Mr. Forget complained that on a certain day he could not get admission to the ' Champlain.' I have received from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the following statement of the reason for this :
Our agent informed me that an excursion trip which was made an twenty-fourth May steamer ' Champlain ' stopped at all stations between Murray bay and Baie St. Paul and no Conservative was refused admission; during last week boat did not stop at St. Irenfe ac-

count of gale raging. The wharf at that place is almost impossible to make in rough weather, and our time-table provides that in such bad weather the boat would mot stop.
There was no intention direct or remote to prevent Mr. Forget or anybody else to board the boat.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I desire to rise to a question of privilege. On May 29 the Minister of Militia revised a statement made previously and published upon the ' Hansard.' His final statement, which I hope is correct as it appears, reads in this way :
I would like this House to consider whether at its worst it is to be compared for one moment with the position of a man who succeeds in placing himself in a position of trust in a company and then succeeds in placing himself in another position connected with another company, and then engages in the delightful occupation of buying lands for the company of which he was manager, and accepting a commission and putting it in his pocket in that connection-
I desire to say that the lands in question were not bought for the Union Trust Company, of which I was manager, they were not paid for by the moneys of the Union Trust Company ; not one dollar of commission was ever taken by me for lands purchased by me or by any one else for the Union Trust Company. The statement made by the hon. gentleman is entirely and absolutely untrue, and I ask him to retract it.


Frederick William Borden: I did not name any particular company. I gave my authority the other day for the statement I made but, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) states that the statement I made was not correct and that he did not do what I thought he had done and said he had done, I am the last man in the world to wish to misrepresent an hon. member, I am not in the habit of doing that, and I cheerfully withdraw the statement on the affirmation made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that what I stated was not true.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 151) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Crawford.
On section 1. (on the amendment to the amendment being read),
Mr. SPROULE.: It seems to me that proposed amendment makes it very much
worse than it was, because it absolutely compels the government to take over such lines as the company desire to part with. The government without any such legislation, have the right to expropriate and to take over what lines they require, but that amendment absolutely compels the government to take over any lines the company desires to give up, no matter how unprofitable they may be or whether it would be unwise to operate them or not.


Mr. HAGGART.: I certainly must object to this provision. It is in effect that parties coming here for a private Bill are granted a condition by this parliament compelling the government to take over the line of railway. I never heard of anything of the kind in a private Bill before. It is true that this is in reference to branch lines connected with the Transcontinental Railway, but here we have a private charter applied for by a company for the purpose of constructing a line and by this Bill we say to the company : You shall have the option at the end of a certnin period, when the government take possession of the Grand Trunk Pacific section of the National Transcontinental Railway, of taking over these lines. It is compulsory on the government to take over these lines.


Mr. CRAWFORD.: So far as the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company is concerned, I think they will be only too glad if all the amendments are dropped. I think it was a great mistake to introduce amendments to the Bill at this time. This whole thing was fought out two years ago; it was fought out in committee and in this House. For months the Bill was held up and again in committee this year, and I do not see why amendments should be introduced at this time. It seems to me that the whole thing is a matter of obstruction and hold up. We have been renewing charters to railway companies right along here, session after session ; and, this session, I suppose some fifty charters have been renewed and the time extended, and not one company in the whole lot has been held up for a minute except the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Much better to have both withdrawn than to pass this one.


William Pugsley: The only reason why the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) moved the amendment to the amendment, was that he thought the amendment was so unjust to the company, and that the amendment to the amendment would be an improvement. But as hon. members will recollect, he thought it better to have both amendments withdrawn. It seems to be that objection can be taken to both on the ground of justice. According to the amendment the government

could take over just what branches they liked, picking out the paying lines and leaving the others ; and, according to the amendment to the amendment, the company would have the choice of lines to he taken over by the government. It seems to me that, in the interest of justice, both should be withdrawn.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that the object of the hon. member for South Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) was to make it possible for the government, in case it should operate the eastern division as a national enterprise, to control not only the main line but the feeders for that line. It does not require a great knowledge of railway operation to understand that that is an essential thing. The hon. member for South Simcoe was not inspired with any desire to hold up or obstruct this Bill; his wish, as I understand it, was to preserve what may be very important interests of the country in the future. It would be rather an anomalous condition to have the government operating the main line of the eastern division while all the feeders which bring business to that line were under the ownership and control of a private company. Of course an Act might be passed in the future to expropriate these branch lines, but it might not be very just to bring about that condition in future without notice in advance that it is, or might be the policy of the country. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe, it seems to have a great deal to commend it-although it might properly be amended in the respect referred to by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley). So far as the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways is concerned, there cannot J>e two opinions in the House as to that. To have the government operate the main line of the eastern division subject to having imposed upon it such feeders as had proved unprofitable, and were not desired to be retained by the Branch Lines Company, would be an entirely unheard of proposition, if the interests of the country are to be considered at all in the matter. The contract itself-the contract between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific- looks to the possibility of the eastern division being operated, at some time or other, as a national enterprise. It is quite within the order of things that this should take place at the expiration of fifty years if I recollect the time correctly. We must look forward to that as a possibility, but must look forward also to the providing of feeders for that line, branch lines which the country will have the right to acquire. And, while it is not an immediate consideration, it is none the less a serious consideration Mr. PUGSLET.
as to what the rights of the country in that regard shall be. One would suppose that the interests of this Branch Lines Company might be properly preserved and full justice done to them consistently with the proposition that the country should at some future time operate not only the main line but the branches as well. It certainly would be a very incongruous condition, so far as that railway is concerned, if any other re suit should obtain in future.


Mr. CROCKET.: Has the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) any information as to the intention of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company with regard to the branch line from Chipman to St. John ? During the recent election, in New Brunswick, Mr. Hays and Mr. Morse, of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, went over the property of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, and the Minister of Public Works, if I remember correctly, intimated in more than one public speech that he expected to be able to announce in a short time the completion of arrangements for the purchase by the Grand Trunk Pacific of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company for the use of the transcontinental line. I may say also that the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), in the course of the campaign, went so far as to state that announcement would be made of the close of the deal within a week from the date of his speech. I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works what position this matter is in. I observe a despatch in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of to-day stating that the Grand Trunk Pacific had no intention whatever of using the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company in connection with the transcontinental line.


William Pugsley: I can only say that I have been informed upon several occasions by the principal officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific that they thought that the railway from Chipman to Norton, and thence either by a separate line, or by the Intercolonial, to St. John, would afford a very satisfactory means of reaching the harbour of St. John. They have stated to me more than once that they recognized the importance of getting a direct connection from the main line to St. John.


George Eulas Foster: Does it run near Chip-man ?


William Pugsley: It passes through Chip-man, and from the main line through St. John by way of Chipman is only 78 miles, and I think probably it is the shortest route they could take to St. John. They have suggested that they might branch off from the Chipman line a short distance from Norton and have a separate line to St. John, instead of using the Intercolonial. I know

also that they have been very much interested in the question of terminal facilities at the port of St. John and have considered the question of utilizing Courtenay Bay for their terminals. I think I was quite justified in making the statements I did in the past, because X had very positive assurance from the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific that they were favourable to making this connection with St. John. X was also given the assurance that their determination would largely rest with the Minister of Railways, and not only had statements been made to myself, but there was the positive statement made in a public way by the then Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson), that he would favour the making of that connection with St. John. As to whether or not the Grand Trunk Pacific has changed its views with regard to the matter, I am not in a position to say. I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) must not take too seriously statements which he sees in the newspapers, particularly if they appear in telegraphic despatches from the province of New Brunswick. I understand my hon. friend to say that he saw this statement in a despatch published in the Montreal ' Gazette '. I am inclined to think that the sources of inspiration of the Montreal ' Gazette ' in the province of New Brunswick would be of a very partisan nature, and that, perhaps, statements might be made without most careful examination to see whether they rested upon a good foundation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand that the minister (Mr. Pugsley) is yet quite hopeful that the Grand Trunk Pacific will take over the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company for the purpose of connecting that line with the city of St. John ?


William Pugsley: I may say that, since the change of government in the province of New Brunswick, I do not know that the provincial government would desire to part with the road. I have no intimation to that effect, and, of course, there must be a seller as well as a buyer.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller).: Shall the amendment to the amendment be adopted ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Railways has given the policy of the government in this matter, and has said that he will not press the amendment to the amendment. He stated also, however, that he could not agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe either. I move, therefore, that the amendment to the amendment be withdrawn.
. Motion agreed to and amendment to the amendment withdrawn.


Henry Horton Miller: The question is now upon the amendment of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox).


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the Prime Minister think that some provision should be made with reference to these branch lines having regard to the possibility of operation by the country ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say to my hon. friend that I do not agree with him. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) has given his best attention to this subject and i find that he is of opinion that there is no necessity for such an amendment. The matter has been debated again and again and it seems to me that the amendment is rather meaningless because the power of the government to expropriate is always there.


Robert Laird Borden: The government has no power to expropriate without legislation.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is provided that nothing can be done except with the consent of parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But this amendment sets out the conditions under which they may take these lines over. For instance, it is provided that any subsidy may be deducted and then the value is ascertained by arbitration. If the government decided to take them over without any provision except that of expropriation I assume that the company would be likely to set up the claim that on account of the enhanced value of the railway by virtue of the government subsidies which it had got they would be entitled to receive an additional compensation, whereas if this amendment passed they could not receive the amount of the subsidies, but they, on the contrary would be deducted.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER-No. The Bill reads that:
Provided, however, that nothing in this Act contained shall authorize the government to take over the said lines of railway or any of them without the consent of parliament previously obtained, to the exercise of such right of taking over as aforesaid.
If that right is to be exercised with the consent of parliament, which goes without saying, it is difficult to see what the object of this amendment is. However, it has been debated a great many times.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is meant by ' aforesaid ' ? The aforesaid portion of the clause says that the amount of the subsidy the government has given to this company shall be deducted.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do you think that fifty years from to-day parliament will * not' be at liberty to make any provision they

see fit ? At any rate, my hon. colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals has come to the conclusion that there is no necessity for the amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there is a very great deal in that consideration. It would be necessary to obtain the consent of parliament whether that provision is inserted or not because parliament must make the necessary appropriation for the payment of the amount of the award. Mr. Gladstone, in 1849, I think it was, passed a statute in Great Britain which provided for the taking over of all the English railways and which still remains upon the statute-book as notice to every railway in the country that the government may take it over upon making the necessary parliamentary appropriation. The determination of the value was provided for in the statute, everything was done that was necessary except the parliamentary appropriation for the purpose and every railway in Great Britain to-day is under notice of that kind. The object of my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) was to have a provision in the charter of the company giving them notice that this might be done in a certain event and at a future period. It was, of course, necessary for him to provide, so that his amendment should be in order, that the right should not be exercised except with the consent of parliament. Parliament would require to make the necessary appropriation.
Amendment (Mr. Lennox) negatived.
On section 1. Extension of time for construction, commencement within two years after the passing of this Act and completion within five years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How will this operate in connection with the original Bill ? The original Bill provided that the Transcontinental Railway was to be completed by 1911. Now we extend the time two years to commence these branch lines and then we give five years to finish them. That would make it 1913 at any rate, if not longer. We are giving power to extend the time for completing the branch lines two years beyond the time in which the Act provides the whole railway should be completed. I fancy that the government cannot expect that the railway will be completed within the time limit, or otherwise they would not be overriding their own Act in giving an extension of time to the subsidiary company for the commencement and completion of these branch lines after the time has expired for the completion of the whole line.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: There can be no connection between the extension of time given in this charter and the provision which is contained in the original agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The fact that the branch lines com-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
pany's time is extended cannot in any way affect and has no relation whatever to the provision as to the time of construction contained in the original agreement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is rather a strange kind of logic in view of the addresses which have been made in regard to this question. Hon. gentlemen opposite have always spoken of the system as a whole, of a completed line, and they have contended as well that it was necessary that not only the main line should be completed but that the branch lines should be built at the same time so that they might handle the produce of the west as well as goods being shipped from the east to the west and so that the system might be placed in connection with the great cities of the country, such as Montreal and Toronto. When it answers the purpose of these hon. gentlemen to speak of this system as a whole and of the advantage that would accrue to the country for having this great and important system finish in a few years they include the branch lines with the Grand Trunk Pacific, but when it answers their purpose and when there appears to be an incongruity between the powers which are given to this branch lines company and those which are contained in the original Bill, then it is contended that there is no connection between them. That is not the kind of argument that they addressed to this House before, and it does seem to me that it would be important to have certain of these branch lines at least finished at the time that the main line is put in operation. If it is to be in operation by 1911 and if these branch lines are necessary to connect the system with such cities as Montreal and Toronto and places like these it would seem to me to be desirable that the branch lines should be completed at the same time that the main line is put in operation, whereas, under this Bill it is not likely to be done.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the two branches that are named in the Act of 1906?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is a great number of them named.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought there were just two.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, there are ten or twelve.


John Crawford: As far as the branch lines are concerned the company are just as anxious as they can be to build them. They intend to go on with the construction of them as soon as the material and men can be got. Some of them are finally located now and are awaiting the approval of the department. Some of them will probably be started this season. There is no question as to the anxiety of the company to build new branch lines.


Mr. LAKE.: In reference to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crawford) has just said, there has been some considerable feeling throughout many parts of the Northwest owing to the failure of this branch lines company to commence the building of any of the branch lines which are included in this charter. The feeling is so great on this matter that petitions have been sent to the government asking them to refuse an extension of the charter. It is true this is a separate company from the Grand Trunk Pacific but, the two are undoubtedly very closely connected and the government in turn is very closely connected with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. There is therefore reason in the request made from the Northwest that the government shall bring pressure to bear upon this company to commence the construction of these lines at the earliest possible moment. Early in the session I brought to the attention of the government the fact that the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company had promised that they would soon commence the construction of the Regina York-ton branch and have it in operation at an early date. Representatives of the settlers living along the route of this branch went to Montreal and were promised by the railway directors that the line would be in operation in time to carry out the crop of the present year, and in return concessions were made by the settlers in the granting of the right of way. But that branch lias not even been commenced at the present time. When the Bill was in the Railway Committee the representative of the company gave a very definite assurance that the Regina Yorkton branch would be the first branch to be constructed, that the plans were then before the commission and that he expected the work would be commenced in the early part of this summer. That is satisfactory but it would be still more satisfactory if we had a similar promise -with regard to other branches. I again suggest to the government that they should bring pressure to bear on this company to commence work on these branches at tlie earliest possible moment.


Mr.   I@: When the hon. gentleman from Pictou says this Bill has no relation to tlie construction and operation of the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, his language is rather extreme. By the statute of 19(K) there are 18 branch lines provided for : One a line from Montreal to a junction with the National Transcontinental Railway ; another a branch line from Montreal, north westerly to a junction with the National Transcontinental Railway ; another branch from Ottawa, another from Regina, another from Prince Albert, another from Calgary, all to junctions with the National Transcontinental Railway, and there is also a branch provided for from a point on the eastern division of the National Transcontinental to St. John or such other port on the Bay of Pundy as may be considered by the company more accessible and better adapted to the purpose of the company. If you look at these branches as being for the purpose of attracting business to and from important centres in the east and west to the National Transcontinental Railway, you wdll see at once the importance of these branch lines and the close relation between their construction and the construction and operation of tlie Grand Trunk Pacific itself.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend misapprehended my point. Every one knows these lines which are mentioned in the charter of 1900 are very important propositions involving connection between the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific and business centres in the Dominion. What I intended to say was that under the original charter of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the agreement made with the government certain lines were to be constructed on certain conditions and the company constructing them was to receive certain assistance from the government. The time limit within which these lines were to be completed is fixed in the contract. The point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) was, that the time limit fixed by this extension would mean that the undertakings in this Bill, which are entirely separate from the others, would not be completed until a time subsequent to that fixed by the original Act. I think I am correct in saying that the proposition to extend the time for completing the undertakings of the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company has very little relation to the completion of the undertakings mentioned in the original charter to which government assistance is to be given. I believe the country will regard the extensions proposed in this Bill as eminently reasonable. If the main line and the branches in the original charter are completed in 1910 the large and important branches contemplated in this Act, are completed in 1913, I think the country will be satisfied.


Robert Laird Borden: The extension of time asked for here is what is usually granted in ordinary cases and I am not arguing that it is unreasonable. It may be that there will be no detriment to the country if the important branches from Montreal, Ottawa, Regina, Calgary and Prince Albert. have no direct communication immediately with the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, for the reason that the main line may not be finished before 1913. It is desirable we should have some information on that point. At what date does the government anticipate that the whole line from Moncton to Prince Rupert will be completed and in operation ? Has the government any information on the subject ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps the Minister of Railways may have information on this point but 1 have no recent information in regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the Minister of Railways be in soon ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think he will be here to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Better let the Bill stand until he comes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, I think not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Originally when we incorporated this company to build the branch lines, it is apparent from the wording of their Act that we had in view the fact that these branches were to be completed simultaneously with the completion of the main line. Now we extend the time for the building of these, branch lines, but do not extend the time for the building of the main line. Surely this House ought to be informed by the government whether they anticipate that the main line will be finished within the time specified, and if so, what justification is there for extending the time for the building of the branch lines beyond the time when the main line will be completed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Does not my hon. friend think that this is a matter that can safely be left to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company themselves, who are the most interested? For instance, it is of the greatest possible interest to the company to have immediate communication with the city of Montreal. In the same way it is of the greatest possible interest to the company that they should have immediate communication with the various towns in the prairie provinces. It seems to me that we can rest assured that the men in charge of that great enterprise will leave no stone unturned to secure communication with ail these places in order to obtain traffic for the railway at the earliest possible moment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By the same reasoning you might say that we need not force the company to build branch lines at all, because it is to their interest to have communication with the great cities of the country; but, notwithstanding that, parliament steps in and says you must do so and so. Every company will hold off until it suits its own time and purpose to build, but that may not be for the best interest of the people, and we frequently compel these companies to go beyond what is their own judgment and desire. If the argument of the First Minister is correct, it would relieve this parliament of a great deal of the work we are in the habit of doing from year to year in the way of Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
binding down these companies to do certain things in the interest of the people.
Bill reported without amendment, and read the third time, and passed.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 476) for the relief of Ada Ketu-rah Stewart Paulding.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 177) for the relief of Mary Alexander.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 174) respecting certain patents of the General Chemical Company.- Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 175) for the relief of Catherine Ann Cannon.-Mr. Stewart.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	Was an action brought against the Intercolonial Railway by A. W. Belyea, of Moncton in the Supreme court of New Brunswick, in kay, 1907?	, A	,
2.	Was a verdict of $100 and costs rendered by the court against the Intercolonial Railway ?
3.	Has the amount been paid? If not, why not?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	No, but action was brought against Wm. Perry, one of the Intercolonial constables.
2.	No.
3.	No.


LOGGIEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. W. J. Roche- asked :
1.	Has the government employed a dredge belonging to A. & R. Loggie? If so, when, where and at what price?
2.	What extensions have been added to tne government wharf at Loggieville?
3.	Have any private persons, firms or corporations been allowed to build extensions to the public wharf at Loggieville?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No.
2.	Cribwork face along the southwestern side of wharf, 150 feet long and consisting of four tiers of round timber, with stringers and cap. Work was performed by day's labour during August and September, 1907.
3.	The department has no information to that effect.



LOBSTER FISHING LICENSES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	Have any persons or firms been refused licenses for lobster fishing during the seasons
94=73

of 1907 and 1908 in the counties of Restigouche, Gloucester and Northumberland, New Brunswick? If so, for what reasons?
2.	Who are present holders of lobster fishing licenses for the county of Northumberland for 1908?
3.	What precautions are taken to enforce the regulations as to size of lobsters taken by fishermen?
Wilfrid Laurier: 1 and 2. No. The department does not issue licenses for lobster fishing.
3. The policy of the department in this connection was explained in an answer given to a question in the House on the 10th February last as follows :
The difficulty which usually exists in the administration of the lobster regulations has recently been increased by a change in the United States law, which permits the importation of lobsters of smaller size than formerly, thus diminishing (the supply available for the canneries. It is feared that the rigid enforcement of the size limit would prevent the canners receiving sufficient quantity of fish to carry on their business. The matter is now engaging the attention of the department and it is hoped that means may be found to harmonize the conflicting interests.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-MEDICAL FEES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STAPLES-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	Was an order in council passed authorizing the contractors and subcontractors on the government section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to deduct a certain amount from the wages of each and all the workmen engaged upon such construction for medical fees?
2.	If so, wh'at was the date of such order and the amount each month to be deducted from the wages or salary of each man engaged upon such construction work?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	There has been no order in council passed with special reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The matter is governed by a general order in council made under the Public Works Health Act, chapter 135 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
2.	The third of March, 1906, 50 cents per month.



BRIER ISLAND FOG ALARM.

Mr. McLEAN (Queens) asked :: 1.	What system of fog alarm has recently been installed at Brier island, Westport, Nova Scotia, iatnd what system did it displace?
2.	Who was the contractor for construction of the works?
3.	What is the total cost to date for the installation of said new system?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Compressed air diaphone replacing steam whistle.
2.	The plant was purchased from the Canadian Fog Signal Company, Limited, of Toronto, and the work of installation was carried out by the department.
3.	The price of the plant f.o.to. Toronto, was $13,040. To make the necessary . changes in the building and instal machinery cost $5,000 including a new boiler at $1,200 which would have been required for the original plant if no change had been made.



PINETTE HARBOUR DREDGING.

Mr. McLEAN (Queens) asked :: 1.	Did the government receive petitions from the inhabitants of Pinette, Prince Edward Island, asking for the dredging of the harbour at that place?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to com,ply with the request of the people to dredge this important harbour this season?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is under consideration.



ST. MICHEL DES SAINTS POSTMASTER.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Is Mr. Gaspard Denis postmaster at St. Michel des Saints, in the county of Bertbier?
2.	Is it true, as reported, that he neglects his official duties to work iu elections?
3.	Should not postmasters attend to their duty and serve the public irrespective of politics?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No report to that effect and no complaint of any nature since the postmaster's appointment has reached the department.
3.	Yes.



WESTVILLE PUBLIC BUILDING.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	What ,is the total .amount of contract for public building in course of construction at Westvilile, Nova Scotia?
2.	Who were the tenderers for the work,
and what was the amount of tender of each person tendering?	_
3.	Is there any provision in contract for extras? If iso, is there a specification for same, and what are the schedule of prices?
4.	When is the work to be completed?
5.	Who is the inspector of the work, and what was his usual occupation or business,
6.	When was the inspector appointed, what is his rate of pay, how much has (he been paid, and for what number of days has he been paid?
[Stage Direction]


7.	When was the work of construction commenced, and was it stopped or dosed down during the winter ? If so, for what length of time was it stopped or closed down?
8.	Was the inspector paid for the time the work was stopped or dosed down?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	$12,997.
2.	E. F. Munro, New Glasgow, $12,997; Falconer and McDonald, Kentville, $17,300.
3.	No.
4.	Main contract for building, October 15, 1908.
5.	(a) W. R. McKean, (b) carpenter and builder, and is engaged in that occupation at present.
6.	fa) October 5, 1907. (b) $3.50 per day.
(c) $721.	(d) 206 days up to 30th of April
last.
7.	and 8. (a) Contract signed September
14. 1907.	(b) and (c) No.



PATENTS FOR SECTIONS 10. 17, 17, WEST OF FOURTH MERIDIAN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SCHAFFNER-by Mr. W. J. Roche -asked:
1.	When and to whom -was patent granted for section 10, 17, 17 west of the fourth meridian ?
2.	How many applicants were there, what were the names of the applicants, and what was the date of each application?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Homestead entry has been granted for the four quarters of this section, but no patent has yet been given for the surface rights to any of the four homesteaders.
2.	No patent has yet been granted for the mineral rights under the section in question, but there have been five applicants for these mineral rights as follows :
'Sir A. T. Galt, February 24, 1902.
Frances Eyres, October 22, 1906, W. 1.


Maud M.: Moore, October 22, 1906, E |.
J.	W. Knittel, January 18, 1907, E. J.
W. J. Kennedy, January 18, 1907 W. J.



SALE OF SECTIONS 22, 28 AND 32 WEST HALE 14. TOWNSHIP 13, RANGE 13, WEST SECOND MERIDIAN.

Richard Stuart Lake: 1 What were the reasons for the sale of sections 22, 28 and 32, west half 14, in township 13, range 13, west second meridian to Wm.
. Livingstone?
2.	What were the considerations, conditions and prices obtained?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1. In compensation for bis claim for homestead and pre-emption entries for the
S.W. i of section 30 and the N.W. i of section 19. township 6, range 4, west 1st meridan upon which he had made valuable Mr. STANFIELD.
improvements and which land was otherwise disposed of, as set forth in the order in council of the 4th June, 1902, copy of which is submitted
2. The lands in question were selected and sold under the order in council above referred to at the rate of $1 per acre on the usual terms of payment, namely, the whole of the purchase money at the time of the purchase, or one-quarter down and the balance in three equal annual instalments, with interest at 5 per cent per annum.



USE OF TRAP BAG NETS IN POKE-MOUCHE RIVER.

Mr. A. A. McLEAN asked :: 1.	Is the government aware whether or not trap hag-nets are permitted on the Pokemouche river, Gloucester county, New Brunswick, in close season, contrary to the fishing regulations?
2.	Is the government aware that those nets are said to catch smelts, bass, trout and other fish coming into the river?
3.	How many bridges are there on the river and how many of them, if any, are blocked in this way with hag-nets in close season?
4.	Is the government aware that it is asserted there are four such bridges, and that they are all blocked in this manner?
5.	Is the government aware whether or not the overseer is cognizant of such reported infractions of the fishery law and regulations and whether or not he sanctions shipping fish so caught ?
6.	Is the government aware that complaints are said to have been made several times to the inspector of fisheries with regard to this matter, but without avail?
7.	Who is the inspector of fisheries in charge of this district?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	The department is not aware.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 1.
6.	No.
7.	R. A. Chapman, Moncton, New Brunswick.



LIGHTING BUOYS ON RIDEAU CANAL.

Mr.  J. D.@: REID-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	Has a contract been given to any person or persons for lighting buoys on Rideau canal between Merrickville and Edmond Rapids for season 1908? If so, to whom?
2.	If contract is given, were tenders called tor by public advertisement? If so, how many tenders were received, what are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender ?
3.	If no contract has been given, on what terms are buoys being lighted for season of 1908?
4.	If no tenders were called for by public advertisement, why not?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1. Yes, to Byron McCaw of Smith's Falls, Ont.
2 and 3. Tenders were not invited this season. Tenders were publicly called for in 1907, and the tender of Byron McCaw being the lowest was accepted and a contract was entered into with him. The contract was renewed this season as the department had tile option of continuing the contract for three years and the service given last year was satisfactory.
4. As the service was satisfactorily performed by Mr. McCaw last season and the department had the option of continuing contract, it was not considered necessary to invite new tenders this season.



MORNING SITTINGS.

Wilfrid Laurier: That from and after this date to the end of the session the rule of the House concerning the closing of the sitting on Wednesday at six o'clock, p.m., shall not apply; that from and after this date to the end of the session the House shall meet on every sitting day at eleven o'clock in the morning; that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall be also an intermission every day from one to three o'clock, p.m.; that government orders shall have precedence at all such sittings, members having still the right to ask questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It sems to me that this is a little early for this motion, especially in view of the circumstances at present existing. We have been trying to go through the Order Paper to-day but how many answers have we had to these questions, how many ministers are in their seats? I presume the other ministers are away in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to run the provincial elections, and there will necessarily be a large number of members out in the country during the present week, or until after the election, in both Ontario and Quebec. In view of that fact I think such a motion would have come very much better after this week because otherwise there will he a great deal of work under consideration of this House and perhaps much of it will be put through which many members who are absent would desire to discuss. It may facilitate the work a little, but there will be the disadvantage of having that work considered by very few members. Much of the work remaining to be done has not yet been placed before the House. The Civil Service Bill and some other Bills have not come down and if they are to be forced through the House in the absence of many members it is not doing justice to the members or to the people.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to observe that we are in the seventh month of the session. It is true that the House is 301J
not as full as it might be, but I have not observed of late that the House has taken advantage of the absence of members to rush the work, or to take any precipitate action and therefore I do not see that the complaints of my hon. friend come with any acceptance. If there are any matters that would be likely to suffer from the absence of members, of course they can be postponed until their return. I admit that there are more members absent than I would like but the circumstances are such that gentlemen on neither side of the House can quarrel with them or expect an early return. I hope that next week they will all be in their seats.


Robert Laird Borden: The motion is rather unusual in several respects; it proposes to practically abolish one of the rules of the House, that with regard to sittings on Wednesdays, for the remainder of this session. It does not seem to me that this is within the purview of a motion of this kind. We have a Committee on Standing Orders constituted early in the session. It Is not proposed by this resolution to submit the change to the Committee on Standing Orders or any committee, it is simply proposed to abolish more than one of the rules of tlie House for the rest of the session. So far as morning sessions are concerned, that change has been made before and usually without objection. It is to be observed that the second rule of those which were adopted in 1907, provides as follows ;
The time for the ordinary 'meeting of the House is at " o'clock in the afternoon of each sitting d.'.j, xcept Wednesday, when the time of meeting shall be 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and if at the time of meeting there be _ not a quorum, Mr. Speaker may take the Chair and adjourn.
There is express reference there to ordinary meetings of the House, leaving it open to inference at least that we may have an extraordinary sitting of the House at an earlier hour. But the remainder of that second rule is also 'significant.
When the House rises on 'Friday it stands adjourned, unless otherwise ordered, until the following Monday.
An express provision which enables it to be ordered that the House shall sit on Saturday and that Saturday shall be classed as one of the ordinary sitting days of the House.
But the rule in regard to Wednesday evening is couched in very different language. It is as follows :
If at the hour of six o'clock p.m., except on Wednesday, the business of the House be not concluded, Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair until eight o'clock.
At the hour of six o'clock on Wednesday, Mr. Speaker adjourns the House without question put. The House then stands adjourned until Thursday.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
George Eulas Foster: It is provided for in the rule.


Wilfrid Laurier: Therefore, a Bill can be advanced more than one stage in one day on urgent or extraordinary occasions. But if the occasion is not urgent or extraordinary a Bill cannot be advanced more than one stage in one day without a change of the rule. Rule 52 provides :
Every public Bill shall be read twice in the House before committal or amendment.
This is a standing rule of the House and can be amended the same as others, the same as the rule that the House shall sit at three o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: How do you amend this rule?


Wilfrid Laurier: By resolution of this House. That has been done ever since the hon. gentleman came to this parliament, and before. '


George Eulas Foster: The rule as to the three readings?


Wilfrid Laurier: The rule that provides that the House shall meet at three o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: I am speaking particularly with reference to the rule providing for three separate readings of a Bill and the variation of the same. He says that that can be amended by the House. In what way?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, By motion made in this House. Here is the rule :
The itime for the ordinary meeting of the House is at three o'clock in the afternoon of each sitting day except Wednesday, when the time of meeting shall be at 2 o'clock in the afternoon

This rule has neither more or less force than rule 52, for instance. Both are passed by the same authority. Yet ever since the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) came to this House, and before either of us came here, this rule which provides for sitting at three o'clock has been amended by resolution of this House to provide that the meeting shall take place at eleven o'clock in the morning. Another rule provides that Saturday shall not be a sitting day. And yet, as my hon. friend knows, a resolution has been passed every session providing that the House shall sit on Saturday. These are all rules of the House for its guidance, and not one has more solemnity or force than any other. If one can be amended by resolution of this House any other can
be amended in the same way. I need not quote precedents, for they are to be found in the records of every session since confederation, as we all know. And, with regard to the motion that I have now made, the same motion was moved by me last year in practically the same words, including a reference to Wednesday evening sittings. On April 2 last year I moved this motion as follows :
That commencing on Wednesday, ithe 3rd of April, to the end of the session, -the rule of the House concerning the closing of the sitting on Wednesday at six o'clock, p.m., shall not apply, and that commencing with the same day, and until the end of the session, the House shall -meet on that day and on each subsequent sitting day at eleven o'clock in the morning; that i-n addition -to -the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall be also am -intermission every day from one bo three o'clock, p.m.; that government orders -shall have precedence at all such sittings, members -having still the right -to ask questions on -Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
I do not know if my bon. friend has refreshed bis memory by reference to the text-book. I have not done so for some time, but X am sure as I can be of anything that the text-books say that the rules of the House are made by the House and can be amended after ordinary notice. As to the propriety of making the motion at the present time, this is a motion to which the House has agreed every session when the business has reached a certain stage. We are now in the seventh month of the session, and I think that the time has come when we may reasonably ask the House to meet in the morning. The only point to be considered is whether it is convenient for the House to do so. The only inconvenience that I can see is in the fact that there is work yet to be done by the committees of the House. All the standing committees with the exception of the Public Accounts Committee have completed their business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Three Bills were sent to the Private Bills Committee to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that they were Bills requiring much attention on the part of the members of this House. They are of a kind, I think, in which we are generally disposed to trust to the judgment of the House from which they come. The Public Accounts Committee has about completed its business.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, so I have been told, but I speak under correction; it may be that there is more business than I had thought. But let us say that the Public Accounts Committee may still require to sit. The Privileges and Elections Committee which is investigating the

matter of the disappearance of the Stan-stead ballots cannot be called upon to do very heavy work in that connection; it cannot take up much time upon this question. The Quebec bridge investigation and the Hodgins investigation are matters on which I cannot give much information-these are special committees. We must do, as we have done in former sessions, give the committees the privilege of meeting during the sittings of the House.


George Eulas Foster: The point raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) with reference to Wednesday night seems to me to be a new point, and the rule with reference to the recess on Wednesday night sees to be a special rule introduced in the regular manner after consideration by a *committee of this' House appointed to revise the rules. It seems to be rather an absolute rule. The purpose of it was to give an opportunity for members to have a break in the middle of the week's work which they could use for rest and recreation, or, if they chose-as I think moot of the members have chosen-to get up work for the House.
The point is a fairly good one as to whether, if you propose to keep us here night and day to do that work there is not greater need for a break in the middle of the week than there is when you are doing the work in a more leisurely manner. After all the human machine can only do as much as it can do without suffering loss and hardship. The human machine can be tired out as well as any other. When we consider that when the committee which revised the rules thought that it would help the work of parliament to have a break on Wednesday night, so that members might have a chance to recuperate, or at any rate, be relieved from the driving work of the session, it seems to me that there is all the more necessity for a break when you attempt to apply more steam and to work for a greater number of hours per day. I make this plea simply because I am as anxious to get through the work of the House as any one else in the House, but I do not think we will help along the work and certainly not help the workers if we drive the machine unreasonably. I think the Prime Minister will find that he will get just as much work, when the added pressure is put on, by still allowing a break on Wednesday evening as he would if he attempted to keep the members here every day, day and night, two sessions in the day time and one in the evening with the attendant tiring and wearying. My right hon. friend knows what always happens when a deliberative, controversial assembly, besides having the objects of controversy before it, comes to them with tired brains, tired minds and tired tempers. I put that point before the Prime Minister and I would like to see him leave the Wednesday night out Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
of the motion and still allow, for the present at least, that break. I believe that better business would be done in the House and that the motion would be more effective.
In reference to putting on the pressure at this time of the session, Mr. Speaker, if you take the government business alone, some of which we have before us and some of which we have not before us, the government business alone, ir it is to be fairly met and fairly canvassed and if legislators are to do their duty, cannot be done in a week, or two weeks, or three weeks. See what there is. Take your Election Bill and, after June 8, when the Prime Minister comes to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary to push those obnoxious clauses and we go into the Bill as a whole, does not the Prime Minister see that if we are going to perform the promises that have been held out for five years with reference to a pure election Bill, there will be clauses to be enacted and certainly clauses to be discussed which will take time ? It is impossible to put the Bill through with even the provisions that are anticipated in the Bill and the provisions in the Bill which were proposed by my hon. friend from Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn) and which are to be debated, without a great deal of discussion and a great deal of talk. Going to the country, as we are supposed to do under this new election Bill, we want the very best kind of a Bill and we want one which will promote the purity of elections and do away with the old abuses.
Then, you have not yet explained to the House probably a still mo.e important Bill in its way than the Election Bill; that is the Civil Service Bill, I do not know what other members think of it, but for myself it seems to me that when we approach the making of a Civil Service Bill under the present conditions in Canada we are undertaking a great deal of labour which will not be well done if there is great haste, and if there is an inordinate pressure put upon the House. Yet here we are, as the Prime Minister says, in the seventh month of the session and we have not yet had the provisions of the Civil Service Bill explained to us. The Bill has not even been presented to the House. Some intimations have been received by members of the press as to what its provisions may be expected to be, but the House does not know and the country does not know. That is not the fault of the opposition at all and the Prime Minister must not put on his double and treble pressure with the idea of making the opposition foot up because of the long and inexcusable delay of the ministry in bringing down one of the most important Bills that has not yet been introduced in this the seventh month of the session. There is the Hudson's Bay railway ; we have had an intimation in reference to it but we have no statement as to when this

measure will be brought down. It is not yet before the House. That will be an important Bill and the important question of ways and means, involving a great obligation on this country, has to be discussed. Then there is the Land Bill of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) which has just been introduced and which also is a fertile question of discussion. But, there is no use of mentioning others. Nearly all of the government legislation is as yet barely explained or unexplained in the seventh month of the session, and there is work to be done which requires better consideration than that which can be be given to it by jaded members working from 11 o'clock in the morning until midnight, as the right hon. Prime Minister proposes. Then, go to the work of the committees, which is just as important in its way as the work in the House. The Public Accounts Committee has business now before it to keep the members of the committee at work for a month or a month and a half, and it is almost impossible to do satisfactory work with committees and the House going on at the same time. There is the Committee on Banking and Commerce. That committee has had one wrestle with the Insurance Bill but that was only a preliminary wrestle. That committee does not yet know what the Bill is to be. It has simply heard the objections and heard the pleas, but it has not dealt with the Bill itself and everybody knows that the Insurance Bill is one of a controversial nature, and you cannot put it through in a day. The government saw lit to send it to the committee, but not a single clause of that Bill has as yet been put before that committee for discussion. We have simply had the hearings from the different societies and individuals who are interested in one or other of the phases of that Bill But, the Banking and Commerce Committee has not yet commenced the discussion of that Bill. It has to go through it clause by clause, the Bill has to be reported to the House and then it becomes government legislation coming before the House in the seventh or eight month of the session. That is an important committee and it is an important Bill which has to be threshed out. Taking all these things into consideration, taking into consideration the fact which was well put forth by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that, not of our own fault, we are in the throes of two provincial elections-one would have been enough, but the friends of the Prime Minister thought it would be better to have two .going on at the same time and so they brought on the elections in the province of Quebec on the same date as those upon which the elections in Ontario are being held-i very much question the wisdom of the right hon. gentleman's motion. These elections take out the very strongest members from each side of the House. Do you
propose this week to rush legislation of that important nature through the House when many hon. members are out of the House and when these contests are going on ? These are considerations which I thought would appeal to the Prime Minister and my suggestion would be that the Prime Minister do not put this into force for this week at any rate, and that if he does put it in force next week ne should not cut out the Wednesday night recess. I am not objecting to trying to get through the work of the House just as quickly as possible;
I want to do it. I would like to have a good long holiday before the elections come on and we cannot get that unless we can get through some time before the first of August.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree with my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that there is a very considerable volume of legislation before the House, but I draw from that condition quite the opposite conclusion that my hon. friend has drawn. In a well organized factory, when the orders accumulate, the general rule is to work extra time and do the work.


George Eulas Foster: This is not a well organized factory.


William Stevens Fielding: It is fairly well organized, except that it has always been assumed that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House would recognize their responsibilities and that the machinery would go on, but, it seems that there has been an erroneous impression in that respect. We cannot help that. But the rule in a well organized factory, when business increases, is to put on the hands for extra hours. They pay them extra. I do not suppose that we would expect an extra indemnity by reason of working extra hours, but I think the country will expect that if the factory at Ottawa is to do the business which is before it it should work extra hours.


Robert Laird Borden: The factory usually puts on extra hands.


William Stevens Fielding: It seems to me that if the number of hands were not sufficient that would be a good reason for working extra hours. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has alluded to the Wednesday evening meeting. I must say that the Wednesday evening adjournment is rather dear to my heart. I had the honour of proposing that to the committee ; I was the author of it. Early in the session we work along in a moderately easy way, but after we have passed the six months I think the public opinion of the country will say it Is time that parliament may reasonably be called ujion to work longer hours and finish its work. While I am a strong advocate of the Wednesday evening recess, still I would think that at this advanced stage of the session we

should relinquish it, and that we might work on Saturdays also close up to the hour when the Sabbath commences. It is true important Bills are yet to be brought forward, but that does not imply neglect on the part of the government, because there could be no object infringing forward other legislation when no progress is being made with the volume of business already before; the House. Important as these measures are to which reference has been made, the most important work of this House at present is the work of voting supplies for carrying on the King's government. In our judgment that is the most important, work which this House requires to do now, and it is with the object of expediting this, and to prevent the embarrassment which will arise if there be delay in voting supplies, that we ask the House to put its utmost energy into the work before it.. There has never been a moment from the first day of the session down to the present hour when there has not been an abundant programme of government business before the House, and if that programme has not been advanced more rapidlv than some of us desired, we certainly believe it Is not the fault of the government.


Mr. KEMP.: There is yet a great deal of important work to be done in the Public Accounts Committee and the members of that committee cannot attend to it and to their duties in the House at the same time. To-day is nomination day for the provincial elections and there are a great many members absent who were they present would strongly protest against this proposal of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said that we were near the end of this session.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that.


Albert Edward Kemp: The Prime Minister said that such a motion as this was customary when we came towards the end of the session, but there is an impression in my part of the country that we are not half through the session yet, and certainly if we do not make better progress than we have in the past that idea is perfectly correct. The Minister of Finance says it is important that the estimates be passed, but I am inclined to think it fortunate that these estimates have not been rushed through in view of the financial conditions which face the country. The revenue last month showed a decrease of one and three quarter million dollars as compared with the corresponding month of last year, and in my judgment that condition will continue for some time. I regret that the business of the country is bad and I hope it will improve. but my opinion is that there will not be very much improvement this year. I have great confidence in the future of the country, but still we must look forward to a decreasing revenue, and it is therefore Mr. FIELDING.
necessary to carefully criticise these estimates. Indeed it may be advisable for the government to cut the expenditures down. Then there is the Insurance Bill and the Banking and Commerce Committee have not finished its work and cannot finish its work properly if there are to be morning sittings. I thought this session was to be a sort of Insurance Bill session, but we have treated it very lightly so far and justice cannot be done to it now. There is the Civil Service Bill and there is the Election Bill, and there are twenty-two other government measures on the drder Paper. All these matters must receive careful consideration. While it may be necessary to pass such a motion as this in the closing wTeeks of the session, this is not the proper time to present it. In view of the fact that so many members are absent to-day and will be absent during the coming week, the time is inopportune for the Prime Minister to propose this motion, and I would urge on him that he should leave it over for at least a week.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: I think the rrime Minister is unfair to the members of this House and especially to the members of the opposition in trying to press this motion at this stage. Such a motion is usually made during the last two or three weeks of the session, but even if one or two of the most contentious measures proposed by the government were dropped entirely, there is sufficient on the Order Paper and sufficient work promised by the gov-ment to take up the time of the House for at least six weeks longer. Suppose the Election Act were entirely withdrawn I do not see how it would be possible to finish the work of the session in less than six weeks from this date. Last year the Prime Minister made a similar motion on the 3rd of April and parliament prorogued on the 28th but I am quite sure there will be no prorogation this year *within the next month. The Finance Minister has said that the most important thing for the House to do at present is to pass the estimates, which looks as if we would have supply every day this week. It is the members on this side of the House who most largely discuss the estimates.


Alexander Johnston: Hear, hear.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman says ' hear, hear,' but are not the members supporting the government interested in seeing the expenditures of this country properly criticised? They ought to be interested but in practice they would vote $90,000,000 in two hours if they had their way, so long as it went to their own constituencies. It is rarely we hear adverse criticism of the estimates from members on the other side and as many hon. gentlemen will be absent during the coming week, any proposal to rush through legislation and es-

timates without proper criticism cannot be defended. It is not the fault of the opposition that the session has been long. The government promised several Bills in the speech from the Throne and these Bills have not yet seen the light of day. The Boundary Bill for the province of Manitoba was promised but it has not been submitted to the House yet. I do not know what the character of the Bill may be, but I do say that if it does not meet with the wishes of the people of the west it will prove to be a most contentious measure. Then there is the voluminous and contentious Land Bill of the Minister of the Interior which was left - over last session and which was brought down only last week. .That Bill will require a great deal of discussion. If we are to have morning sessions and if there is no guarantee that we will not have to sit until long after midnight as was the case during the last two weeks, then I say the proposal is unfair to the members of the opposition. Hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House are engaged in the Ontario and Quebec provincial elections this week ; they no doubt believe they are fighting the battle of their country in their respective constituencies, and I do not think we should be compelled to recall our forces from these provinces in order to properly criticise legislation. The Prime Minister is very unfair in bringing this resolution forward when so many members of the House are absent. I was not a very enthusiastic supporter of the Wednesday night holiday, but, after having had some experience of it, and knowing how beneficial it is to members who do not spend the time in social functions, as many of us do not, to have this opportunity to prepare, their work for the balance of the week, I for one, think that if this motion passes, the Wednesday night sittings should be omitted. Personally I enter my earnest protest against this motion passing at the present time. I think we shall do as much work if the Prime Minister postpones it for another week, when all the members will be here, and supply and the various matters of legislation that are to come forward, will receive a fair amount of criticism.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is almost impossible to understand the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite; for they dwell on the large quantity of work that is to be done before this session's conclusion, and from that premiss they argue that we should stop working or do as little as we possibly can. They tell us that we should not sit'in the mornings or on Wednesdays, or indeed at any time unless we cannot help it. We are informed that our constituents all over the country are getting up earlier in the morning and working later at night at this season of the year in their ordinary avocations, and they naturally believe that their representatives in parliament ought to
be at least as assiduous in attending to the public business of this country. But when we are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that there is a great deal of work to be done and that therefore we should stop working, one is rather at a loss to understand them. I am surprised that my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who very rarely honours this House with his presence, and whose attendance on the committees is even more rare


Albert Edward Kemp: Entirely mistaken.


Mr.  E. M.@: MACDONALD-should take that position. As one who comes from a distant province, and who has some business interests at home-and there are, I am sure, a great many members in the same position -<1 feel that the time has come in this session when every member of the House should apply himself with the greatest possible assiduity to the public business in order that the session should be brought to an end. After six or seven months absence from home, I think we have reached a stage when we should give up our Wednesday evenings, and get up earlier in the morning in order to get the public business attended to. Hon. gentlemen who can go home for a day or two at any period of the session, and whose business interests are not suffering by their attendance at parliament, can very easily talk about taking things easily; but members from distant provinces are not in that position, and it is by the greatest possible sacrifice of our business interests that we are kept here so long. The hon. member for East Toronto, in expressing his desire to scrutinize the estimates more closely, is at variance with the whip of the party, who said the other night that they would pass these estimates in a few minutes if certain things were done.


Albert Edward Kemp: What did he say?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He was perfectly willing to pass all the estimates in a few minutes if something was done that suited him.


William James Roche: No, he was not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is what the whip of the party said, as you will find if you look at ' Hansard ' on page 9529 ;


Mr. TAYLOR.: They will not go through now. Let the government withdraw clauses 1 and 17 of the Election Bill, and they will get their estimates in a very few iminutes.


John Barr: Is not the hon. gentleman aware that it was only the estimates then before the House, not the whole of the estimates, that he referred to?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Dufferin has developed a great deal of wisdom and inscrutable knowledge since lie has been in this House, and he seems to be able to tell us what the hon.

member for Leeds was thinking about. As a rule, we are accustomed to take words spoken in the House as meaning exactly what they say, and the words of the hon. member for Leeds indicated the most delightful willingness on the part of himself and his hon. friend to pass all the estimates of this government in a few minutes if something were done that suited him. I am surprised, therefore, that the hon. member for East Toronto, who does not honour the House with his genial presence very often, and who has manifested such a strong desire to scrutinize the estimates, should be at variance with the gentleman who whips him and the other hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. In regard to the work still to be done, our hon. friends have somewhat exaggerated the work still before the committees. Hon. gentlemen who attend the Public Accounts Committee will agree with me, I think, that the work of that committee has been very long and laboured, and that to-day only the fag-end of it remains. Indeed, it has sat for two or three days dealing with matters that ought not to be before that committee at all. From the order paper and from the expressions of opinion given informally by hon. gentlemen opposite in the committee, there cannot be much work left for it to do. At any rate, there is no reason why hon. gentlemen should not apply themselves more assiduously at this season of the year and at this stage of the session to the public business of this country in order that it should be closed up as speedily as possible. The country expects it of us. The busy people^ of this country expect their representatives to attend to their business It seems to me that the motion of the right hop. leader of the House .is not made a moment too soon, and that the House should in its own interest and in the interest of the country adopt it.


John Barr: My hon. friend says that he cannot understand the arguments of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. All I can say is that they are very clear and lucid, and if he cannot understand them, we cannot undertake to supply him with brains for that purpose. With reference to the statement of our whip, he distinctly stated that if hon. gentlemen opposite would do away with the obnoxious Election Bill, which I venture to say has shocked not only the members of this House, on both sides but the country at large, we would pass these estimates, that is, the estimates then before the House.


Alexander Johnston: Oh, no; read the words.


John Barr: I have read them, and the hon. gentleman can read them at his leisure. As the discussion of the estimates is the only power we have in our hands, we are quite justified if we take longer time Mr. MACDONALD.
than is necessary under these circumstances; and I venture to say that nine-tenths of the free and independent electors of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, will say that the opposition are only doing their duty in fighting that obnoxious Bill by any power within their reach. With regard to the motion before the House, I venture to say that if you look over the history of the Dominion of Canada, you will not find any parallel case, either in the Dominion parliament or in any provincial parliament, in *which the members are asked to double up their work, and work night and day at this stage of the business. It does not matter how loug we have beeu here. If we have been six months, we cannot help that. The country demands that we as its representatives scrutinize not only the estimates, but every Bill that comes before the House, whether it takes six months or eight months or the rest of the year; and while we are all desirous of shortening the session as much as possible, we feel that we have a dutyMo our country and our constituents. Medical men at any rate know that we cannot scrutinize the estimates or the legislation that comes before this House as well if we spend twenty hours of the day at work, as we could if we took a reasonable rest; and in my opinion more progress would be made if we went on in the even tenor of our way, at least for the present, working reasonable hours. When we look at the amount of work still before us, we cannot come to any other conclusion than that the session has just commenced, because the work to be done is much more than the work we have accomplished during the past six months; and if we have to spend the rest of the year here, it is only our duty to do so, however anxious we may be to return to our homes. It is an utter impossibility to shorten the work by compelling the members to work under greater pressure for three or four months. In my opinion the present is not an opportune time for bringing in a motion of this kind, as the members from Ontario and Quebec are necessarily absent.
Many members from Ontario and Quebec are necessarily away, and so far as Quebec is concerned, the hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for their absence as we know that if the mandate had not gone down from here the elections in Quebec would not be on to-day. But, the government, knowing the defeat that stares them in the face in Ontario, the sweep that will be made there a week from to-day, felt that Quebec might and as we believe will follow suit although probably not to the same extent. But still the government said: Let us have the downfall all together, and then the country will not have two opportunities of passing judgment upon us. Under these circumstances, the government may well move carefully until they see the result of the elections and probably they

may change their minds as far as that obnoxious Bill is concerned and become more reasonable in many things. I believe they are heartily ashamed of sections 1 and 17 of the Election Bill and are anxious to get out of it in some way. They could do this very easily if they waited until after the provincial elections. Then probably if they desire it we will work longer hours. Under these circumstances I think it would be in the interest of the House if at least the Wednesday night should not be taken away and also if one week respite should be given before starting the morning sessions.


Richard Stuart Lake: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald). He never rises without indulging in personalities and usually manages to place a very false construction on statements made. I shall not follow him in his personalities but I wish to correct his construction of statements of hon. gentlemen on this side. We have never suggested that there should be a stoppage of work altogether or additional holidays. All we have done is to protest against the proposal of the government being adopted at this moment, when there is such an enormous amount of work yet to be done. The hon. gentleman spoke of our constituents who are putting in very much longer hours of work than are members of this House. The hon. member could not have been quite serious iu that suggestion or else he must have forgotten that there are committees of this House which meet practically every morning in the week, and that in addition there is a great deal of correspondence to which every member has to attend. The hours of work of members of parliament are far in excess of those of almost any other class of the population of Canada.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) puts some blame on the opposition for the delays which have taken place in connection with some legislation which has been brought before the House. But we must remember that the insurance legislation, which will require the very serious consideration of this House and previous to that the serious consideration of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, has not yet come before that committee for their consideration and report, and this surely is not the fault of the opposition but of the government. The Prime Minister has said that we are in the seventh month of the session. That carries with it the further thought that after we have been in session for six months the government has not yet brought down an important measure which was promised in the speech from the Throne, the Manitoba Boundaries Bill which is likely to cause a very large amount of discussion. Then again only within the last few days has that important and very contentious Bill the Dominion Lands Act been brought down.
These and the Civil Service and other Bills which the government have promised, have not yet been brought down and they will have to be gone into very thoroughly by every member if we are to get the best legislation possible under the circumstances.
I do not see how this will be possible if we are to attend to committee meetings in the mornings and also to our correspondence. If the Prime Minister had included a provision that the House should rise at midnight each night there might have been a better disposition on the part of members towards his proposal, but we know that members will be kept busy from 9.30 in the morning until perhaps 3 or 4 the next morning with the usual short intermissions for luncheon and dinner. It seems to me to be not quite fair to the members. I would point out that from the wording of the motion, taken iu connection with the rules of the House, there would appear to be no intermission for dinner on Wednesday evening.
I hope that the Prime Minister will agree to an amendment which I propose to move as follows :
That the said motion he amended by striking out the words'* from and after this date * wherever they occur therein, and by substituting therefor in each ease the words * from and after Monday next.'
That, at any rate will give an additional week for the members of the House to come in. from the various districts in Ontario and Quebec where so many of them are to-day performing what are after all very important duties.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I desire to endorse what has been said by members on this side, certainly with regard to tbe evening recess on Wednesday. If it is intended to force the work of the House morning, afternoon and evening, certainly the Wednesday evening recess is more important at this time in relation to the health of members alone than in the earlier part of the session when members are not so pressed and so much driven with work. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has given a clear statement of the number of government Bills that have not yet been presented. There are several Bills not yet introduced, government measures, which it is to be presumed, the government intend to press. It looks a good deal like coercion, like tyranny, for the Prime Minister and members on the government side, at such a time as this, especially, with so many members of the House absent, to force such a proposal as this upon members affecting their attendance in the House. Members will be expected to assemble at eleven o'clock in the morning and to remain here all day,-and at wliat time late at night or early in tbe morning the House will adjourn nobody can tell ; if tbe practice is

continued which has held for some time in the past, it will be two, or three, or foul-o'clock in the morning before members leave this House.- How can it be expected that we'can give that attention to measures coming before the House, whether estimates or Bills, that we should give if we are kept at such high pressure of work as the Prime Minister proposes ? I think it ought only be necessary to bring these points to the attention of the leader of the House to have him forego his intention of pressing this motion at this time. The amendment to postpone this proposal for a week's time, I think, is asking little enough. At least, we may expect that, after this week more members will be in harness here and the work can be divided, thus relieving the pressure upon each member. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who is always interesting in his remarks though somewhat imaginative as to facts, referred to a remark made the other night by the hon. member for Heeds (Mr. Taylor). That hon. member is now in his place and will be able to explain what he really meant when he said that if certain action was taken with regard to the Elections Bill the estimates would be put through in two minutes. I am sure that he referred only to the item then before the committee. But, as he is here, he will be able to explain. I once more appeal to the Prime Minister and his supporters to allow this motion to be postponed for a week. If at that time it is considered necessary to bring it in again, the members on both sides will be in a better position to share the irksome work which long hours of attendance in this House will involve.


Wilfrid Laurier: Whenever this motion is made, the intention of the government is to try to meet the wishes of members on both sides, and I do not approach the consideration of the matter in any other spirit to-day. I was impressed with the statements made by several hon. members, particularly by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as to the value of the recess on Wednesday evening. Therefore, if it be agreeable to my hon. friend on the other side, I will move an amendment to the amendment that the first words of the motion, relating to Wednesday evening, shall not apply. I do not say but that later on, if the work presses, we may be obliged to propose Wednesday evening sittings, but, for the present, we will give hon. gentlemen the advantage of the rest on Wednesday evenings.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is a fair proposition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps, I misunderstood the Prime Minister. Does he propose Mr. DANIEL.
to abandon the idea of Wednesday night sittings ?


Wilfrid Laurier: To leave the rule as to Wednesday as it is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And to apply the rest of the motion ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I frankly confess that I do not feel like agreeing with that. So far as it goes, it is right enough, but I wish to make one or two observations on the proposition. The motion for morning sittings is generally made when practically all the committee work of the session is ended. So long as the commttees have work in hand, the forenoon is needed by hon. members to attend to that work and to correspondence. The First Minister says he made this motion last year at a certain time. But when he made it, practically all the committee work was over. Is that the position to-day ? I think there is scarcely a committee of this House which has finished its work. A number of important committees are engaged in their work as vigourously now as at any time during the session. The Public Accounts Committee has enough to do for three months, should the session last that long ; and the committee will have to work with greater expedition than hitherto if they are to get through by the time the session may be expected to close. As to the Private Bills Committe, we sent to-day four Bills to that committee to consider. The Prime Minister intimated that these are divorce Bills on which not much time is spent by the committee. But I can remember divorce Bills coming before that committee on which witnesses were called and a great deal of time spent.


Wilfrid Laurier: Invading the privileges of the Senate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have the same right to call witnesses as the Senate have. I remember that, in the case of one Bill that was before us some years ago we called witnesses some of whom had not been called before the Senate Committee. And the Private Bills Committee may decide to do the same in the case of some of these Bills which are now sent for their consideration. Then we have business before the Privileges and Elections Committee. I assume that it will not take them very long to dispose of that work. Still, it takes a week or ten days to deal with almost any cases that may come before the committee. There are still some Bills to go before the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, Then, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said, if the Banking and Commerce



JUJS'E 1, 1908

[Stage Direction]
Committee is to deal with the Insurance Bill at all every clause of that Important measure must come under the consideration of the committee. The Banking and Commerce Committee has a large membership, and those who are members of it will desire to carefully consider the insurance Bill clause by clause. And we have had no intimation that that Bill is not to go on ; the assumption is that it will go on. We have the committee on Agriculture and Colonization-that committee also has not finished its work. As to the Hodgins inquiry, I was told by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) the other day that it is likely to continue for a week or ten days, or two weeks, as far as he can judge, although the committee are hurrying the business on. The Quebec Bridge inquiry will take a considerable length of time if any thing like a proper investigation is made. With all these committees engaged in important work, it must be that a large number of members will be occupied in the forenoon. How is it possible for the House to go on with its regular work at eleven o'clock when so many members who ought to be here are engaged in committees ? Sometimes the rule is suspended and committees are allowed to go on with their work while this House is sitting. That is an injustice to members of the House and to the country, as ail members ought to be present when business is before us. Besides that, during the present week-during which it is proposed that this motion be left in abeyance-more than half the members are likely to be absent. I counted the attendance here a short time ago and, all told, only forty members were present. Is it reasonable that the business of this House should be carried on with less than one-fifth of the membership of the House in attendance ? I contend that it would be much more reasonable to carry out the suggestion I made some time ago and have this House adjourn for a week until the pending elections are over.
A large number of members will be absent and the important work that ought to be considered by all the members cannot be considered when three-fourths of them are absent as they are during the present week. In addition to that, and in addition to the committee work, to force this on during this week when there will not be one-fifth of the members present, is an injustice to the country and it is performing the functions of parliament in a very improper way. The motion is a very improper one. The hon. member for Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald) intimated that the business of the House is not going on very actively, that it is rather retai'ded. I would like to ask him if there is any member of this House who has contributed more to
retarding the proper and legitimate business of the House than the hon. gentleman himself? I have sat in the Public Accounts Committee day after day when we did not do as much work in a week as we ought to have done in a day. About three members obstruct the work of that committee, and he was one of the most active in doing it. Had the members of that committee been able to do their work as they ought to have been without any improper interference or obstruction, the work would not be, as it is to-day-only partially done. It would have been comparatively all done and we would have been in a position to abandon it and apply ourselves to the work of this House. Owing to the special situation to-day this motion should not be pushed. It is a fact that these committees have not their work done, they have a large amount of important work to be done and until that work is done ' the House cannot properly sit in the forenoon, or otherwise the committees cannot do their work. You are taking men away from the House who ought to be here for the consideration of important Bills and estimates. We ought to have a delay for at least one week. Then the Prime Minister ought to consider whether we would not be just as far on with the business in two or three weeks hence if we adjourned the House for one week until these elections are over. I do not believe it would be doing justice to the country to push this work through when so many members are away, and I do not think it would retard the progress of the session much if we were to adjourn. Members would then be present and be able to attend to their work. In view of these features of it I would respectfully urge upon the First Minister that it is not enough to abandon the proposal to take Wednesday night, but that it is eminently proper and desirable that this motion should be delayed for one week until the members have returned.
Mr. ALCORN.: One point which is very material to be considered seems to me to have been almost lost sight of. It was possibly referred to in general terms at the beginning of the debate, but it has not been mentioned since, and that is whether the House has the right to pass a motion of this kind if it be objected to by a substantial number of members, if not by one member. Let me draw attention to the fact that the rules of the House contain no provision for the abrogation or even suspension of any of its rules, and if one rule may be suspended or abrogated the whole of them may be by the same motion. They contain no provision for the abrogation or suspension of any one rule except under certain circumstances with regard to private Bills. Clearly if, on a motion not unanimously assented to, any one standing order of the House may be sus-

pended or abrogated, we might wipe out the whole body of them by a bare majority. I think the Prime Minister will probably do well to carefully consider that point and withhold his motion until lie is satisfied that upon a motion which is not unanimously agreed to, but which is seriously objected to, he can suspend a rule of the House.


George Taylor: I was not present, but 1 have been informed since I came in that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) made the statement that I said a few nights ago that if the government would withdraw clauses 1 and 17 of the Election Act they would get their whole estimates through in two minutes. I certainly did not say that in the light in which the hon. gentleman puts it. We were then discussing the estimates of the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and I made the suggestion that if these clauses were withdrawn he could have the pay for the men for whom he was making his appeal in a couple of minutes. I believe that the opposition have allowed since I have been absent from the House this amount to pass through. But I made no reference to the general estimates that are yet to come down. It was simply because of the appeals that have been made to us by the Minister of Customs. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), during the debate, threw the taunt across the floor of the House that the opposition had been obstructing business for the last six months. That cannot possibly be the fact, because if you take up ' Hansard ' and measure it you will find that hon. members supporting the government have occupied more than half of the 1 Hansard ' from the commencement of the session up to the present time.


Alexander Johnston: What will you bet?


George Taylor: I am not a betting man, but I will make the statement that if my hon. friend takes the ' Hansard ' and measures it he will find that the government and their supporters have occupied a greater number of pages than the opposition have done during the entire session. Therefore, we are not to be taunted with having obstructed because there have been many valuable speeches made from this side of the House to enlighten the country. Read these speeches made by members of the opposition and compare them with the balderdash we have heard from the other side of the House-nothing but trash, save and except a few speeches made by members of the government. But those speeches made by the back benchers bear no comparison with the brilliant speeches made upon this side of the House. Yet the hon. Minister of Finance gets up and taunts us with obstructing the House. All the speeches from this side have been made to educate the people of the country and the people of the country have been Mr. ALCORN.
educated, but the speeches made from the opposite side of the House were simply to obstruct or kill time and to show that the Conservative government was as bad as the present government twelve or fifteen years ago. But we are not to be charged with having obstructed this House for six months or even one month. We have an objection and we are going to maintain our objection. I went back to my constituents and they told me to stay here until Christmas if it were necessary to have eliminated the inquity of clauses 1 and 17 of the Election Bill. My constituents are witling to raise a subscription to pay my board if necessary to keep me here until Christmas in order to see that the ballot shall not be tampered with and that the province of Manitoba shall not be singled out. Manitoba is peopled mostly by the sons of Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces, the men who opened up and developed that country, and now, because this government, through the North Atlantic Trading Company, have transported into that country a lot of Doukhobors and-


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is wandering a little too far from the subject.


George Taylor: I saw in the newspapers that the right hon. gentleman had given notice that he was going to take Wednesday night. I have no objection to take Wednesday night commencing at a reasonable hour in the day. I do not think that any one objects, if the rule can be broken. In order to expedite the business I would be willing that the government should take Wednesday with the condition that we commence at eleven o'clock in the day, as soon as the committee work is through, and continue until twelve o'clock at night and not be forced to sit until five o'clock in the morning as we were last week. I do not think our constituents expeet us to remain here until five o'clock in the morning as it must be injurious to the health of every hon. member who is confined to this box of a chamber-it is nothing else-from three o'clock in the afternoon until five the next morning. I think it is dangerous to the health of every hon. member, but I would be willing, if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agree to it, to give up Wednesday night provided we sit until twelve or one o'clock.


William Paterson: How do you feel on the customs estimates now?


George Taylor: Just as I felt the other night.


William Paterson: In two minutes.


George Taylor: Oh, well, the Minister of Customs got a portion of his estimates with-

out dropping clauses 1 and 17 of the Election Bill, as I wanted him to do. He made such a strong appeal to our leader that I understand he consented to pay the boys in the outside service. But we have lots of more estimates to pass yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: Lots of them.


William Paterson: I did not get all mine.


George Taylor: Just whenever the Prime Minister carries out the bargain there will be no obstruction of the estimates so far as I am concerned.


James Buckham Kennedy: I wish to correct the statement made by the hon. member for Leeds when he said that the greater part of the time of this House has been taken up by members supporting the government. I had the curiosity to figure up the number of columns of ' Hansard ' which were occupied by the debate on the Election Bill and I find that the members of the opposition are eighty-two columns ahead. If they don't believe me they can count it up for themselves.


George Taylor: My hon. friend cannot contradict me because I referred to the whole session and not to the debate on one Bill.	.


James Buckham Kennedy: And if you count it up you will get the same result for the entire
session.


George Taylor: Well, do not contradict me until you do count.


James Buckham Kennedy: The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) took sixty-three columns of ' Hansard ' in that debate.


William James Roche: And he did it in about half the time that some of your men took, so that no time was lost there.


James Buckham Kennedy: If some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House were in the position that I and other members from the far west are in they would be glad to adopt any means to bring the session to a close. We have been six months away from our homes and our business; we cannot run home every week and attend to our private affairs as can the hon. member for Leeds and others who live near Ottawa. We have to leave our business aside for months to attend to the business of the country and we would like to see the country's business disposed of in a businesslike way. I cannot for the life of me understand how it is that this House can be held up by a minority. That puzzles me. I always understood that one of the fundamental rules of our constitution was that we should have government by majority, government by the people and for the people. Each one of us here is returned by a majority of the votes in our
constituencies and why the majority in this House cannot rule is something that I don't understand. So far as the Election Bill is concerned there is supposed to be a deadlock in connection with it


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think it would be well to confine the discussion to the question before the House.


James Buckham Kennedy: Well, I was a little afraid 1 would be out of order, but so many others have offended in that respect that 1 thought I would be quite safe in doing so too. However, I will give my views on that question at another time.


Mr. LEFTJRGEY.: When the hon. member for Pictou complained about the long hours he is devoting to the interests of the country and the hardship of his being away from his home it reminded me of a statement made by the sitting member who was seeking re-election in a constituency in Prince Edward Island, and when he made the same complaint about long hours in parliament and the misfortune of his being absent from his private business, an elector at the back of the hall called out:	You
have done so much in that line that you had better stay at home altogether next time. Now. Mr. Speaker, there are a great many-important measures before the House and there is a great deal of important business to be transacted by the committees, and in view of this the motion of the Prime Minister is inopportune and unreasonable especially as only about one-fifth of the members of the House are present to-day. These gentlemen are in their constituencies in Ontario and Quebec attending to the interests of the country in the provincial elections and I believe the people of Canada will look upon it that the Prime Minister is unfair in taking advantage of the existing conditions, especially in view of the fact that there is to some extent a deadlock between the parties on account of the injustice which the government is trying to force on the nrovinee of Manitoba. I think the Prime Minister might very well accept the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister has been very reasonable with reference to the Wednesday night recess, and I have no doubt his decision in that respect will be helpful to the convenience of the House. If the right hon. gentleman would consent to allow this motion only to come into effect on Monday next I think it would contribute to the good nature and the good work of the whole House. It would also tend to facilitate the work of the committees and I think it would be a reasonable concession for the right hon. gentleman to make.


Mr. BRISTOL.: The motion of the Prime Minister is inopportune and it is especially

inopportune if it is to come into effect before next week. There is a great deal of work to be done in the Public Accounts Committee and it is inexpedient that that committee should sit during the morning sittings of the House. I believe the right hon. gentleman would better serve the end he desires to achieve by not pressing this resolution at present. Am I right in assuming that the original motion is amended by striking out the words from the first word * that ' in the first line down to and including the word ' apply ' in the third line ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: x take it that the amendment is still before the House.
_ Mr. SPEAKER. I understood the amendment was to be dropped and the original motion amended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The amendment to the amendment was that the original motion be amended in that direction.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No amendment in amendment has been moved as yet, and I have been trying to get the sense of the House in regard to the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will move the amendment as an amendment to the motion.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not think it would be possible for the right hon. gentleman to move an amendment to a motion originally made by him. I thought the sense of the House was that the amendment be dropped, and the original motion altered by striking out all the words from and including the first word down to and including the word ' apply ' in the third line.


Robert Laird Borden: The motion says that the House shall sit on every sitting day at 11 o'clock and that there shall be an intermission from 1 to 3 o'clock. Does that include Wednesdays ?


William Stevens Fielding: There will be no reference to Wednesday if the words are stricken out.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: By consent I understand the amendment is withdrawn and the original motion is altered by striking out the words from ' that ' to * apply,' inclusive, and by inserting the words ' inclusive of Wednesday.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and motion as amended, agreed to.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
On government orders being called :

[Stage Direction]
On government orders being called.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the government orders are called, I would draw the attention of the government to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee has been called for 11 o'clock to-morrow morning and will be unable to sit under the resolution which was passed to-day unless another resolution is adopted empowering them to sit during the sessions of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: The suggestion is one in which I quite concur, but I would prefer to have it come from the chairman of the committee who is not present. An hon. member suggests that a shorter way would be to have the notices sent out for ten o'clock, then the committee could have an hour and could apply to the House for permission to sit during the sittings of the House, which would be the regular mode of procedure. Perhaps in a later stage of the evening we could arrange the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good, with that understanding; but the motion will have to be made at some time or another.


William Stevens Fielding: It would have to be made before the House adjourns, with the Speaker in the chair.



SUPPLY-DUTY ON LUMBER.

['We will continue with Supply on the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.']
Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but if the motion is left in that form we would rise at 1 o'clock on Wednesdays and then meet at 2 o'clock. If the motion is intended to include Wednesday, it should provide for an intermission every day, including Wednesday. We meet on Wednesday at 2 o'clock, and you are not abrogatng that rule.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me the amendment is not necessary, but I have no objection to add the words ' including Wednesday.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The amendment to the motion is still before the House-to suspend this for a week.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, (t is withdrawn.


Mr BRISTOL.: '
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to bring before the attention of the House the question of the duty on lumber coming from the United States into Canada. It is not my intention tonight to propose a motion on the matter or to bring on a general discussion ; my object in bringing it up is to direct the attention of the government to the existing condition of affairs in the hope that they will see their way clear to remedy the existing grievance. If this is not done then we might feel in duty bound to take the matter up at a later stage of the session and to press it more closely upon the attention of the government. At the present time lumber

from the United States or any foreign country enters Canada free of duty. On rough lumber from Canada to the United States there is a duty of $2 a thousand feet which is a practical handicap upon the Canadian lumber entering that country. The industry in Canada to-day employs between 65,000 and 75,000 men, according to the season, represents a population of about 300,000 to 400,000 souls, depending upon the lumber industry in Canada for a livelihood. . Not only are these directly concerned in the lumber industry, but indirectly the financial institutions of the country, the railways, the mercantile, manufacturing and farming communities all doing business with the lumbermen, are all very deeply interested in the success of that industry. In addition to those X have named as persons employed in the industry exclusively there are a great many farmers' sons and labouring men in all parts of the country who, when the winter approaches, having no work at home on the farms during the long period of winter, find employment in the lumber camps at the nearest point where there are lumbering operations, travelling sometimes hundreds of miles to obtain work. So these are employed indirectly for a period of six months or so every year in the lumber woods.
In order to show the growth of the import of lumber, I would point out that in 1908, the year just closed, there were" imported into the Dominion of Canada lumber and lumber materials of the value of $12,730,000. The total product of the Dominion of Canada is estimated this year to be considerably less than $100,000,000. Therefore about one dollar's worth was imported to each eight dollars manufactured in Canada. The value of the imports of lumber from the United States increased from $2,904,000 in 1896 to the enormous sum of $12,730,000 in the present year. Of that $12,730,000, $2,800,000 was dutiable and $9,930,000 free.
The wages paid to lumbermen in the district which I have the honour to represent a year ago were $35 a month. They have now fallen to between $20 and $25 a month, and there is every reason to believe that in the very near future the wages will fall still lower. Therefore we have an army of about 70,000 able bodied men with their families who are entitled to live in decency in Canada on the verge of being reduced upwards of fifty per cent in their wages. More than that, very many of these men are being turned out of employment. It is a very serious matter in many parts of the country.
To show you the extent to which the lumber industry is affected by legislation I would remind the House that in Ontario until recent years there was nothing in the license granted to the lumberman requiring him to manufacture his lumber in the Dominion of Canada. He could put it into the rivers, float it down to the navigable waters and then tow it across to United 302
States centres. That was done in the Midland and Lake districts and the logs were towed to Bay City, Saginaw and Tonawan-da, there to be cut up into lumber, and Canada lost the benefit of the employment of that labour. This was the case all through the Georgian Bay and Midland districts of Ontario. Home after home was closed up, families had to move to the United States in order to obtain the wherewithal to live. The Hon. Mr. Whitney took the matter up and raised a very serious agitation, which forced the government of the day to place a clause in the contract requiring the lumberman to cut the lumber in the province of Ontario. Immediately, as if by magic, prosperity returned to the old towns along the Georgian Bay shores and through the Midland district of Ontario, wherever there was a lumbering centre, and our merchants, bankers, farmers, railways, every one in Canada has been more or less beneficially affected by that action in requiring these logs to be cut in Canada. I am satisfied that if a duty were placed upon lumber and timber coming from the United States into Canada it would have a similar effect throughout Canada. At the present time there is a great cry for Georgia pine in Canada. I know that a bridge was erected between Lindsay and Peterborough a few years ago by the Grand Trunk Railway of this imported pine. That bridge is to be replaced this year. Until recently our contractors and the constructors of bridges and those large works requiring heavy timber, thought that nothing could equal southern pine and it was brought in in immense quantities. The returns show that in some years $2,000,000 worth of this pine was brought in, but now they find that the British Columbia fir is superior in every respect and may be laid down more cheaply, other things being equal, than the southern pine is, that is if the southern pine is not sacrificed as it is to-day.
We are told that the imposition of the duty on lumber would be very detrimental to the interests of Manitoba and the Northwest. Sir, I cannot see it. Every part of Manitoba is convenient to some lumber camp. Hundreds of the boys from Manitoba farms go in the winter along the Rainy river, the Lake of the Woods district and all down that way and work in the camps. They are found all along the shores of Lake Winnipeg, Lake Winnipegosis and the lower Red Deer river. I know one gentleman alone who this winter employed 2,500 of these young men in the lumber camps in the northern part of Manitoba, and the eastern district of Saskatchewan. So, near the mountains, an enormous number of young men go to the mountain regions to work in the lumber camps during the winter months when they have nothing to do on the farms at home.
In that way it is a source of revenue, but this last winter the usual number of



men have not found employment, and in the coming year, I am informed on the best of authority by those engaged in the lumber business, that not only will wages be down but the employment of men will be very much reduced, almost entirely owing to the fact that we have no duty upon lumber coming from the United States or other lands into the Dominion of Canada. The trouble which has existed in Manitoba and the Northwest has not been due to the fact of a duty being on lumber . because there has been free trade in lumber. The trouble has been owing to a combine existing among the retailers which controls the prices and controls those engaged in the business. The argument that a duty on lumber would raise the price materially in these regions, I would think, if it is examined into, will be found not to hold good. But, even supposing that the duty were paid by the consumer-which is not in this case-it would not be a dollar a head for the farmers of Manitoba and the Northwest a year and they would, in the splendid home markets they would thereby have for their farm products in British Columbia, the Lake of the Woods and Rainy river country, lake Winnipeg and lake Winnipegosis and along the Red Derr river, make much more than any loss they would sustain by reason of the duty on lumber. I shall not weary the House with figures as it is not my intention at the present time to do more than point out in general terms the enormous quantity of wood material that is being imported into Canada. At the present time there is a great depression in the lumber business in the United States. People engaged in that industry, as in all businesses, require to pay interest on their bonds and investments and they are prepared to sacrifice their lumber for cost, land it here as cheaply as they may and get what they can for it rather than keep it and store it. I shall take the liberty of reading a little extract from Frank Leslie's Weekly which illus-tiates the possibility of selling* a certain portion of one's product at cost and still making considerable money, over what you might make by selling a smaller output at a higher figure. This article is taken from ' Leslie's Weekly.' it states :
A business man's plain talk on the tariff.
fit is a well known economic principle that it pays to keep mills -and men fully employed to the limit of capacity and time, even if part of the product has to be disposed of in foreign markets without profit or with slight sacrifice, rather than to curtail the facilities for production, and therefore reduce the earning capacity of the wage-workers. For, if every dollar so realized from foreign countries for surplus products, goes into the pockets of the wage-earners it increases the wealth of the country maintaining such policy. The Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
following illustration taken from Josiah Strong's ' Expansion ' will serve to substantiate this statement: 'In a certain industry the profits are well established, according to the tonnage put through. If the run is 600 tons per day, the profits are $5,000 dollars per month. If the run is 900 tons per day, the profits are $20,000 per month. That is, by increasing the output fifty per cent, the profits are, in this instance, increased 300 per cent. If the extra 300 tons are sold at cost, it would leave the profits for the month $13,000; so that the extra 300 tons per day could actually be isold for $3,000 less .than cost and then the profits for the month would be twice as large as if only 600 tons had been run.
' This will sound to many very like the familiar old story of the peanut woman who, " always sold a little below cost and made her money by selling a great many." This statement, however, is capable of demonstration; 600 tons per day equals 18,000 tons per month; 900 tons per day equals 27,000 tons per month; market price of the product, $1.96 'per ton, leaving a profit of 28 cents per ton. At 900 toms per day the cost is reduced 'to $1.22, leaving a profit of 71 cents per ton. Now, 18,000 x 28 equals $5,010, the profits per month when only 600 tons are run per day; and 27,000 x 71 equals $19,980, the profits per month when 900 tons are run per day. If the entire increase of 9,000 toms is sold at cost, the 18,000 tons remaining would, at 74 cents per ton, make $13*320 instead of $5,010. So that these 9,000 tons might be sold for $3,000 less than cost and leave profits of $10,320 instead bf $5,040. Our laying hold of this principle was one of the reasons why we were able to enter European home markets, and it accounts for the fact that many articles of American manufacture can be bought cheaper in Europe than here.'
But, Sir, one of the worst features of the whole case is found in the fact that in the Southern States the pitch pine, which is exported to Canada in considerable quantity to-day, is all cut either by convict labour or coloured labour. Under the policy pursued by the government of Canada at the present time we are asking our men to live in this northern latitude to keep warm houses, purchase large quantities of fuel, dress warmly, educate their children -and the children of the Canadian lumbermen have just as good a right to an education as the children of any other class of people in the land-iu competition with people living in a southern climate where a yard of calico is their usual uniform both summer and winter. They have to compete with coloured and with convict labour. I notice in ' Everybody's Magazine ' for this month an article, not written along these lines, but intended to reform the abuses of the convict labour system in the southern and other States of the Union where convict labour is hired out or sold for whatever they can get per year for it, and that is the labour that is employed in the lumber (mills and manufacturing establishments. That is the class of labour that



[Stage Direction]
our men in this northern latitude have to compete with under free trade in lumber. This article describes the brutality in connection with the treatment of these convicts, not alone by the jail authorities, but by the men to whom they are sold, and gives an account of the way in which a negro is flogged. Then it continues :
But the man has done wrong; he has committed a -fault.
Yes, from sunrise to noon he has wheeled fifty-seven loads of fresh brick; -the regulations of this hell on earth require -that in such a time he shall wheel six-ty loads. So, having thus transgressed, power and law and justice -as -administered in the state of Georgia exact from him this penalty until he screams and cries and sobs

and bleeds.
Further on the writer describes the meals.
For dinner they have each a piece of boiled salt pork, a piece of greasy corn bread. Although he is nearly famished, having worked all morning in the open air, the convict looks upon the food before him, and at -the recoi-leotion of -his breakfast has stomach revolts upon him and he turns sick and faints. But he gulps -down the corn bread -and, at last, turning the sa-lt -pork to the light -and -shredding it with his fingers, he -manages for sheer hunger's sake -to swallow a -li-ttle of it. The rest is begged by the hungry -man next to him. For supper he has boiled salt pork and a piece of corn bread. He learns that the state of Georgia does not f-urnAsh these viands' they are provided at the sole charge and cost of the company -to which -his slave labour has been sold.
That is in the issue of ' Everybody's Magazine' for the present month of June, and it goes on to describe how the State government has been taking action to improve the condition of these people. The free men in the Dominion of Canada, the 70,000 heads of families who are engaged in the lumber industry, have to compete, under free trade in lumber, with the coloured and convict labour of the United States of America.
William Stevens Fielding: Not at all ; my hon. friend is entirely mistaken.


Samuel Hughes: I am telling my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that it is a fact that they have to compete with negro labour.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not talking about negro labour ; I am talking about convict labour.


Samuel Hughes: They have to compete with convict labour.


William Stevens Fielding: No. You cannot bring into Canada any lumber that is produced by convict labour.


Samuel Hughes: How is it known? Is there a brand of the blood of the slave placed on every board ?
302*


William Stevens Fielding: I am not talking about slave labour. I am not aware that there is any slavery in the United States now.
I had the impression that slavery was abolished.


Samuel Hughes: I do not care whether you call it slave or convict labour; they have the worst system of slavery that they ever had at the present time. It is absolutely impossible to tell what lumber comes from a slave or convict mill and what comes from a free mill. At any rate wages are reduced by the competition of these convicts. Why are the prisons in Ontario going out of the convict labour business ? Simply because it brings convict labour into competition with free labour, it reduces the price of the commodity and in that way reduces wages just as it has done in the lumber business. Therefore, in the interest of the 70,000 odd free men, heads of families, men who want to bring their children up in respectability, in the interest of the men who have millions and millions of dollars invested in these mills up and down this country I would most respectfully impress upon the government the necessity of taking hold of this lumber question. At the present time there is scarcely a wheel turning in the lumber business in the province of Ontario. Banks are carrying these loads almost to their utmost limit. There is no market for lumber ; prices are down ; wages are down ; there is stagnation throughout the length and breadth of the province in the lumber business which calls for action by an up-to-date government. I trust that it will not be necessary that this matter should be brought to the attention of the House again, as it certainly will be if something is not done. I respectfully lay this information before the House and ask for it the attention of the government.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) said he did not wish to provoke any discussion. I have no doubt that would be the universal desire on the part of every gentleman who brings matters up ex parte before the Chair. But, even at the risk of transgressing the hon. gentleman's wishes, I would say a word or two to present, in a humble way, the views of those who do not agree with my hon. friend. There are those who would profit if any such duty were placed on lumber as my hon. friend has spoken of. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has been brought before you by a private member and by one on the other side of the House; for I think I shall do no injury to these hon. gentlemen, I think I shall not be unjust to my hon. friend from St. Antoine. Montreal (Mr. Ames) if I say that if any hon. member on this side were to propose this increase in

duty It would be said by tbe opposition that he acted at the instance of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Burrows) and others in order to increase the value of their limits. Therefore, even at the risk of not increasing the value of these limits, I will go further than that and ask if it be as hon. gentlemen opposite say that there is a vast fortune in the timber limits of the Northwest Territories and that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Burrows), for example, and others have been made millionaires by the assets of the country being handed over to them, what is this proposed increase of duty for but to enhance the value of the assets which they are supposed to have received?


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) a question? Are the limits to which he has referred worked? Are there thousands of men employed on these limits?


William Erskine Knowles: My answer, given without hesitation, is in the affirmative. I have no doubt that my hon. friend from St. Antoine will be able to explain )vhy these limits of my hon. friend from Dauphin and other hon. gentlemen engaged in the lumber business are so valuable as the hon. gentleman says and yet require this protection to make it worth while to operate them at all. The fact is that the hon. member for Dauphin and these other persons who are charged with being favourites of the government are operating largely the limits that they received and that is a fact that cannot be gainsaid.
My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has informed us as to the kinds of labour employed in tbe production of this lumber that is imported from the United States. He finds fault because negroes find employment in this work and because their product, the lumber from the south, is brought into Canada. I am sorry that the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. Clements) is not present, for I have no doubt that he would rise to defend the rights of the people of that race and that class, that they might not in this House have themselves classed with convicts or persons of that kind. And I cannot help


Samuel Hughes: I must rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) is putting words into my mouth that I did not utter. I was careful to point out the distinction between coloured labour and convict labour. ' Convict ' labour might include both coloured and white, but ' coloured ' refers to the negro.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend's explanation is quite in harmony with what I was saying. The hon. gentleman in his remarks classed them together. Not once, but half a dozen times, he said that he objected to this lumber coming in as having been produced by convicts and negroes Mr. KNOWLES.
-or negroes and convicts, I do not know to which he gave second place. His making a bugbear of the fact that these imports are the product of the labour of negroes and convicts which he objects to, reminds me of the attitude of the hon. gentleman when the labour interests were being heard and those who were familiar with the facts were setting forth the views of organized labour. On that occasion the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) was careful to say that he would have the Asiatics, such as the Hindus, come into this country rather than the galvanized Americans-not coloured Americans or convict Americans, but what he called ' galvanized' Americans, but still the industrious, hardworking. law-abiding, Anglo-Saxon Americans who, as they come among us, make just, as good citizens as any we have in this country.


Samuel Hughes: I must again correct the hon. gentleman. X referred to the anarchists from the United States. I hope he does not associate with that class.
Mr. ICNOWIjES. I am not sure that X understood the hon. gentleman's question. Did he ask me if I associated him with anarchists ?


Samuel Hughes: No. I asked the hon. gentleman (Mr. ICnowles) if he himself associated with anarchists; he seems ready to defend them.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not associate with anarchists. I am only saying that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) made the statement that he would rather have the Hindu come into this country than the ' galvanized ' Americans-that is the statement lie made. There are several remarks which might be made, speaking especially from the standpoint of the consumer of lumber in the Northwest in regard to the views of my hon. friend. He has said that those engaged in the lumber industry must have warm houses, for instance, which is something that those engaged in lumbering in Georgia do not need. But for one person engaged in cutting timber who must have a warm house we have five hundred or a thousand people who take up homesteads in the Northwest, who must first build houses and who must have those houses warm. On their behalf I protest against an agitation to increase the price to them of what is a prime necessity when they make their home in the Northwest. The very first requirement of homestead regulations is that a man shall have a house built. He must have a habitable house built; and it is well known that for a habitable house in that country you need a large quantity of lumber. l" remember that on one occasion the hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) was careful to spread on the records of this House that he had a house on his large holding that he had built for

$SO. I think he will admit it would have cost him much more if $2 a thousand had been added to the price of the lumber used. And I think he will not say that he could build a house of a warm kind for any such sum.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman point out how putting a duty on American lumber is going to increase the cost of lumber to the consumer? If he will break up the monopoly that he has in the west under free trade, he may be able to get the price of lumber reduced and this he can do by putting on a duty.


William Erskine Knowles: This is not to be a long discussion, so the hon. gentleman will not expect me to go into a consideration of the great economic question of how protection increases prices. 1 will not go into that question further than to give my own statement that protection does increase prices. I can only say that I will give my vote and voice on this basis. I believe that the people in my part of the country are convinced as I am that protection does enhance prices.
I may venture into the discussion so far as to ask the hon. member a question :	If
protection is not going to make a better market for his friends in the lumber business on whose behalf he speaks, what good will it do to them ? There will not be more lumber consumed ; there will not be a larger market; on the contrary there will be less consumed by reason of the increased price which I conted will be the result of the duty. One reason why we are always afraid of the men engaged in lumbering is that there is such danger that they will become combinsters, and I deliberately state that protection is the mother of trusts and combines. Tariffs breed trusts, and if there is one thing in which there should be no trust, that thing is lumber. For my part, I am against protection from start to finish, protection is to me an abomination. I support the Liberal party because of the two parties it is the one that favours the lower duties. But if a strong party decidedly devoted to free trade were to arise, I would be a supporter of that party, regarding its tariff policy. In this House, as representing my constituents, I believe I serve them best by supporting the party that goes the furthest in granting a low tariff. There can, therefore, in my humble opinion, be no reason for this increase of duty from the standpoint of the lumber industry, which is prosperous, whose men as a rule are wealthy men-you will find that in this city, where we are detained day after day and month after month, the wealthy men are those engaged in lumbering ; the prosperous people of the Northwest, those spoken of as millionaires by hon. members opposite are lumbermen ; the British Columbia lumbermen have been very prosperous for some years pafet. I
think the time is very ill-advised in asking for this increase. Our friends opposite deliberately placed themselves on record some years ago as being in favour of a duty of $2 a thousand on lumber which the lumbermen and their associations agitated for so strongly, but I am glad to say so unsuccessfully when they approached the present government which has maintained the low tariff.


INFRACTIONS OF INLAND REVENUE LAWS.
Professor J.   A.@: MoLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.). I desire to bring to the attention of the House a matter which has already been partially discussed-the manner in which the Inland Revenue Department has conducted the business of inspecting tobacco factories. A few days ago, I brought to the attention of the House certain infractions of the regulations concerning the manufacture of tobacco. I wish to-night to take this matter up where I left off! before. I was prevented from proceeding on that occasion because it was contended by members on the government side of the House that I was not in order in the discussion, as this is a matter relating to the inland revenue while the item then before us is related to the customs.
As this is a matter of some importance I think it my duty to bring the whole correspondence to the attention of the House. There is a duty on imported tobacco of 10 cents per pound ; the excise duty is 25 cents per pound on imported ; on combination tobacco manufactured 5 cents per pound, and on Canadian tobacco 5 cents per pound. The case I refer to was the alleged infraction of the Inland Revenue Act and of the regulations thereunder, by the firm of T. B. and D. J. Riley, of the ciiy of Charlottetown. It was alleged that this firm had during the course of four years or longer- although they had two licenses, one for an imported leaf factory and one for a combination leaf factory-been in the habit of buying stamps for imported tobacco leaf alone and that they had been during all these four years committing frauds against the revenue of Canada by cutting stamps in two and putting half stamps upon the caddies of tobacco which they sold. It is clear that if a person commits this offence he is guilty of a criminal act, and if such an infraction of the law be drawn to the ntten-tion of the officers of the Crown it is the duty of the inland revenue officers to take such proceedings as the law provides to punish the guilty parties. It is laid down ' in the Criminal Code, section 479 :
,	479. Every one is guilty of an indictable
i offence and liable ito 14 years' imprisonment
; wl(e) fraudulently mutilates any such stamp ; with intent that any use should be made of - anv pant of such stamp; or

(f)	fraudulently fixes or places upon any material, or upon any stamp aforesaid, any stamp or part of a stamp which, whether fraudulently or not, has heen cut, torn or in any other way removed from any other material or out of or from any other stamp; or
(g)	fraudulently erases, or otherwise, either really or apparently, removes, from any stamped material any name, sum, date, or other matter or thing thereon /written, with the intent that any use should ibe made of the stamp upon such material; or
(ih) knowingly and /without lawful ex< use, the proof whereof shall lie upon him, has in his possession any stamp or part of a stttmp which has been fraudulently cut, torn, or otherwise removed from any material, or any stamp which has been fraudulently mutilated, or any stamped material out of which any name, sum, date, or other matter or thing has been fraudulently erased or otherwise, either really or apparently, removed.
Now, the charge made against this firm is that the stamps they purchased from the Inland Revenue Department were by them cut in two, that they were consequently mutilated by these manufacturers of tobacco, and that one half stamp was placed upon one caddy and one half stamp placed upon another. The evidence produced to the officers of the department showed clearly and distinctly that such an Infraction of the law as would come within section 479 of the Criminal Code was committed, and yet the inland revenue authorities condoned the offence. They condoned it by allowing the junior member of this firm to pay $200 as a condonation of the offence which they had committed against the Inland Revenue Act and also against the Criminal Code, and the Department of Inland Revenue, accepted that $200 in full requital of the offence which these men committed. In order to make this matter more clear I will read the regulations governing the manner In which officers of the Inland Revenue Department are required to conduct themselves in regard to the manufacture of tobacco and the Inspection of the manufactories. Section II provides:
The officer in charge of each tobacco or cigar manufactory shall keep a record of the weight of all packages of raw leaf or other raw material received by the .manufacturers. The entry shall be .made in a book provided by the department focr that purpose.
Not only is the officer in charge of the manufactory bound to keep a record of every brand of tobacco which goes iuto such manufactory, but the man who conducts the factory must keep a record also ; and section 44 of the Inland Revenue Act provides :
Every distiller, compounder, malster, brewer, tobacco manufacturer, cigar manufacturer, bonded 'manufacturer or other manufacturer, who is required to take out a license under this Act, or who carries on any business subject to excise, shall, in addition to the books, accounts .amd papers hereinafter specialty . mentioned, keep on /and within the premises
'Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
covered by the license issued to such manufacturer or other person, such stock books and other books, in such form and manner as are prescribed and supplied by the department, in which books there shall be clearly recorded, day by day, and on the same day on which the circumstance, thing or act to be recorded is done or occurs, in the prescribed columns-
(a)	a full and particular account of all grain, malt, spirits, raw and /manufactured tobacco, cigars and other stock, material or commodity brought into the distillery, malt-house, brewery, tobacco manufactory, cigar manufactory, bonded manufactory, or other licensed premises, to 'which such stock books relate; and
(b)	a full and particular account of all grain, spirits, malt, raw or manufactured to-bacoo, cigars or other stock, material or commodity, sold, removed or transferred from such distillery, malt-house, brewery, tobacco manufactory, cigar manufactory, bonded manufactory or other licensed premises; and
(c)	such further particulars as a/re required by any departmental regulation in that behalf.
The departmental regulation goes on to say, in section 15 :
All leaf and other materials are as soon as received and account taken of them /to be placed in a warehouse provided for that purpose-
That is, that the officer of the department shall take an account of them and that account shall also be recorded as provided by section 44 of the Inland Revenue Act, in the books of the manufactory :
To be placed in a warehouse provided for that purpose and seoured by Crown lock, the key {hereof being in the possession of the officer in charge.
Then it goes on to show in sectiou 36 of the regulations what the duties of the officers are. It is provided that every tobacco manufactory in this country must have an officer in charge who shall look after it and see that all the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act and the regulations made under it by the Governor in Council have been complied with. Section 36 of the regulations provide :
lit is the duty of every officer in charge of any (tobacco or cigar manufactory to see that no greater quantity of tobacco or cigars is contained in the packages to which the stamps are attached than the stamp is intended to cover and all the packages must in all cases be full, i.e., a ten pound stamp must not be placed on /a package capable of holding from fifteen to twenty pounds even if the package only contains ten pounds of tobacco. Should any package containing tobacco or cigars at any time be discovered with stamps thereon for less than the package contains, it is the duty of every officer to detain such packages as forfeited and report the circumstances to this department through the collector of the division.
Now, the meaning of these regulations and of the law is that the officers shall see that the packages contain the proper

quantity of tobacco and shall also see that the proper stamps shall be placed on those packages. In this case a complaint was made to the collector of Inland revenue in the city of Charlottetown. As was stated here on the 26th of May, in the discussion which then took place, and in the letters which were then read, the collector of inland revenue in the city of Charlottetown did not give the matter any consideration, or did not give it sufficient consideration, and the parties who are aggrieved in this matter, namely, the Hickey & Nicholson Tobacco Company, Limited, who are tobacco manufacturers in the city of Charlottetown. complain that they are not receiving justice at the hands of the officers of the Inland Revenue Department. After they had informed them that to their own knowledge many breaches of these regulations had been committed, they were compelled to go to the collector of customs of Charlottetown, Mr. W. B. Robertson. Mr. Robertson found that an infraction of the law had been committed by the firm of T. B. & D. J. Riley. He found the evidence of the breach of the lawr at the store of Mr. W. A. Poole, Lower Montague, in King's County. Mr. Robertson reported the fact to the commissioner of customs in the city of Ottawa, and asked him if he would have his permission to investigate the matter. The commissioner gave his permission, and Mr. Robertson then investigated the matter and reported to the commissioner of customs in Ottawa. He also sent the declarations of Mr. Donald Nicholson and of Mr. Harnett, which set out a large number of infractions of the law which had been committed, or which had been alleged to have been committed by this firm of T. B. & D. J. Riley-something like fifteen or sixteen. Notwithstanding this fact and the fact that Mr. Harnett had reported the matter to the officers of the Inland Revenue Department, he received no satisfaction from them, and he was compelled to go to the collector of customs, who was not the proper officer to report the matter to ; but when the collector of customs received the sanction of the commissioner of customs to investigate, and did investigate, and found that these allegations were worthy of investigation, and so reported to his department, the commissioner of customs, after the declarations of Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Harnett had come to Ottawa, reported to Mr. Gerald, the deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, and Mr. Gerald sent one of his officers, Mr. Burke, who has supervision lof the factories in the maritime provinces, to Charlottetown. He went there and found no infraction of the law. The next man sent there was Mr. Fitzgerald, who did not report that any infraction of the law had been committed. Still, these gentlemen, who knew that an infraction of the law had
been committed, persisted in their efforts to obtain justice at the hands of the government, particularly the Inland Revenue Department, and they requested through the collector of customs at Charlottetown that another investigation be made. The Inland Revenue Department then sent Mr. Caven, of Montreal, an officer of the Inland Revenue Department, to the city of Charlottetown to see if there was any truth in the reports which had been declared by Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Harnett with reference to these alleged infractions of the law. Before Mr. Caven went down, I presume that Messrs. Riley found out that an investigation was to take place, one perhaps more severe than the two previous ones, and they saw fit to send up to the department the sum of $200. This is the letter which Mr. D. J. Riley, the junior member of that firm, sent to the department at Ottawa with the $200 :
I hereby abandon the sum of $200, deposited with Mr. S. C. Nash, collector of inland revenue, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. This abandonment is made under section 136 of the Inland Revenue Act.
That letter is dated Charlottetown, October 10, 1907. Before this document was signed by D. J. Riley, and before the money was paid to Mr. Nash, it was positively declared, under the Act relating to extra judicial oaths, before Mr. Robertson, the collector of customs in Charlottetown, that these men had committed not only an infraction of the Inland Revenue Act in not having placed stamps upon some of the tobacco they sold, but also an infraction of the Criminal Code, in having mutilated the stamp, that offence coming under section 479 for which they were liable to imprisonment for 14 years in the penitentiarv. Nothwithstanding that fact, the Inland Revenue Department accepted this $200 in full condonation of the offence of these gentlemen. After this money had been paid and had been' accepted by the department, Mr. Caven sent in his report. The money was paid on the 10th of October, and Mr. Caven made his report on the 17th of October. His letter containing that repbrt is as follows :
Sir,-I beg to report that in accordance with instructions I visited Charlottetown and inquired into the irregularities complained of in stamping tobacco in factory of D. J.
Mr. Nash the collector informed me that Mr. Burke, the -inspector, had beau ou the island, but was unable to find any goods improperly stamped and later he sent one of his officers from St. John who went over to thu island and examined the tobacco in stores. He, 1 was told, found the stamping had all been clone in a regular manner.
Here is a misstatement on the face of this letter, because there is no factory ot D J Riley. The factory was the factory of T. B. & D. J. Riley. Why he put in

the name of D. J Riley alone I do not know. The Inland Revenue Department knew that the two men were partners in this business, that a license had been issued to them both, that stamps had been issued to them both. Mr. Caven goes on to say :
I saw Mr. D. Nicholson, who complained ot the irregularities and he told me his attention was drawn to it by the fact that Mr. 1). J. Riley was selling at a very low rate. Mr. Moore the officer in charge of Riley's factory was in Souris on July 30, and visited the store of Messrs. Mathew & McLean. There he found fifteen caddies of Riley's tobacco nailed up in crates of five caddies each which lie had opened and found five caddies with half stamp on each. He asked the store man to place them aside and keep them but the storeman shipped them and ten others back to Riley on Aug. 5. Those caddies were not brought into the factory but to a store kept by Riley s father, and when I visited the store no trace of them could be found.
Here is a direct notice to Mr. Caven here is a direct notice to the officers who had previously visited the establishments where tobacco was found, and still the department and the officials give no credence to the first report, the department received D. Nicholson and Harnett and the statement of Mr. Caven is partially incorrect in this that he does not mention the full name of the firm but only the name of the junior partner.
at various times. On returning to Charlottetown I with Mr. Moore, cheeked over stock book No. 2 with memo, of invoices and found that a shipment to Mathew & McLean on May 11, 1907, of ten caddies, 200 pounds, did not appear in the stock book.
Ten caddies, 200 pounds did not appear in the stock book.
Also, a shipment of June 5, 1907, to Stern Brothers, 5 packages, 100 pounds, did not appear in factory books. These shipments might have been made from store, kept by Riley's father. Before leaving the factory, Mr. D. J. Riley said he would like to speak to me privately. He asked if I thought the department would be willing to let matters go if he gave up his license, that for some time they had been losing money in bad debts and as all this trouble would come on his unole, Mr. T. B. Riley, he, D. J. Riley, would be willing to go away from the business. He asked me if I would call and see Mr. T. B. Riley who was sick and unable to come out. I called and saw him. He showed me two drafts for leaf which he had not accepted, for, if the department were going to seize his factory and sell him out he would countermand the leaf order. I told him that the department could impose a fine for any offences D. J. Rilev -had been guilty of. I have no doubt that D. J. Riley has been guilty of infractions of the Act, but so long had elapsed between the time of the tobacco being placed upon the market and my visit that Riley was able to go around the country and get any stock that remained upon the merchants' hands.
I vasated Riley's factory -and asked him if he would take his -ledger and check off the items wa-th stock -book No. 2. He said he kept no ledger

He said he kept uo ledger.
-day book or order.
He kept no ledger, day blook or order book, and here is the law laid down distinctly, not only in the Act but in the regulations as well, that every manufacturer of tobacco must keep a full and particular account of all tobacco that he uses and all stock which he has in his factory. Notwithstanding this fact the Department of Inland Revenue lets rest that point and accept in condonation of all the offences which these men have committed. I
I visited Riley's factory and asked him i he would take his ledger and check off th< items with stock book No. 2. He said he kep no ledger, day book or letter book. All hii sales were cash or draft and he -relied so-leb on stock book No. 2. I then asked him t< snow me entries for one or two items whidl were in stock book No. 2, -but no trace of then appeared in either of his books. On the after noon of the day this took -place I visited -Sourii and called upon Messrs. Mathew & McLear and Stern Brothers. They gave me a memo of -the dates, packages and pounds of tobacec bought from Riley. Messrs. Stern Brothers told me that they bought from Riley on open account and that Riley would draw upon them Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
Here is a statement made to the Department of Inland Revenue in Ottawa, but still no action was taken upon it. Notwithstanding the fact that it was reported to the department that these men had committed these infractions of the law and had had time through the blundering of theii? own officers to go around and take back the tobacco no action had been taken by the department.
. tDhe three caddies referred to by Mr. Moore -in store of Mathew & McLean -were -likely covered by half stomps and Mr. Moore now sees he was in error in not taking -the tobacco to the excise office in Charlottetown.
I am of the opinion that no further trouble will be caused by Riley as, acting upon instructions from Inspector Burke, Mr. Nash or Mr. Moore see that all -the stamps are properly affixed to caddies.
Was it not the duty of some officer to to see that these stamps were affixed to the caddies? How is the public to be guarded ^ against infractions of the law if the officials appointed to see that the law is enforced do not perform that duty?
On my return -to Montreal I consulted with Mr. Lawlor, who advised me that in the absence of any proof other than Riley's admission i-t would be well to write Collector Nash and ask that Riley deposit the sum of $200 aB a penalty under section 36 of the Inland Revenue Act. This I did and attach hereto abandonment for amount stated, Mr. Lawlo-r is

absent on a trip of inspection and for this reason I am sending my report direct to you.
I remain, sir,
Tour obedient servant,
(Sgd.) W. CAVEN, Deputy Collector.
To the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue,
Ottawa.
I have no doubt that Mr. Caven did his duty to the best of his ability, that he is a man who knows how to do his duty, but that he was duped by these men in this way, that he agreed to accept, or to report to the department that they should accept, $200 in condonation of these previous offences against the law.
They refer in this abandonment to section 136 of the law, and they say, in effect : This department says that if a manufacturer of tobacco buys $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 or $10,000 worth of stamps, cuts them in two and cheats and - defrauds the public in this way, he can abandon $200 and cheat the revenue out of $60,000 or $70,000 or $80,000 or $100,000. Is that the law? It is not the law, it is not the meaning of the law. Under the section referred to the government had no right to accept it at all. What is the meaning of this section? It reads :
If any article or thing is voluntarily given up or abandoned by the owner to any collector or superior officer as forfeited under this Act, or if any sum of money is voluntarily paid to any such collector or officer as the amount of a penalty under this Act, such article or thing may be dealt with as if lawfully condemned and such sum of money as if lawfully recovered.
Supposing the government did their duty strictly according to the letter of the law, they could have confiscated his factory. Suppose it had been shown that Riley had committed one infraction of the law, suppose that he had not (under the provision of the law), used the proper die to cancel the stamp, which he had bought from the government, perhaps he could in the case of one infraction abandon the sum of $200. But where there were many infractions, where It was known to the government that for a period of at least three or four years these infractions of the law had been committed by these men, that seventeen or eighteen infractions had been brought home to them, was it then the duty of the gov-i eminent to accept $200 as full satisfaction for all these offences? I do not think it was. I do not think the government were justified, or that the public will say that the government did right in accepting this sum of $200. I think that when men commit many infractions of the law as these men had done, proceedings should have been taken by the Department of Inland Revenue to punish them. They were just as guilty under the law as if they had forged my name or that of the Minister of
Inland Revenue, the same penalty would apply to a forgery as to the mutilation of a stamp. Why then, were these men not punished? I think I can tell you, because the senior member of this firm was the vicepresident of the Liberal association of the county of Queens, that is why the name of T. B. Riley was left out of the proceedings which were taken by the officers of the Inland Revenue Department. That is the reason why, notwithstanding the fact that the government had issued a license to T. B. Riley, they accepted the abandonment of $200 from his partner D. J. Riley. That is the reason, there is no other reason. Politics entered into all these proceedings, even into matters which concerned the condonation of offences which are punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years in the penitentiary.
Notwithstanding that these men were guilty of these infractions of the law, notwithstanding the fact that the deputy Minister of Inland Revenue was acquainted with the circumstances of the case, he allows the matter to go, not a word said, but accepting this paltry sum of $200 in satisfaction. That is not the way it would have been if Hickey, Nicholson Co., Limited, had committed an infraction of the law, for they happen to be on the other side of politics. These men had been greatly handicapped by the way the government had allowed the Rileys to do their business for years, paying only half the amount of duty, or, in many cases, no duties at all, on the tobacco they manufactured. This is one of the most glaring cases that has ever been known. I do not think the time has elapsed in which action can be taken against these men who committed this offence against the government.	-
The government took this cheque. The cheque was sent to the assistant commissioner of customs, and, in a letter dated January 10, 1908, addressed to Mr. Gerald by Mr. Farrow, he said :
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant inclosing departmental cheque No. 1859 in favour of the commissioner for the sum of $50 covering an award made for information furnished by our collector of customs at Charlottetown respecting the irregular stamping of packages of tobacco by a manufacturer in Charlottetown.
The cheque has this day been forwarded to the collector of customs ait Charlottetown and he has been requeued to send proper receipts to this department for transmission to yon.
Why did the Minister of Inland Revenue accept this cheque ? There were many_ infractions of the law, besides the criminal one to which I referred, the highest penalty for which would be $500 and the lowest $100 ? Eighteen cases were presented to him which would amount to something like $9,000, and still he allows these men off for

$200. When I am through, I hope the minister will answer me and state why he allowed these infractions of the law of which he is the especial administrator, and also this offence against the criminal law to go unpunished except for this paltry $200. A good deal of correspondence took place with regard to payment. It seems that the sum of $50 was due to somebody for giving information against these people. It was offered to Mr. Robertson, but he did not think he was entitled to it. Evidently it was thought that Mr. Harnett, of the Hickey-Nicholson Co., Ltd., who had given the information, was entitled to it. Mr. Gerald wrote to Mr. Robertson requesting that the $50 be paid over to Mr. Harnett, but Mr. Harnett informed Mr. Robertson that he would not accept any sum of money from the government of Canada for giving the information. And he informs me that he does not consider the punishment accorded to these men was sufficient for the serious offences they had committed. He informed the department through Mr. Robertson, the collector of customs in Charlottetown, that he would have nothing to do with the $50 and also informed him that he thought that, in giving this information against these men, he was only doing his duty to himself and to the public as a citizen of Canada, that he desired his action to be gratis and not for remuneration, and also that the punishment meted out to these men was not sufficient. The letter that Mr. Robertson wrote on this subject is set out in the return laid on the table. It is not necessary for me to read it. In my opinion, this case from first to last is a most glaring-injustice committed against the firm of Hickey-Nicholson, of Charlottetown, tobacco manufacturers, who were competing with the Rileys and that the punishment meted out to these offenders was not at all commensurate with the crimes they had committed.


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister Inland Revenue).: It is much to be regretted that my hon. friend (A. A. McLean) did not send me an intimation that he proposed bringing up this matter this evening. While this pertains to the Inland Revenue Department, the matter is one which arose some six months ago, it is one concerning which there was a considerable correspondence, and all the facts are not at this moment very clear in my recollection. My hon. friend read most of the correspondence the other eveniug when the House was in Supply. I assume that he was more concerned then-and is more concerned now- in placing the facts before the public of Prince Edward Island for political purposes than in any other phase of the question. For there is politics in this, as the two manufactures of tobacco in Charlottetown are politicians, one on one side and the other on the other side. I believe that this man Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
Riley, guilty of contravention of the Inland Revenue Act, is not of the same political persuasion as my hon. friend.
Now, this is not a matter to take up very much time. Mr. Riley is a tobacco manufacturer. It was discovered-I think the information first came from a rival manufacturer-by an inland revenue officer that the tobacco manufactured by Riley Bros, was not sufficiently stamped. The officer of the Inland Revenue Department named Moore, made an investigation, and found in some of the country stores caddies of tobacco that were insufficiently stamped- half the quantity of stamps being placed on these caddies. This officer of the Inland Revenue Department, Moore, certainly failed in the discharge of his duty right at that point. When he found the tobacco insufficiently stamped, he went away leaving the tobacco in the possession of the parties who owned it, requesting the parties, I believe, to keep it in a safe place or not to dispose of it, and he would return. Now, that tobacco was never seen again. It had been returned to another Riley who was a retail dealer-there are two firms of Riley, one manufacturers and the other storekeepers. Mr. Burke, the inspector from St. John, N. B., went there to investigate the case under instructions from the deputy Minister of Inland Revenue. Mr. Haven also was sent and his report has been read by my hon. friend. Mr. Caven found that three, or four, or probably, half a dozen caddies of tobacco had been sent out with insufficient inland revenue stamps upon them. These caddies having disappeared, it was absolutely impossible to prove anything against Riley the manufacturer. Mr. Caven, the deputy collector from Montreal who was sent down by Mr. Lawlor, our inspector, reports as follows :
I have no doubt but that D. J. Riiley has been guilty of infractions of the Aot, but so long had elapsed between the time of the tobacco being placed upon the market and my visit that Riley was able to go round the country and get any stock that remained upon the merchants' .hands.
That is precisely what happened.
The three caddies referred to by Mr. Moore in store of Matthew & McLean were likely covered by half stamp and Mr. Moore now sees that he was in error in not taking the tobacco to the excise office in Charlottetown.
The evidence of the guilt of Riley the manufacturer had disappeared. Mr. Caven said :
On my return to Montreal I consulted with Mr. Lawlor

Our head inspector and a very excellent official.
-who advised me -that in the absence of any proof other than Riley's admission it would be well to write Collector Nash and ask that Riley deposit the sum of - $200 as a penalty under section 136 of Inland Revenue Aot.

'Mr. A. A. McLEAN. Could the hon. gentleman not get evidence from Mr Harnett and also from Mr. Moore? They had the evidence of Mr. Harnett, Mr. Moore, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Burke and 'Matthew and McLean.


William Templeman: Their evidence would not have been sufficient.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You had the evidence of Mr. Harnett before this letter was written and signed by Mr. Robertson, the collector of customs at Charlottetown.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: There was the evidence of eighteen men that you could have got.


William Templeman: These are the facts of the case. The goods had disappeared and if we had undertaken a prosecution against Riley it would have failed as we rwere advised. He was asked to deposit $200 and that amount he forfeited.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did you not want that advice ?


William Templeman: I cannot say. The swhole matter transpired before I had any knowledge of the events at all ; so that I cannot say that I wanted advice one way or the other. The $200 were accepted and further proceedings were dropped. These are the whole facts of the case. I admit frankly that the officers of the Inland Revenue Department at Charlottetown did not do their duty. When they found that there was a contravention of the law, or an infringement of the Inland Revenue Act, or a fraud on the part of Mr. Riley, they ought to have taken possession of the goods and obtained the evidence that would have convicted him of fraud. They did not do so. In several other cases of the same kind where there have been infractions of the Inland Revenue law and where it has been impossible to convict the party guilty of these infractions, deposits have been received and they have been forfeited to the department under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act. There is a lot of correspondence between the customs officials and the Inland Revenue officials, but, boiled down, the simple explanation is as I have stated. There was no violation, whatever, of the Customs Act. There was no fraud upon the customs. The fraud was upon the Inland Revenue. We have no reason to know to what extent, but we have been assured that these frauds were very limited indeed. We have no positive information that they involved more than three or four caddies. There may have been more but it would have been impossible to have continued frauds of that kind for any length of time. My officers advised me that *they do not think the frauds were very extensive. In so far as I am advised, I think the ends of justice have been served by fining this manufacturer $200. My hon.
friend who raised this question cannot say that the frauds were long continued or that they amounted to very much. If we had had sufficient evidence of course, we might have seized or confiscated the manufacturer's factory, but we did not think, with the very poor evidence we had, that it would be wise to do so. We pursued this course and we think we pursued the right one.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I will not attempt to take up very much of the time of the House on this question as I have not gone into it so fully as my hon. friend (Mr. A. A. McLean), but after looking over the evidence that my hon. friend brought before the House the other evening and his statement of the case to-day I think that the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) treats the matter in a very light and easy fashion. As in many other cases which have been brought before the House and the country, they are trying to cover up the abuses in the different departments of the government which have occurred possibly through the fault of their own officials. They are not, in going after a situation of this kind, getting down to the root of the matter, but they are approaching it from the point of view of protecting their os'n political friends as my hon. friend from Queens has pointed out. To my mind this case shows an obvious abuse, an evasion of the law and the Department of Inland Revenue have not gone after it in a proper manner to discover these people and find out how many infringements of the Act have taken place. The Minister of Inland Revenue says to my hon. friend : You did not say there were a great many infractions of the law.
I find in the evidence of Mr. Harnett, taken by the collector of customs, that these cases ran from May, 1906, to August, 1907. I do not think that the department used the means at their disposal to find out how many infractions of the law there were. I believe' that while the minister treats it in a very light manner there were thousands upon thousands of dollars taken out of the revenue of this country and put into the pockets of these manufacturers of Charlottetown. and that not only were they stealing the money of the country, but they were robbing other people of the trade to which they were fairly entitled by selling their tobacco at a cheaper rate than the manufacturers who were complying with the law could sell it at and compete against them at a profit. I have heard it stated by parties who have figured it up that these transactions extended over four years and ran into from $40,00 to $60,000, of which amount the revenue of the country was defrauded. You can easily understand that when it amounts to $5 a caddy it will not take long to run up to $60,000. The minister acknowledges

that he is not very familiar with the situation. I can very readily understand from his remarks that he was not familiar with it I have only had an opportunity of reading over the papers during the last hour and 1 can see that there is some conclusive evidence in the documents that there was an absolute case of wrong-doing. Prom the evidence produced it seems clear that there was at least collusion with those in high places, and that the government of the country has condoned this wrong-doing and shielded the perpetrators, tinder section 479 of the Criminal Code it is the duty of the officials of the Inland Revenue Department to take criminal proceedings against those who mutilate or fraudulently use Inland Revenue stamps. It was shown that, in a number of instances, these parties, T. B. and D. J. Riley, did mutilate these stamps that they cut them in two and put half of one on a caddy instead of the regulation stamp. The evidence showed this fraud to have been committed and the government condoned this -wrong by the acceptance of a $200 fine when they had the evidence in their hands that fraud had been committed. The minister has tried to make this House believe that there was no evidence to prove these parties guilty. There were affidavits before this letter from Mr. Caven came to hand of a number of reputable merchants of Prince Edward Island and there were fifteen or eighteen cases sworn to by Mr. Harnett before the commissioner of customs. Surely this was sufficient evidence to prove that these people had been guilty of a fraudulent act under the Criminal Code. Yet the minister thinks there was nothing proved. It seems to me that the business of the Inland Revenue Department, in the different parts of the Dominion, must be carried on very carelessly. Section 11 of the regulations regarding the manufacture of tobacco requires the officials to keep recordiS, ledgers and other accounts of the amount of leaf received and of the amount that is used in the manufacture of tobacco. Section 44 of these regulations requires that the manufacturer shall also keep books and it is provided that the books of the officers of the department and the manufacturer shall correspond. There must have been an obvious neglect of duty on the part of the minister's officers to enable these people to get up and testify that they kept no books and could show no record. Tlie regulations require that an officer of the Inland Revenue Department shall take account of all the leaf that is in the possession of the manufacturer and that he shall keep it under lock and key.


William Templeman: There is no doubt at all that the manufacturing firm of Rileys kept books according to the requirements of the department. It is the other firm of Rileys, local traders, the father or brother of the manufacturer, who it is said kept no books.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is not correct. It is the firm of T. B. & D. J. Riley who kept no books. As we understand


William Templeman: I do not know what is understood, but I say that the manufacturing firm of Rileys kept all the books and made all the entries required by the department.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Mr. Caven writes :
I visited Riley's factory and asked him if he would take ihis ledger and cheek off the items with his stock book Jjo. 2. He said he kept no ledger, day book or order book, all his sales were cash or draft and he relied wholly on stock book No. 2.
He was asked to produce his books and he said he kept no books and, therefore, according to the evidence of Mr. Caven he did not comply with the law. The Department of Inland Revenue should not have dealt with one of the Rileys individually and accepted a fine of $200 from him, but they should have punished the firm of T. B. & D. J. Riley who were the offenders. The statement of the minister that there was no evidence to prosecute these men under the criminal code is not borne out by the facts which he had before him, but which he acknowledges he did not consider very carefully. On August 5, 1907, Mr. Nash, collector of inland revenue, wrote to the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue as follows :
Inland Revenue Division No. 1, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island,
August 5, 1907.
W. J. Gerald, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, Ottawa.
Sir,-I have the honour to state that rumours of tobacco being sold * out of packages ' have reached this office. Kings county seems to be the habitat. I have requested Inspector Burke to come over sooner than usual, although he is due some time this month when we might make some, arrangements to make seizures. In the meantime I have sent Officer Moore to one or two places to investigate and have also instructed him on his collecting tours to visit shops where tobacco is sold and seize in every case illiotly exposed tobacco. I have made requisition to-day for forms.
Question-'Is it necessary to remove tobacco seized? I mean to take possession.
I am your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) SAMUEL C. NASH,
Collector Inland Revenue.
This is the answer :
Ottawa, August 8, 1907.
S. C. Nash, Esq.,
Collector of Inland Revenue, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Sir,-I am in receipt of your communication of the 5th instant respecting the rumoured sale of unstamped tobacco within your division and requesting to be advised as to the necessity for taking possession of such tobacco in case of seizure
In reply thereto I beg to state that if tobacco is so seized it becomes the property of

the Crown and if the faots warrant its seizure they certainly necessitate taking possession of the goods seized.
In connection of the matter of seizure of tobacco, out of stamped packages, great care should be used by our officials to endeavour to ascertain if it is a case of fraud or of simple ignorance of the law. While it is true that the latter is no justification for the *wrong-doing it is a factor that should have some weight with our officials.
In any case whether tobacco is so found or not our officer should explain to dealers visited the provisions of the law respecting the sale of tobacco and, if these dealers have not been supplied with circular G-155, a copy thereof should be delivered to each person visited and should be mailed to persons who are not so personally called upon.
I remain, sir,
Your obedient servant
Deputy Minister.
The firm of Hickey & Nicholson were of course subject to unfair competition on account of this defrauding of the revenue by a rival firm and they suspected the officers of the department were not moving fast enough, and so "on August 9 this letter was written :
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, August 9, 1907.
W. B. Robertson, Esq.,
Collector of Customs.
Sir,-Our Mr. Harnett has drawn my attention to gross violations.of the Excise and Customs Act and I have reported the same to other officers some time ago, but up to the present no action has been taken or likely to. I therefore report same to you now and demand that you take immediate action and our Mr. Harnett will accompany yon to the identical goods.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) HENRY NICHOLSON TOBACCO
COMPANY, Limited.


D. NICHOLSON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robertson, in pursuance of the information which he had received, went to Lower Montague and discovered that irregularities in some of the tobacco of T. B. & D. J. Riley bad been perpetrated, and fraud committed against the people and government of this country. He reported it to the Commissioner of Customs. Would not that be proof enough to the Minister of Inland Revenue that fraud was being perpetrated when he had it on his own officer's report? The next letter is written on the 10th of August and it is as follows:
Department of Customs, port of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island,
August 10, 1907.
Sir,-I beg to report that acting on the inclosed letter from the Hickey & Nicholson Company, Limited, I drove to Lower Montague, and called on the firm of W. A. Poole & Company, and while they have no tobacco on hand at the present moment irregularly stamped, I gleaned enough evidence from Mr. George Poole, a member of the firm, to satisfy me that things are not straight so far as the
stamping of the .tobacco sent out by the firm of T. B. & D. J. Riley, of this city, are concerned, and I am confident that the circumstances are such as would justify a searching investigation and trust that all may meet with your honourable approval.
I have the honour to he, sir.
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) W. B. ROBERTSON.
The Commissioner of Customs on August 7 wrote to the collector of customs at Charlottetown, P.E.I., as follows :
August 7.
To the Collector of Customs,
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Sir,-1 have the honour to 'acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, respecting the irregular stamping of tobacco at your port. You may inquire into and report such irregularities as you find in the tobacco sent out by T. B. and D. J. Riley.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Commissioner of Customs.
Mr. Robertson took the trouble to Investigate and the result is contained in a report marked schedule A, and declaration A and declaration B ; and I want the minister, who apparently is not familiar with the correspondence, to listen to the declarations signed by the commissioner of Customs, who was authorized by the deputy minister of Customs to make the investigation. The first is as follows :
I, Donald Nicholson, of Charlottetown, a member of the Hickey & Nicholson Tobacco Company, Limited, do hereby declare that during the early spring I called officer Theop. Moore's attention to the fact that insufficiently stamped tobacco was sold throughout the country, and he promised me to keep a sharp lookout for it.
About the last of July, on his return from Souris, I inquired if he had discovered any such tobacco, and he replied that ' he saw mole than he wanted to see.' Viz., 3 caddies of Rilev tobacco at Messrs. Mathew & McLeans' and had ordered the clerk to lay them aside as he might require them. He then accompanied me to Mr. Nash and we fully discussed the matter and Mr. Nash agreed to send for the inspector.
On August 7 our salesman, Mr. Harnett, telephoned me from Georgetown that Messrs. W. A. Poole & Company, Lower Montague, had such tobacco on hand and suggested that I see the Inland Revenue officer at once, and I informed Mr. Moore of it on that date. Mr. Harnett returned home on the 8th, and on the 9th he and I called on Mr. Nash urging that they take immediate action and offering to drive the officer to where it was sold, hut Mr. Moore being out of town and Mr Nash, who treated the matter somewhat lightly, was too busy, so we called on the collector of customs and demanded that he take immediate action. On Mr. Harnett's agreeing to accompany him they left on the morning of the 10th for Lower Montague.
[Inspector Burke arrived here on the 13th and on the 14th sent for me, after a short interview we parted, and he, I am told, left
[Stage Direction]
for home on the 15th, and so far we have not heard if anything has been done.
(Sgd.) DONALD NICHOLSON,
President pf Company.
Signed and declared before me at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 22nd day of August, A.D. 1907.
(Sgd.) W. B. ROBERTSON, Collector.
I would like to know why this man Moore was not called to give evidence. He saw more than he wanted to see, and I presume that the department knew more than they wanted to make public. The Mr. Burke who is referred to in this declaration was the inspector for the maritime provinces. The next declaration that I would call to the attention of the hon. Minister is declaration B which is made by Mr. Harnett :
I, Evelyn B. Harnett, a member of the firm of Hickey and Nicholson Tobacco Company, Limited, acting as travelling salesman for the Lower provinces do hereby solemnly affirm that I examined tobacco sent out by the firm of Messrs. T. B. and D. J. Riley of Charlottetown on the dates and at the places mem-tioned below and found it insufficiently stamped and noted same in my memorandum hook, viz.:
There are eases here running from August, 1906, to August, 1907, during which this abuse was going on. In the early spring of 1907 Mr. Nicholson, of the firm of Hickey & Nicholson, drew this to the attention of the officers of the department; but no action was taken upon it until August, 1907. There are here some twenty or twenty-five cases of ponclusive evidence that the Department of Inland Revenue was being defrauded. Mr. Harnett, after going over a number of these cases, says :
About May 15, last I met Mr. Moore, of the Inland Revenue Department at our factory and in the presence of Mr. D. Nicholson informed him that I had seen insufficiently stamped tobacco and urged them to look into the matter.
On August 7 I visited Lower Montague and found at the store pf Messrs. W. A. Poole & Company, 5 caddies of Riley's tobacco, 1 full stamped, 3 half stamped and one without stamps and I reported this to Mr. Nicholson by telephone from Georgetown and suggested that he see the inland revenue officer at once, I returned to Charlottetown on the evening of the 8th instant, and on the 9th I called on Mr. Nash to discuss the matter, and as he treated it so lightly, I in company with Mr. Nicholson called on the collector of customs and I demanded that he give it immediate attention, and I volunteered to show where it was exposed for sale. On the 10th the collector and I drove to Lower Montague and called on Messrs. W. A. Poole & Company and was told that George Riley, of Charlottetown, a brother to T. W. Riley and father to D. J. Riley, drove to their store on the 8th of August and of his own free will and without being requested by W. A. Poole took possession and carried away two caddies without stamps, promising to return fresh stock instead, and left one caddie
Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: with half stamps on partly used on the shelf.
On the 9th Mr. Moore who was out collecting samples of food called at Messrs. Poole's store and inquired if Mr. Riley had been there lately, and when told he was there on the 8th he looked over the stock of tobacco on hand. One caddie with stamps and one with half stamps partly used on the shelf, which was opened in the end, he, Mr. Moore, took the hatchet and opened it on the side, remarking that was the proper way to open it, and after the collector held a conversation with Mr. Poole, one of the firm, we returned to town.
On the evening of the 13th I, in company with Robert W. D. M. Rattery, foreman of our factory, called on Inspector Burke at the Queen's Hotel, and after discussing the matter Mr. Burke informed us that he had no idea of the seriousness of the offence and promised to see Mr. Nicholson in the morning. Mr. Burke returned home on the morning of the 15th and so far as I am aware nothing has been done.
(Sgd.) EYELYN B. HARNETT. Signed and declared before me at Charlottetown, in Prince Edward Island, this the 22nd day of August, A.D. 1907.
(Sgd.) W. B. ROBERTSON, Collector.
The next letter is as follows :
September 18, 1907.
R. R. Farrow, Esq.,
Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Ottawa.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of_the 16th instant transmitting for the perusal of this department, customs file No. 69548 respecting the alleged im-roper manner of stamping of packages of to-acco by a manufacturer in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. I thank you for bringing this matter under the notice of this department.
Copies have been made of the correspondence and the case will be referred to the proper officer for investigation. Your file is returned herewith.
I remain, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Deputy Minister. The next letter is ns follows :
Ottawa, September 16, 1907. W. J. Gerald, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, Ottawa.
Sir,-I send you the above noted file for perusal re stamping of tobacco sent out by T. B. & D. J. Riley, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) R. R. FARROW, Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The next letter Is as follows :
September 23, 1907.
H. Lawlor, Esq.,
Inspector of Tobacco Factories, Inland Revenue, Montreal, Quebec.
Sir,-I beg to forward [DOT] herewith copies of correspondence transmitted to this department by the customs, representing irregularities in connection with the stamping of packages of tobacco.
This question should receive immediate at-

tenfaon and if yon are, at the present time, unable to go east, would it not be well to place the papers in the hands of Deputy Collector Caven, who is thoroughly conversant with tobacco factory work, and allow him to investigate the report.
I remain, sir,
Tour obedient servant,
Deputy Minister, Department of Customs.
The next letter is from Mr. Nash of the Inland Revenue Department to Mr. Burke, the officer at St. John, N.B. :
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, September 23, 1907.
T. Burke, Esq.,
St. John, New Brunswick.
Dear Sir,-I am forwarding you my contingent, including Officer Moore's account for the past year, in all $49.80.
1 think your motion in sending Officer Fitzpatrick (a gentleman, officially and civilly) an exceedingly wise one; and I am quite positive that the educative work he has executed, in all the places of business, in town and country, and they are many that he has visited, will be of real and lasting benefit to the department and result in making matters go with less friction even than heretofore. There is no doubt that a strange officer -whose official knowledge like Mr. Fitzpatrick's is thorough, added to his pleasant manner, has greater effect on dealers than the duties of a home officer, however well needed.
Hoping you are well,
I am yours truly,
(Sgd.) SAMUEL C. NASH.
The next letter is from Mr. T. Burke to the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue ;
Inland Revenue Inspection, Canada, District A. N.B., N.S. and P.E.I.,
St. John, New Brunswick, October 2, 1907. W. ,T. Gerald, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir,-In view of rumours I heard when in Charlottetown in August last with reference to tobacco stamping, &e., I decided to send Officer Fitzpatrick over to make a thorough investigation. I beg to inclose herewith his report, also Collector Nash's letter to me re his visit.
Preventive Officer Kelly went over the ground years ago at the request of the late Inspector Borradaile and the local officer Mr. Moore has been frequently over the territory.
Mr. Fitzpatrick being thoroughly up in the business and absolutely unknown on the island was my reason for entrusting him with the case.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) T. BURKE, D.J.
Mr. Fitzpatrick now writes to Mr. Burke as follows :
Inland Revenue, Canada, Division No. 6, St.
John.
St. John, New Brunswick, October 2, 1907.
T. Burke, Esq.,
District inspector of Inland Revenue, St. John, New Brunswick.
Sir,-In compliance with your instructions ' to proceed to Prince Edward Island and see
how the requirements of the law and of G-155 were being observed as to the stamping and opening of packages' of tobacco and cigars, &c.'
I beg leave to report that I left St. John, New- Brunswick, at noon on Thursday, September 12, and proceeded to Charlottetown. Next day I called on Collector Nash and Deputy Collector Moore who advised me how best to carry out your orders. I travelled over the whole island from Charlottetown east to Souris and Georgetown, and west to Sum-merside and Tdgnish. In all I visited nineteen towns as follows; Charlottetown, Mount Stewart, Morrell's, St. Peter's Bay, Souris, Souris West, Cardigan, Georgetown, Montague, Lower Montague, Hunter river, Bredal-bane, Emerald Junction, Kensington, Mal-peque, Suimmerside, O'Leary, Albenton, Tig-nish.
I called on 129 dealers, wholesale and retail, and did not find a single instance where I felt that I would he justified in making a seizure. I found several cases of tobacco out of boxes and of boxes improperly opened, but in all cases satisfactory explanations were made.
This officer goes around about six months after a ease has been brought before the department in which they have conclusive evidence, collecting additional evidence. Of course this man Fitzpatrick, while he might be an excellent officer, writes a letter that can easily be understood, he visits these places six months afterwards and finds that the tobacco had been cither used up or taken out of the caddies.


Alexander Johnston: Order. [DOT]


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What is the point of order ?


Alexander Johnston: The point must have occurred to my hon. friend some time ago, as it did to everybody else, that he is referring to a past debate and the very best evidence of that is that for the last half hour he has been quoting from ' Hansard ' of a few days ago.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: No, I have not. I am reading this because it is more convenient to read from, hut I have tile documents here.


William Templeman: I was about to ask my hon. friend what good purpose could he served by again reading this long hie of correspondence ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The minister said he was not familiar with the subject.


William Templeman: The correspondence was placed in ' Hansard ' a few nights ago.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Some of it was and some was not.


William Templeman: 'Hansard' will have page after page of duplication.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It is not ' Hansard ' that we are discussing now ; we are trying to impress on the minister that a wrong

has been committed and that he and his department are responsible for not punishing the wrong-doers. Mr. Fitzpatrick goes on :


Alexander Johnston: Order, order.


Henry Horton Miller: If the hon. gentleman is reading from a past debate, I suppose he is out of order.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If the hon. gentleman is so particular about reading from a jiast debate, I shall continue the present debate.


Alexander Johnston: If my hon. friend had been here a few evenings ago and had heard the long and dreary reading of these documents by the member for Queens' he would not inflict a second reading of them in order to waste the money of the people.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Such interruptions as this are certainly wasting the time of the country, but we all know my hon. friend and do not mind them.


Alexander Johnston: I stay here, unfortunately for myself, but you do not.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I shall continue the reading of the letter from Mr. Fitzpatrick :
At the store of P. McNutt & Sons, Malpeque, I found a box of Empire Company's tobacco (unopened) from which the corner beaming the stamp was missing and reported same to Mr. Collector Nash. Deputy Collector Moore istated that he had found the same package and was satisfied that the damage was done in opening the crate in which the tobacco was shipped, and I fully agree with Mr. Moore in his .finding. This was the only case where I found the stamp missing and I examined wherever possible the wholesale as well as the retail stock of dealers.
At Souris I felt suspicious of a Frenchman named Cbiasson whose iplace of business is a rendezvous for fishermen. Cbiasson had considerable twist and other tobaccos out of boxes and claimed not to know the law. I reported the matter to the collector at Charlottetown. In the evening I drove over to Souris West to the store of Thomas Kickbam who I am told has considerable dealings with St. Pierre and Miquelon. I found that he had tobacco out of boxes and used this as an excuse to get up stairs in the warehouse to show the clerk how to open packages and incidentally see if there was anything irregular. I did not find anything wrong and left a _ copy of the regulations. Mt. Moore will give both these people particular attention on his next visit.
After making a very thorough and careful survey of the island I can only report that outside of these little irregularities to be found in every place in Canada, the law is well observed, particularly in Charlottetown and in the places visited by Mr. Moocre on his food inspection trips.
Collector Nash and Deputy Moore were very bind in giving information as to routes and best places te visit. Trusting that my work has been satisfactorily performed and that a Mr. LEFURGEY.
better compliance with the law and regulations will result therefrom,
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) W. J. FITZPATRICK, Excise officer.
At the very time that this inspector was going around, the officers of this government, both Nash and Moore, had been arouud and had sent a report of these irregularities and they had the affidavits of these men in the department. They had sufficient evidence to secure convictions. Instead of going on with that evidence in his department, the minister sent this man around with these same officers who knew all about it and whose evidence the minister had in his hand. The letter, of course, contains nothing and looks to be an inspired article to fit the situation.
As stated by my hon. colleague (Mr. A. A. McLean), it is clear that the officers of the department had in their hands evidence of irregularities to justify them in taking very stringent measures to suppress the wrong, which was not only a wrong against the country in depriving it of its revenues, but a wrong against people who were manufacturing tobacco in the same city, and who were compelled to sell at reduced rates and make no profit, while these people were profiting at the expense of the country. Mr. Harnett, who gave the information, was certainly justified in refusing what might almost be said to have been a bribe to hush up the matter. In fact, there were rumours going about Charlottetown that not only Mr. Harnett, but the members of the Nicholson firm were approached by people who were mixed up with the situation, and who wished to have the case go further. I have no doubt at all which should have been pressed, and that political influence had a great deal to do with the matter, he was very near the mark. I think a case had been made out which should have been pressed, and that the officers of the Department of Inland Revenue were not justified in letting the guilty parties go unpunished.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Customs-salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on -inspection and preventive service, including salaries and expenditure in connection with the Board of Customs and for the compiling of statistical returns of imports and exports, $239,500.
.Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs). Was all said that hon. gentlemen opposite wished to say on this section ?
Robert Laird Borden: I do not think any thing was said about it. Did the hon. gentleman explain the increase of $10,000 In this Item ?

953S


William Paterson: No, I think not. This vote covers a variety of services. There is the statistical staff, the special staff, and the preventive staff. On the staff of inspectors of ports there are 17 officers. In the Board of Customs there are 40 officers. In the special branch under Chief Inspector McMichael there are fifteen. There are five officers in the United States inspecting the value of goods for duty purposes. In ' the complain of statistics there are sixty-eight officers ; of preventive officers there are thirteen, and in the laboratory there are three, a total of 161 officers under this item.


Robert Laird Borden: These are all officers having headquarters at Ottawa ?


William Paterson: Yes, except the chief inspector, who, for convenience, is located at the Customs in Toronto. Now, as to the increase of $10,000 : of this $6,700 is,' on account of a staff of inspectors of ports. There is one chief inspector, 14 inspectors and 2 assistant inspectors. The of these officers amount to $39,400, their estimated travelling expenses to $13,000. Some changes have taken iffiice that will increase the expenditure by $6,750" on account of this staff.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that on account of increases in the salaries of inspectors and assistant inspectors, or is it in travelling expenses or both ?


William Paterson: Increases in salaries and the appointment of one or two new officers. The following changes have been made in the inspection staff : Mr. John Kenny, formerly Collector of Customs at Lethbridge, has been appointed inspector for Alberta and Saskatchewan at a salary of $2,400. Mr. Young was formerly inspector for Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, but the work has increased to such an extent that it has been found necessary for him to devote his time to the inspection of ports in Manitoba and for a new inspector to be appointed for Saskatchewan and Alberta. I think that, possibly, during the coming year, we may have to subdivide again and appoint an inspector for each of these provinces, but that has not yet been determined upon. As I said the other night, we aim, if possible, to have an inspection of every port once a year. Mr. Kenny, who was found to be a very capable officer, was created inspector for Alberta and Saskatchewan. Mr. Wyatt S. Wood, formerly Dominion appraiser in the department at Ottawa, has been added to the inspector's staff in central Ontario at a salary of $2,200 per annum. Counting Mr. McMichael, inspector, we had five in Ontario ; now we shall have six. Mr. Mar-chant, formerly appraiser in Victoria, has 303
been made inspector for part of British Columbia at a salary of $2,500, taking the place of Mr. Clute who was placed on the retired list in July last on account of age and to promote efficiency. Ten inspectors and one assistant receive increases of $150 eache Mr. Wood, transferred from the (Board of Customs, is increased $200. The increased salaries under inspection amount to $1,850. With $2,400 salary for Mr. Kenny and $2,500 increases in travelling expenses, we have a total of $6,750.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the reorganization, how many will there be in the inspection staff altogether ?


William Paterson: Seventeen.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: Ij. BORDEN. That is, a chief inspector, and- ?


William Paterson: Yes, first a chief inspector. Then in Ontario we have five; also there are Inspectors O'Meara and Le-mieux in Quebec ; inspectors Macdonnell and Bremner in Nova Scotia, and Inspector McLaren in New Brunswick. Then there is Mr. Kenny in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Mr. Young in Manitoba, and Messrs, Mar-chant and Busby in British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there only two
inspectors for the whole province of Quebec ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Have you not a good many ports in that province ?


William Paterson: We have very important ports there-Montreal and Quebec, of course. Then there are some other frontier ports-outports of Sherbrooke. But we have been able to cover all these ports with the two officers. Inspector O'Meara spends most of his time at Montreal.


Mr. AMES.: What ports are there in Brome, Stanstead and Missisquoi?


William Paterson: At Stanstead there are four and under that port there is a subcollector at Georgeville, one at Magog and one at Stanstead Junction. At Sherbrooke we have a collector and six officers. We have a sub-collector at Richmond, another at Thetford Mines and another at Windsor Mills.


Herbert Brown Ames: Have you one at Rock Island and one at Stanhope ?


William Paterson: We have one at Stanhope under the port of Coaticook?


Herbert Brown Ames: How many at Rock Island?


William Paterson: We call Rock Island Stanstead Junction.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do I understand there are four officers at Stanstead Junction and vicinity?


William Paterson: At Stanstead there are four, one at Georgeville, one at Magog and one at Stanstead Junction.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the revenue of Stanstead ?


William Paterson: The revenue is* $6,229.72, Magog $24,657 and Stanstead June-, tion $13,123. The reason why there are so many officers at Stanstead is that it is a railway transfer point.


Herbert Brown Ames: What are the salaries of the four officers at Stanstead?


William Paterson: There is the collector at $1,400, one at $500, one at $550 and one at $500, and then they get over time that we discussed the other night.


Herbert Brown Ames: In other words, the salaries of these officers are half the entire revenue of the ports?


William Paterson: Yes. We have to do a great deal of work with the Customs staff from which we get no revenue at all.


Herbert Brown Ames: If the customs officers in Stanstead, Brome and Missisquoi would take less time in working at elections for the government perhaps they would find that a less number of officers could do the work.


William Paterson: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Herbert Brown Ames: I know it: I have been there.


William Paterson: These are very busy men.


Herbert Brown Ames: Very busy men at election times.


William Paterson: We do not allow that.


Herbert Brown Ames: But they do it all the same.
I suppose they have to make themselves useful in some way, but it does seem strange that four officers are employed and that their salaries are equal to half the revenue of the port.


William Paterson: That is the actual fact, and if the hon. gentleman were cognizant of the work that they do he would know the reason of it. We do not keep them there to engage in elections once in four years. I am not aware that they take part in elections.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think that if the ministers will make inquiries as to the customs officers along the border of the eastern townships we will probably learn something of their special activity at election time.


William Paterson: Does it come out about even ? Are there some ou one side and some on the other? We do not want them to engage in elections at all, but I suppose if one is doing it another is. I do not know.


Herbert Brown Ames: How many are there at Mansonville in the county of the Minister Mr. AMES.
of Agriculture? How many are there in Brome?


William Paterson: At Mansonville we have three and at Mansonville station we have two. They are all at Mansonville station, I am told.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the income of Mansonville station?


William Paterson: The receipts at Mansonville are $236.73 and at Mansonville station $306.18.


Herbert Brown Ames: What are the salaries of these five officers?


William Paterson: At Mansonville there is a collector at $800 and two others at $500 each and they get over time. Two at Mansonville station get $700 each and they get the same overtime.


Herbert Brown Ames: It costs $3,000 to collect $500 of revenue.


William Paterson: As far as the collection goes that is right, but they are not engaged in collecting that $236.


Herbert Brown Ames: To give you a little personal experience. I remember one morning standing at the Mansonville station when a deer came down from the hillside and three of your officers immediately took after it and that is the last they were seen.


William Paterson: You know about that being a manifesting point?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the work that takes so many officers to do-manifesting?	[DOT]


William Paterson: Yes. They have a great deal of that to do. There is no revenue from it, but it must be done.


George Taylor: How many were there there in 1896 ?


William Paterson: I suppose the same number.


George Taylor: Let us know and we will find out.


William Paterson: The commissioner tells me that we have not increased the number. We have a preventive service as well as a collection of revenue.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the staff at Aber-corn?


William Paterson: A collector and two preventive officers. The revenue is $3,500.58.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think that if the minister would issue most imperative instructions to his officers not to take any part in elections he would find that they would be able to overtake all the work with probably a smaller number than he has at present.


William Paterson: There was the same number there years ago. It is well known

it is against the rules of the department to take part in elections.
.Mr. AMES. The information has not yet reached that section of the country.


William Paterson: I think it has.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do I understand that the department requires that a customs official in one of these border towns shall give his entire time to the service of the government ?


William Paterson: If the salary is under $1,000, the officer is allowed to engage in other things which must not conflict with his customs duties. These particular officers are engaged in nothing else so far as we know.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the minister regard owning or operating a general store at Mansonvilie as interfering with the duties of his official.


William Paterson: I would be disposed to. Who is the officer ?


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand complaints were sent in to the department to that effect.


William Paterson: The commissioner informs me it has been charged against him, but he denies it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the officer deny that he is in reality the owner of the store, although it is carried on in another name.


William Paterson: I am told he denies.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What are the duties of officers employed to detect smuggling across the border ? How are they remunerated ? Are there female detectives in the service ? I understand that these special customs detectives get some kind of a percentage on the value of seizures.


William Paterson: When information is given to them they institute inquiries and if irregularities are discovered, seizures are made. A portion of the penalty may be paid to the informers and a portion to the seizing officers, who in some cases receive more than their salaries in this way. I have tried the experiment of more than doubling the regular salaries of some of these men, and in future while the informers will participate in the seizures the seizing officers will not. I am told,by my predecessors in the department and by others that this experiment will not be a success as the stimulus of receiving part of the seizures will be removed, and the officers will not be so diligent, but I think an officer should do his duty any way and I am in hope that the experiment will be a success. I will be able to tell at the end of the year whether or not as many seizures have been made as before. These are very good officers, and while I have full confi-
303J
dence that an oflicer has truthfully reported to me what he has discovered, yet when I come to adjudicate I cannot get it out of my mind that he is pecuniary interested in the seizure. A merchant may have gone on for some years, perhaps in ignorance of the law, importing an article on which duty is properly chargeable, and these things are traced back, and the special officers often discover a large amount due to the revenue. That is the work that the special officers are engaged in.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think the plan which the minister says he intends to pursue will commend itself to a good many people. It does seem a little harsh that a man should be paid for what he can get out of people who may have been innocent in the methods by which goods were brought in undervalued, and I hope that under the new system the officials will be just as urgent in carrying on their business as they were before. I notice that in the allowances made to these various inspectors an amount is put down in all cases for board and lodging. I suppose that is not for ordinary board and lodging in the cities in which they live, but for travelling around?


William Paterson: Yes, that is it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Because I notice a great difference. For instance, a Windsor, Ontario, man gets for board and lodging, $257.50. The next is Mr. Bremner, of Halifax, who gets for board and lodging, feed and stabling, $271.53; also, for cabs, $20.15, and for livery stable, $115.90.


William Paterson: That would be for driving to the smaller ports where there is no railway connection, I suppose.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The next item is :	Mr. Busbv of Vancouver, board and lodging, $422.25.


William Paterson: Mr. Busby's district takes in Whitehorse and Dawson,


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Clute of New Westminster is down for $381. I notice that the British Columbia men are paid larger amounts. I presume that is because their distances are longer.


William Paterson: Yes, and the hotel bills are higher, I suppose.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Here is an inspector of Quebec who gets a larger salary than the others and charges $482 for board and lodging. In addition to that he has another amount for cabs.


William Paterson: These are actual expenses, and they produce vouchers for them all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Might I ask the minister what would be a fair average salary for any of the officers who do this seizing and share in the penalty imposed?


William Paterson: Three of them were getting $1,000, and their salaries were in-' creased to $1,800; but they were making more than that by the seizures.
Mr. LANCASTER'. Who are the men who,make the seizures? Would the collector of customs, say at Niagara Falls or at St. Catharines, make a seizure and share in the penalty?


William Paterson: If his salary is less than $2,000, he would. I do not think there are many seizures made at the ports. They are generally made by a separate officer.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose there were at St. Catharines any goods which the collector of customs thought were smuggled in. Would he make the seizure or would he have to report to the Inspector ?


William Paterson: He would do it himself, or one of his officers would do it. If an error were discovered at a city office, the seizure would probably be made by the appraiser of the goods, who has that power-but it must be reported.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If he did seize and report, it would be his statement, I suppose, upon which the minister would relv in adjudicating?


William Paterson: That is one side.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: What would the penalty be ?	1


William Paterson: That would depend on the circumstances of the case. If we thought 1 Mr. LANCASTER.
there were mitigating circumstances a recommendation would be made for a minimum penalty. It will be a relief to my mind to have the suggested change made, as men against whom seizures are made have the feeling that they are penalized on the evidence of men who benefit by the seizure. Of course it must be remembered that if a man thinks the action of the department is not just our decisions are not final. Many think we have extraordinary powers, we have in some respects, but we have not power to levy fines on a man without appeal. After he had been notified of the decision of the department as to the penalty imposed upon him, the man has thirty days in which he can appeal to the Exchequer Court. I would like to send every blessed case to the Exchequer Court without dealing with it, but that could not be done on account of the expense to the parties interested.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In an ordinary case what would the penalty be ? Is it fixed by statute ? That is the penalty in which the officer shares.


William Paterson: We go the length of one-lialf the penalty divided between the seizing officer and the informant. If it were undervaluation, it would depend on the amount of undervaluation. Under the Customs Act, after the report has gone through the process I have described, the minister may either confirm or modify the decision. It has been found necessary for many years to discriminate in some cases owing to special circumstances. In very bad cases we send the matter direct to the courts. The penalties that may be imposed are terrific ; we can fine a man the value of the goods and double the duty and $200 for every offence.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In ordinary cases what is the penalty imposed ?


William Paterson: What I might term the minimum penalty would be double duty. Then in some cases we know that is not sufficient. Where there has been undervaluation we take the undervaluation and the duty added. The officer seizing would get one-quarter of the amount and the informer one-quarter, the seizing officer making a declaration that he has paid it to the informant.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What remedy has the informant against the seizing officer in case of non-payment ?


William Paterson: He can appeal to the department.
. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have known a case where an informant brought an action against an officer to recover his share.


William Paterson: Then he gives thqr name, but gives it voluntarily. He would

do tlie same thing if lie appealed to the department. It is well known that every officer of customs is sworn to secrecy and if the informant was kept out of his money he would write to the commissioner. I should correct my statement by saying that in the case of a seizure at a port the informaut is paid by the collector.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In the Niagara district there is an impression among the merchants that the seizing officers make a lot of money. Some people think they make two or three times their salaries by penalties in cases which they work up. It is not well that this impression should prevail if it is not well founded. Another reason why the system should be changed is that the people have the idea that the seizing officer lias the ear of the government-I am not saying that this opinion as held by these people is justified-and that, other things equal, the government will decide with the seizing officer and to secure the revenue for the country. They consider this a heavier imposition than should be made. If the minister could give the facts


William Paterson: Yes. If the hon. member will consult page F-53 of the Auditor General's Report for 1907, he will find the figures. For instance, at Bridge-burg, where there are a good many seizures, one officer got $74.67 and others different amounts, as $110.30, $2.92, $28.44, $29.03, $18.55, $18.54. Then, take the hon. gentleman's own town, St. Catharines


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not much smuggling there.
Mr. PATERSON

one officer got $4.50,
another $17.25, another $11.56, another $4.66, and so on.
Mr. LANCASTER, You will rot find much in St. Catharines. They are very law-abiding.


William Paterson: I see that at Niagara Falls, the collector got $167.50, and other officers $1.08,	$2.50, $10.50, $4.23. The
amounts for the informers are found here too. In one case the officer appears to have received nothing and the informer $167.50.


John Waterhouse Daniel: At page F-55 it is shown that the sum of $562.50 went to the informer and there was nothing for the seizing officer.


William Paterson: That was in St. John ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Yes. In other cases there are amounts of $143.13, $57.10, $12.50, $12.69, $140.63 going to the seizing officer when nothing goes to the informer.^ I notice that another column is headed ' Collector's Commission.' Do the Collectors get commission on these seizures ?


William Paterson: Under an old rule, 5 per cent of the seizure amount goes to the collector where the salary is not more than $2,000. In these port seizures, the fines were not so much. The cases where the fines were large, and in which I am now making a change, were those covered by the officers of this special branch, the transactions of large firms, running back two or three years would call for investigation by one of the special officers, who are clever men, and who would sometimes work for months unravelling accounts. The result would be a fine and maybe a very heavy one. It was in these cases that the officers would make more than double-sometimes treble-their salary. As I have said, I am doubling their salary and am going to try and get along with giving a share to the informer and nothing to the seizing officer.
Mr. McLennan. Do I understand the minister to say that the increases of salaries to these special customs officials are uniform ?


William Paterson: I know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. McLennan) refers to. There is one officer whose salary has not yet been increased. He i& a little differently placed from the others. His duty was more particularly to prevent smuggling on the coast. He was a very active officer and has taken part in some of these seizures for undervaluation. We have not increased his salary as yet, but when I get this money, as I expect to do in a few minuter, I am going to try to give him an advance too.
Mi'. MCLENNAN. Will not the minister consent to put him on the same plane as his colleagues in the service ? Will he not acknowledge that he is as clever a man as they are ?


William Paterson: He is a clever man. Mr. MCLENNAN. I know he is. I have that from the minister.
air. PATERSON. There is a distinction;
his duties are on the coast

air. MCLENNAN. And therefore he is not to get an increase ?
air. PATERSON. Where there is direct smuggling, the officer who makes the seizure will share.
air. LANCASTER. In every case?
air. PATERSON. Yes, except in the case of these three or four officers whose salaries are increased. And, if the salary of this other officer is increased, he will have to come under the same rule.
Mr. aicLENNAN. That is exactly what Mr. Bourinot wants-to be placed on the same footing as his colleagues. For years past, he has been engaged in the same

service and lias had the same instructions as others to go all over Canada in this service. He feels very much humiliated that his four colleagues are increased from $1,000 to $1,800 while his salary is not increased. I may say that Mr. Bourinot is such a terror to smugglers along our coast that there is scarcely any smuggling done, and, if he is confined to what he can collect from seizures on account of smuggling, what he receives will amount to very little. But what he feels most keenly is not being kept on the same plane as his colleagues of this service.


George Taylor: The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) said that he expected to get this money in a few minutes and to be able to distribute it. Am I to understand that as soon as the item is passed he can use the money ? He must wait for a Supply Bill, must he not ? He said the other day that as soon as he got the vote passed he would issue the cheques.


William Paterson: No, I said we would consider the increases.


George Taylor: No, when the minister was begging for this vote, he said that tomorrow the cheques would go out-that was his argument as I can prove by ' Hansard.' But I understand that he agrees with me now that he cannot do that, that he must wait for the Supply Bill to be passed. He said that there were vouchers for all these expenditures. Does he still say that that is correct-that for the expenditures in connection with this preventive service he has vouchers ?


William Paterson: I do not say that concerning the secret service fund, which is expended under the direction of the Department of Justice.


George Taylor: Mr. Leinieux, inspector at Montreal, receives for nine months a salary of $1,687.50 and for board and lodging $222.50. There are vouchers supplied for the latter payment, I presume? The minister says there are vouchers for all the items of expenditure.


William Paterson: I understand so.


George Taylor: Cabs, busses and ferries, $45.75 ; fares, $67.83 ; leather bag, $20. What kind of a bag would that be and why was it supplied to this officer?


William Paterson: I suppose it was a travelling bag for his books and papers.


George Taylor: There will be a voucher for that?


William Paterson: Yes; the accountant tells me there is a voucher for everything.


George Taylor: There is an item, pullmans and porters, $34.25. Does he get a voucher from a porter when he tips him? Mr. McLennan.


William Paterson: No.


George Taylor: Then the minister must withdraw a portion of the statement that he made that there is a voucher for everything. We find these officers throwing out the people's money in pullmans and tips to porters. Hundreds of dollars are expended in this way. The minister says there are vouchers and now he admits there are no vouchers for these expenditures.


William Paterson: You must take things in the broad and not get down to quibbles.


George Taylor: I find that Mr. Jones, inspector, received a salary of $1,500 for nine months; that would, I presume, be $2,000 for the year. He received for board and lodging, $600; cabs and cartage, $83.80; livery, $25.50; pullman and porters, $53.45; telephone rent, $27.40; petty expenses, $16.85, making $2,351. There were paid $851 for expenses, made up of board and lodging and tips to porters. So it is with every one of these officers. There is a large amount going out for travelling expenses, pullmans, tips to porters. The minister said that there was a voucher for every item and now he admits there are np vouchers for a portion of these expenses. I would like to see the vouchers for the petty expenditures.


William Paterson: We do not get vouchers for tips. When you ask the question I can quite understand that there are vouchers for these items and that the Auditor General is satisfied when he sees that there are some charges for tips and pullmans. Inspector McMichael has to come down here and in order to save time we ask him to come down by night. We pay his pullman berth.


George Taylor: If his account is certified by one of the officers of the department the Auditor will pay it without vouchers?


William Paterson: Yes.


George Taylor: All the Auditor asks for is that the account shall be certified by some officer in the department.


William Paterson: The vouchex-s go to the auditor when there are vouchers. But there is not a voucher for a tip. When they give a pullman porter a tip they do not take a voucher for it?


George Taylor: No, but an officer of the department certifies that it is correct and the Auditor accepts that without knowing whether it is correct or not.


William Paterson: What are you going to do about it?


George Taylor: The minister says that there is a voucher for every expenditure. Now he has to admit that there are no vouchers for a great many expenditures.


William Paterson: The hon. member said that if we withdrew one clause of a certain Bill he would allow the estimates to go through in two minutes. Now he will not stand by that and he tries to make out that I made a statement that I will not stand by.


George Taylor: The minister has attributed to me a statement that I never made.
I did not say that the hon. gentleman should withdraw one clause of the Bill, but I said two clauses.


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Paterson: When in doubt take the customs.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I might say tr>
the hon. minister that I have been advised by the Department of Trade and Commerce, whenever in doubt, to take then returns.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Sir Richard Cartwright when he was in this House and when he was in doubt quoted from the Year Book, which was different from the report of the Minister of Customs.


Robert Laird Borden: Could we not have one system of returns upon which we could absolutely rely instead of having two systems of returns upon practically the same
matters which returns are not exactly the same?


William Paterson: They are all based upon the customs. The others are compiled from the customs reports. The basis of the whole is the entries of the Department of Customs and we are in a position to have them correct. The Department of Trade and Commerce, I think, arrange the figures in a different way, perhaps using a different table, but their figures are taken from our reports. As to the Year Book, I think it deals with more than mere statistics, but whatever statistics it has appertaining to the trade and commerce of the country must come from us. We are in a position to get the actual facts, no other department is, and we have the statistical staff here in order to compile the statistics and get out a monthly report. At the end of August we can give you the trade for July. We have, I think, the most accurate and up to date statistics of any nation in the world.


Robert Laird Borden: The reports of the Trade and Commerce Department are not of much use as far as I can gather from the minister.


William Paterson: I would not say that, but we must be right.


William James Roche: Are the sub-collectors in Manitoba paid by salary or commission or both?


William Paterson: By salary in most of the cases, but in some cases where we have postmasters with power to collect on postal packages they are paid by commission.


William James Roche: Has the minister received any complaints as to the methods pursued by these sub-collectors in Manitoba in dealing with the public?


William Paterson: Occasionally there are complaints, but they are not due to the fault of the officers. In some cases we attend to them. Some of our friends from oither countries, especially from the old country where they are not accustomed to customs troubles, do not know how to make the entry for articles which come out to them, a broker does it for them and then there is a broker's fee charged on the bill and they want to know how it Is that the duty is so much and the fee is so much more. We have to write and find out the facts.


William James Roche: Is it absolutely necessary to have a broker?


William Paterson: With the view of doing away with this annoyance we have instructed our collectors to make out entries if the parties themselves do not know how to make them out for settlers effects. We do not allow the officers to make entries out for the public. That is our rule, and we think it is a safe one. In the case of

settlers' effects we allow the officers to make out the entries when the settlers do not know how to make them out themselves.


William James Roche: I have been informed that a sub-collector has asked a citizen to allow his name to be used as an agent and then the fee would be retained if not directly by the sub-collector, through another member of his family. I do not say this pccurs now, but I am informed by a gentleman who allowed his name to be util-' ized for that purpose that it has occurred. I wish to state to the minister that with regard to the sub-collector at Neepawa there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction not only among the old country people, but among our own Canadian citizens. I do not know whether the Minister of Customs agrees with the ex-Minister of Railways that education is a disadvantage in the Civil Service, but the education of some of these officials, in civility, will stand a good deal of improvement. This particular subcollector has been to my own knowledge very arrogant in his dealings with the public ; if not to the people in his own town, certainly with the outside public. There has been a great deal of delay in customs mail coming through the post office, and I am told people have received invoices three or four weeks before the material would get to the post office. The postmaster has told me that the reason is that the sub-collector will retain in his office the dutiable mail until he has sufficient gathered to fill a mail bag. This is a great hardship to many people who want their goods immediately. Ladies and gentlemen have made complaints to me with regard to this. In some instances the correspondence has been replied to in anything but a civil manner by the sub-collector, and in many instances he has not repdied to the correspondence at all. When I was home at Easter I was particularly asked to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. The complaint does not come from one or two sore heads but is universal. I do not know that I have ever heard an officer so complained of as this officer at Neepawa is in regard to his dealings with the public. The complainants cannot be all wrong and the officer right. I will give one illustration : A Canadian boy graduated in medicine, went to New York, took with him an overcoat of splendid material and in good repair, which was an heirloom in the family ; he put in a year or two in the New York hospitals and he returned to enter into partnership with me in Manitoba. When he was leaving New York he left his overcoat behind aud sent for it afterwards. It came to Neepawa through the customs and he was informed that a certain amount of duty would be levied on it. He explained it was Canadian made, that it had been in the family


William Paterson: for years, that he had not room in his trunk for it when he was leaving New York, but the sub-collector at Neepawa said he would have to pay so much duty. Again the sub-collector was written to but he insisted in holding up the article for quite a large amount of duty. I brought the matter to the attention of the minister and he overruled the sub-collector, as he has in several instances which I have brought to his notice. I do not think any officer who is intelligent would make such a mistake as this sub-collector made, and it is only one of many instances of that sort. If the minister reads a curtain lecture to this gentleman it will, I believe, make him more civil in his dealings with the public. The complaints against him are loud and numerous.


William Paterson: We are all servants of the public and the department strives in every way to impress on the officers the necessity for civility and courtesy even though sometimes their temper may be pretty well tried by some peculiar peopie they occasionally have to deal with. Let me tell my hon. friend that under the circumstances he has mentioned the sub-collector at Neepawa was not at liberty to do anything else than he did. When the hon. gentleman says we overruled the sub-collector, I wish to point out that we have the power to do so, but we do not give the power to the officer to act on his own discretion. If we allowed officers to take this discretion the door would be left open to serious abuses, as the hon. gentleman will see on reflection. These cases have been reported to us, and if we satisfy ourselves as to the correctness of the representations made we act accordingly. We don't want any delay in the customs service or any want of courtesy on the part of the officers, and we will have this matter looked into.


William James Roche: A declaration was ready to be submitted to the subcollector. that the overcoat was Canadian made and he should not have held it up to duty.


William Paterson: I would like to have some of these rules relaxed, but if my hon friend were administering the customs he would see the danger of any relaxation. When the first tariff was introduced, I persuaded the Minister of Finance to put in a provision that any article less than 50 cents in value should come in free of duty and this would save us a great deal of trouble, but my predecessor in the office, Mr. Clarke Wallace, denounced that provision and pointed out that a man in Ottawa could simply write to Ogdensburg and order 50 cents worth of cigarettes every morning and thus evade the payment of duty. We saw the danger of opening the door in that way, because we saw abuses would follow, gome of these regulations may ap-


I, 190S
[Stage Direction]
pear absurd and vexatious, but they are necessary and cannot be relaxed.
Messrs F.   E.@: Ij. BOKDEN. I wish to ask something further about the system of inspection. In the report of the Civil Service Commission one of the commissioners referred to the tendency in the English outside service to give smaller salaries and higuer travelling expenses so as to induce the inspectors to keep out constantly on the road and I quote from the evidence on that point :
Q. In the English outside service the tendency rather is to give smaller salaries and higher travelling expenses so as to induce the inspectors to go out constantly on the road?- A. The inspectors are expected to make an examination once a year of each port in their district. That you see it requires them to make an inspection and to be around a good deal.
Q. Take Mr. Bremner, for instance, he would not have any inducement to go to Barrington, or an outside outport, in Nova Scotia in the middle of the winter ?-A. Not in the mididle of the winter. He would select his seasons for the difficult points.
Q. And the consequence is that by selecting his seasons for the difficult points the collectors would know almost to a certainty when the inspectors would come around ?-A. I think
so.
Q. If the collectors knew when the inspector is coming around they can always, if there is anything suspicious, cover up their tracks?- A. It would give them a better opportunity but it is difficult for them to cover up their tracks under the system we have in operation.
Q. What are the inspectors' duties. When Mr. Bremner goes to Weymouth, for example, what does he do?-A. The first thing is to count the cash. He then looks over the work of the port, and compares the entries with the manifest. The manifests are not filed in the department, they remain at the port as a record of the goods coming in.
By Mr. Fyshe:
Q. The manifests are kept at the port?-A. Kept at the port. That is the manifest of goods received.
Q. What check has the department at Ottawa that the full duties are being received? -A. We have the entries. The entries are sent to Ottawa when they are passed by the importer.
Q. And these correspond with the manifest? -A. They are supposed to, and the inspector checks them to see that they do.
Q. Would the inspector go .over all the manifests that have accumulated since the last inspection?-A. At small ports he would, hut not at large ports, it would he impracticable.
Q. You say that in most cases the collector would know that the inspector was coming around?-A. I think he would.
Q. The inspector would surely not notify him ?-A. No.
Q. Why should he know then?-A. He may know that he is at a neighbouring port, and that he will likely take the ports in their turn.
Q. Under the system of bank inspection the inspector drops down when he is utterly unexpected, and when there are two or three branches together he does not take them ail at once, hut goes away and returns again?- A. At the large ports there is a system of check that tends to prevent any fraud by the officers. The danger is at the small ports where there is only one officer. At the other ports one officer is a check upon the other.
Then there are some illustrations given of the results at small ports. For example, there is some evidence given with regard to the defalcation at Drummondville :
Q. How long did that defalcation go on?- A. I suppose some months.
Q. That office was inspected, I presume ?-A. Yes.
Q. Did the inspector discover the defalcation ?-A. Not at first, for the reason that the manifest was destroyed. It was a manifest from Montreal and he took the last number for the year.
Further on:
Q. It is strange that one of the questions asked by the commission in 1892 was what was to hinder a collector at a small port from suppressing an invoice and putting it into the fire ? That is really wihat happened at Drummondville?-A. He suppressed the last manifest of the series for the year. I think that can be checked, hut our work of late has been so hard that it is difficult to keep pace with it.
Then there is a large amount of evidence, which I will not quote, with respect to some frauds practised in Montreal by a man of the name of Hobbs. It seems that he was enabled, by a certain system which he invented, to entirely circumvent the inspector, Mr. Meunier, who was suspended, and the collector at Montreal says he has been under suspension ever since. It would seem to me, from these and a number of other quotations which I might make from the evidence, but with which I will not weary the committee, that something might be done to increase the efficiency of the system of inspection. So far as I am concerned, I would be glad to support the minister even in increasing the staff if it were necessary to make a thorough and effective inspection of every port at least once a year. It does strike me, from what the minister himself has stated, that two inspectors for the entire province of Quebec would be regarded by any large Institution of the country as entirely inadequate for the purpose which they are supposed to serve. There must be a very large number of ports iu the province of Quebec, and I suppose a much larger business is done at Montreal than at any other port in Canada. I would think that the attention of the department might be very well directed not only to tlie system of Inspection, but possibly to the putting into practice of some better system of check than seems to be in vogue at the present time. The inspection to which we had reference the other even-

ing at the port of Huntington in British Columbia seems to have been singularly inefficient on two occasions. On the first occasion, shortly before the defalcation was discovered an inspection took place, which did not result in ascertaining that the public moneys were being misappropriated. Then, the inspection which did result in discovering the defalcation was not a very effective one, as the minister very candidly acknowledged, because it was not discovered at that time that some $6,000 additional had been misappropriated, and that remained undiscovered for three or four years. Has the minister taken the suggestions in the evidence in this regard into consideration?


William Paterson: I cannot say that I have in the sense of utilizing them. The report of the commissioners, so far as the customs is concerned, helps us very little. I do not say that in disparagement of the commissioners, but in commendation of my officers, who have introduced such checks and safeguards as to leave very little that is valuable to us in the suggestions of the commission. There is that difficulty of one officer alone at a port. At a large port like Montreal, if we made as thorough an inspection there through our inspectors as we make at the smaller ports, it would never be finished, if he worked at it all the time. With 178,000 entries in nine months, and with all the way-bills and transfers and manifests and the checking of the cash, it would be impossible. We have to depend largely upon the checks which the officers have upon one another in the office. In Montreal, while the inspector is there a good deal, and watches how things go on from day to day, we have a very thorough collector there besides. With reference to the defalcation mentioned by the commissioners our officer neglected his plain instructions, or it could not have happened. That is not settled yet.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr White, in dealing with that, says: 'If the cashier had obeyed orders, a portion at least of the defalcation 'would not have happened.'


William Paterson: The instruction was that when a cheque was handed in for a larger amount than the duty came to, the refund was to be made by cheque. The officer in question knew that, and it was his duty to have returned the money by cheque; but he returned it iu cash. We have now instituted a check which will make it perfectly safe so that this could not happen again. But, as Mr. White says even the banks, with much smaller staffs than we have, and with managers and directors sharp business men, are defeated from time to time.


Robert Laird Borden: I think he says something more to the point than that-that


Robert Laird Borden: you cannot by any possible system guard against flagrant dishonesty.


William Paterson: The hon. leader of the opposition alluded to the fact that he had information that instead of $4,200 that we got as the result of the first examination, it was $5,800. Inspector Busby is here now, and I inquired about that. It appears that when Mr. Olute made the first examination, he found entries that had not been made, the duties of which amounted to $800. He had the collector have those entries made, and the duties paid by the parties for whom they were made. The goods had gone out of his possession but the entries were there and he made him get the entries from the merchants and get the duty from them. The $800 collected went to the credit of the Receiver General in the usual way, being sent to New Westminster, but Mr. Olute in his report to us did not mention that the $800 was here in that way and so that would be $800 more than the amount mentioned.


William James Roche: What was the customs revenue for the last month and how does1 it compare with the same month of last year ?


William Paterson: It has fallen off. In round numbers, for the two months of the present financial year, the customs revenue is two millions and nearly three-quarters less than for the corresponding two months of last year.


William James Roche: A falling off in any particular line ?


William Paterson: No, it seems to be general and at all the ports. Winnipeg and perhaps Vancouver are keeping up, but in Montreal, Toronto and all the others there is a falling off.


George Taylor: Has the hon. gentleman decreased his staff ? When the revenue increases he increases his staff ?


William Paterson: I do not think we can do that, we have been working the men too hard.


Robert Laird Borden: What particular experience had Mr. Charles McNellen, assistant appraiser at Halifax, which resulted in his appointment.


William Paterson: He passed the required examination.


Robert Laird Borden: Was he engaged in any particular line of buisness which qualified him for that particular line of business?


William Paterson: I do not remember, he has been in the customs for some years.


Robert Laird Borden: There has been some criticism of the fact that he was appointed over the heads of a great many capable officers receiving only $700 or $800 after many years' service, and has now a,

salary of $1,000. The information which comes to me is that he had no particular qualification except that he had some pretty strong political backing.


William Paterson: He has qualifications we believe or he would not be there.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know what they are.


William Paterson: We try to make these appointments by merit. But, as I said, if a man is recommended to me as being capable and worthy for a position, I have never considered the fact of his being a Liberal a barrier to his appointment.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting that it should be, but I am suggesting that it should not be the sole consideration.


William Paterson: He has been on since 1901.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I took the Civ'i'l! Service List of 1907.


William Paterson: He has been permanent since 1904, but he was in the service before that.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid he has no qualification beyond what I mention.


William Paterson: Do you know him ?
. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have heard a good deal about him but I do not know him personally.


William Paterson: As not being able to discharge his duties or what ?


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot say I have heard anything more about it than what I have stated. I have a memorandum Ion the subject from a responsible person in which reference is made to other officers in the department who have been there a long time, some of them for ten, or fifteen years or twenty years and who would be fully as capable, if not more capable, than the gentleman who has received the appointment. The statement is also made that he is pretty closely connected to a prominent gentleman in public life, and that circumstance is supposed to account for the passing over of officers of long service in favour of this gentleman. One would hardly imagine the Minister of Cuistoms would be influenced by any considerations of that kind, and thus it is only fair to give him an opportunity of explaining the matter.


William Paterson: The Minister of Customs is human. From what I understand he discharges his duty well. As to the parsing over of those older in the service, it is difficult in handling a large body oif men to avoid matters of this kind. You cannot get any man to think .that his services are not as valuable as those of another man. In a mercantile lioulse the head of the firm has to determine such matters. You canriot follow the rule but promotions must go by length of service. In public life the same conditions must prevail. Other things being equal, I like to see promotion of the men longest in the service. The hon. member (Mr. R. L. Borden) I think perhaps knows as much as I do about this man and with the general confidence he has in me he will recognize that there must be reasons why this is right.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would perhaps be a fair statement to say that I know more about him than the hon. gentleman is disposed to admit. The minister has not given uls many proofs as to this gentleman's special aptitude. There are many officers at Halifax who were worthy of promotion. I do not think that the circumstances of this case as detailed to me are such as to increase the discipline or the honesty of the men in the (service.


William Paterson: Do you not think he has special aptitude for his duties now' ?
, Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am informed that there are many officers in the service who have displayed more aptitude than this gentleman has displayed.


William Paterson: My impression is that he discharges his duties very well.


Herbert Brown Ames: As the minister is probably aware there has been and still is great dissatisfaction in Montreal, especially^ among importers in the dry goods trade, dissatisfaction which has been expressed on more than one occasion, regarding the settlement of customs frauds by compromise. There has been even more of that in the last two or three months than previously. It is a matter that while doubtless familiar to the minister is well well worth the attention of the House for a few minutes, and I think we should have from the minister a statement of the policy o<f the department in cases where fraud has actually occurred in connection with the importation of goods. Where a man or a firm is caught in the act of committing a fraud, I understand the regular method is to charge double duty and a fine. If the law' was enforced w'hen cases of this kind were discovered, the importing public would know where they stood in connection with the custom service of the country. The ordinary importer who tries to do his duty by his fellow men, who is careful about his importations and invoicing and costs, who may once in a long time happen to have a bale of goods inadvertently placed in another bale of goods and so falsely or incorrectly entered, such a merchant is generally fined the whole penalty that attaches to the otfence. But where, as in this ease, there is a deliberate falsification that goes on for a period of years and involves a very large sum, it almost always results in a private settlement in w'hich the full penalty of

-.the truth of which contention is seen in the fact that the matter has since been compromised by the payment of a sum of $32,000.
The contention of these manufacturers at the time was that they thought they had a right to invoice goods at cost price. This, of course, is the usual excuse set up by parties charged with infringement of the Customs Act. Had such a contention any foundation in law, and were those setting it up honest men, they would defend themselves before a court of justice rather than be branded as smugglers or attempted smugglers. These compromises are a gross injustice to wholesale importers who respect the law, for the latter are thereby compelled to compete at a disadvantage with those wiho, by defrauding the revenue, can undersell them. But the worst feature is that the government is virtually supporting and encouraging the violators of the law to continue their operations, inasmuch as the fines collected are considerably less in amount than would be the full duty imposed. At the time that the charges against the Zurich silk manufacturers were being investigated, an influential delegation of merchants from Montreal and Toronto waited upon Hon. Mr. Paterson, Minister of Customs, to protest against any compromise being made in the event of the charges being sustained. The promise was given them, at the time, that these representations and protests should have the fullest consideration. Now the charges have been fully proved and a compromise entered into which showed the amount of consideration given by the minister to the representations and pro-tests referred to. This can only be characterized as intolerable injustice, and as such cannot be -too strongly denounced. The gpvernment should not overlook the fact, as they have hitherto done, that the honest, law-abiding merchants of the Dominion are entitled to more consideration than those who treat it with contempt. Thes fines are not contribu-

tions to the revenue. They do not replace the duties of which the government has been defrauded, but are disposed of in some other manner. Now, we ask, how are they disposed of, -and who gets the benefit of them?-for, unless some one gets the benefit, directly or indirectly, it seems to us that there would be less disposition to entertain or make proposals for a compromise of any bind. We may mention in this connection that the customs authorities are now engaged in conducting investigations in two important charges of undervaluation, in other words, of customs infraction. In the event of the charges being sustained, are we to expect the continued adherence to the disgraceful system of compromise which has become so frequent and so odious? The fullest penalty provided by the law should he imposed, and with it a wide publication of the fact. The new council of the Montreal Board of Trade have an excellent opportunity to benefit the mercantile community by faking up the question with a determination to put themselves on record and to impress upon the government that what the merchants ask for is not by any means a favour, but in every respect one of right and simple justice.
That was followed, a week later, by another editorial, still more explicit. The following is from the 1 Shareholder ' of Montreal, March 20, 1908:
Customs frauds.
In last week's issue of the ' Shareholder ' reference was made to the settlement, by the Customs Department, of charges of defrauding the revenue made against a number of Zurich silk manufacturers. The settlement refered to consisted of releasing the seized imports on the manufacturers paying to the government a sum of $36.000

Evidently the figures were a little higher than at first stated.
-which were far from being equal to the amount which the customs law calls for under such conditions. The law distinctly lays down the penalties to be enforced against those infringing it, and when condemnation takes place there should be no hesitation in punishing the guilty parties. Compromises have been entered into again and again, and offenders have been dealt leniently with, on the ground that to enforce the full penalty would drive them out of business. This is misplaced sympathy, for such men should never have been in business. Any sympathy should be extended to the honest importers who comply with the law and have to compete with their dishonest competitors. The merchants deprecate in the strongest possible manner any compromise under such circumstances, contending that such is a gross injustice to them. They have again and again sent deputations to Ottawa to protest against them, but this without avail. What course they should now adopt is under consideration, and we would suggest that the matter should he brought up in the House of Commons, under the guise of a motion for the production of all documents relating to every violation of the Customs Act.
Were this done, the public would be greatly surprised at the information thev would receive. At the present time the Customs Department has under consideration two very serious charges. One of these is against John B. Ellison & Sons, wholesale woollen importers of this city, with headquarters at Philadelphia. The other is against Jacob Rohner, of Rebstein, Switzerland, manufacturer of Swiss embroideries. The commercial standing of these two houses, which have been doing a large business in this country for a number of years, is such that it is highly essential that the public should know whether the charges are true. If they are untrue they should be relieved from the stigma which the charges involve^ and that release should be publicly proclaimed. In these two cases, as is frequently done, the goods were seized and were only released when the deposit called for by the customs authorities was put up. This being done, it becomes the duty of the customs authorities to file an information before our courts, and thus afford the accused an opportunity to defend themselves and establish their innocence. In that case, should failure on the part of the incriminated to set aside the grounds of complaint result, the commercial community would be put in possession of the actual facts. In giving, as we have done, the names of those who are charged, as above stated, we are actuated solely by the desire to avert from others the suspicions that might attach to them, and also to afford the accused occasion to take the community into their confidence and relieve them of the stigma which a seizure for infraction of the revenue involves. In conclusion, we may say that we will gladly open our columns to any who desire to enter into explanations relating to the action of the customs authorities.
These editorials make it apparent that there has existed a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the importing trade of the city of Montreal. The dry goods association, especially, through their president and secretary, have repeatedly put themselves on record with the department protesting against these compromises which are made in secret, and which hang firms up, as it were, between heaven and earth, where they are not guilty or innocent, but whose cases are, in the language of the Scotch verdict, not proven. It is felt that a firm which gets into trouble with the customs officials have a right to vindication or they should be punished. When a seizure has been made without proper evidence and the firm is not guilty of what it is charged with, that (firm is entitled to the fullest vindication and it is entitled to have every business man know that the charge was not sustained. If, on the other hand, it has been found guilty of a serious infraction of the customs law which has been going on year after year and by which it had profited to the disadvantage of its competitors it ought to be pnuished and punished severely, and these facts ought all to be absolutely apparent. But, to have it compromised, nobody knowing whether the firm was guilty or innocent, is neither fair to the firm nor to_ the community as a whole. Honest importers,

men who are careful not to engage in anything of this kind, are fully entitled to protection. When a business firm is most scrupulous in all its dealings with the customs, it is a very serious thing for that firm to be undersold by other firms which are less scrupulous, and nineteen-twentieths or our trade being strictly honest, the competition of the twentieth-twentieth which reduces the price is unfair and unjust. I would like to ask the minister to give us a statement of the policy of the government in this respect, to tell us whether there has been a reform and an improvement in this system or whether the system of compromise is going on just the same. We would like also to know what are the actual facts with respect to these Zurich silk manufacturers, John B. Ellison & Sons and Jacob Rohner, of Rebstein, Switzerland. What has been done, what was the offence, have they been convicted or acquitted ? If they have been convicted, what has been the extent of the punishment ? What were the extenuating circumstances, if any ?	1 think there can be
no doubt that the sentiment is pretty generally spread abroad that there is a lack of severity in the punishments inflicted which will simply lead to a repetition of these offences on the part of the less scrupulous portion of the business community. I can assure the minister that the matter has been, to the merchants of Montreal, a source of very great dissatisfaction, and they would, I think, read with considerable interest what the minister might say in reply to what has been said to-night.


William Paterson: You have opened up rather a large question, and one which I have already dealt with. The seizing officer would make an investigation. We do not want to do any injury to any one, and if a sufficient amount is deposited to the credit of the receiver general, the party against whom a seizure has been made is allowed to conduct his business. The case is reported to Ottawa and then it goes through the process I have already described. The party is allowed thirty days to put in his defence. The evidence is then gone into by an examining officer who is generally, although not always, a lawyer. Mr. McLean, who .died the other day, discharged this duty. The evidence is gone over and set forth in fis plain and concise a manner as may be for the commissioner to peruse. Tie looks over the report and if he approves of the report which has been made by the officer he sends his recommendation based upon that report to myself where it is finally dealt with. Under a clause of the Act the head of the department may confirm or vary the recommendations or he may refer it to the courts. You will have to trust in a large measure to Mr. AMES.
the department in administering this matter, to have confidence in them or have no confidence in them. The disclosure of the names of the parties from whom seizures had been made might result in injustice to a great many men. Some parties have called for stringent measures in dealing with these cases, but when I have had interviews with them and when I have asked them if they thought it desirable that we should make public every seizure and the name of the firm from whom the seizure was made and the decision given, I understood them to say that they did not propose that. I agreed with them because a grievous wrong might be done. A merchant in Montreal or Toronto, or some other place, in whose integrity I would have as much confidence as I have in iuv own, might perhaps have a shipment of goods and in that shipment, coming from a packer, perhaps there might be a small parcel purchased at another place and sent forward to the packer to pack it in the case. It has come out to this country without it being noted on the invoice that there is a package included in the case. The person sending the case does not mention that that parcel has been sent. It comes to the custom -house, one package in ten is selected at random and goes to the examining warehouse. The other nine do not. It happens that the very case in which the inclosure is goes to the examinin-ing warehouse. The examiner opens it, there is the parcel of goods, not appearing on the entry, no invoice filed, no entry made, the goods having come into the country illegally.


Herbert Brown Ames: In that case you put on the maximum penalty.


William Paterson: No. These gentlemen bring letters from the exporters ex- ' plaining it was their error. My predecessor in office told me that enclosures ought to be forfeited every time because it was only one case in ten that went to the examining warehouse. But where we are satisfied there is no fraud we impose double duty. Now, as to publicity, it might be very unjust and very unfair to a concern to give publicity, and the member for Brantford recognized, when in asking for the seizures and the penalties he forebore to ask for the names. The best houses in this country have been seized and fined for customs infraction, and if that bare fact were to go out without the explanation it would be very injurious to the firm. In many cases the exporters admitted it was their fault and that the importer knew nothing about it. If the House took the responsibility of asking that the name should be divulged, in fairness to these firms it would be necessary to bring down

all the facts of each case. To state the bare fact that a firm was fined without giving the explanation would be very unjust and would involve its reputation and standing or perhaps its fortune. I do not see how the ' Shareholder ' gets hold of these things. Our officers are sworn to secrecy. The hon. gentleman says the party was fined $32,000 with reference to these silks, and if that be so it is a pretty heavy penalty.


Herbert Brown Ames: The undervaluation had been going on for a number of years and large quantities had been brought in.


William Paterson: It extended over three years. It is a pretty heavy penalty but there was no compromise in that case.


Herbert Brown Ames: They were not fined the maximum penalty.


William Paterson: No. But we did not compromise. We had three times that amount of cash in hand deposited by that house and we could have forfeited it if we had wanted to.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was it not a compromise when you had the money in your hand and could take it ?


William Paterson: No. We adjudicated on the case and came to the conclusion that the penalty exacted was sufficient and there is no compromise about it. We did what we considered to be just.


Herbert Brown Ames: How did you arrive at the amount of the penalty ?


William Paterson: It is a very difficult matter to determine what these silk goods are worth. I believe one of our appraisers estimated that some of these goods were as much as 30 per cent under value but we have to ascertain the cost of these goods in the country whence they are exported and that is a very difficult matter to determine. We had deputations from Montreal and Toronto about this and one gentleman from Toronto was very severe and wanted the last pound of flesh. Now, we sent samples to this gentleman who had first class knowledge of the business and we asked him to put a valuation on these different lines of silk. The fact is that in some of the lines we sent up he put a value lower than the man entered the silk for. and on which the seizure was made. That will show you the difficulty of valuation in such a case. I understand that the undervaluation ran from 6 per cent to 25 per cent.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the total for the three years ?


William Paterson: I cannot say. The case is not settled yet. This firm wants its
deposit back and they are going to the courts to try and get it back.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would it not be better to allow all these cases to go to the courts and have a judicial decision between the government and the merchant. Then there would be no charge of favoritism.


William Paterson: Every case can go to the court on appeal from our judgment.


Herbert Brown Ames: The ,fact that few go shows that they are let off lightly.
Mr. PATERSON'. Not at all. Very severe penalties are provided by the law and the Customs Act is very severe and often people will not go to the courts even though they feel they are wronged. They practically have to bring their whole business into court and great delay and loss would be entailed by that procedure. We had a Montreal case which I did not want to deal with and we sent it to the courts and it took weeks to dispose of it. I would be glad if we could send every one of these cases to the courts, but I suppose it would take twenty years in the courts to do the work we do in the department in one year. It may be said that we do it in a rough and ready way, but I believe equity and justice are served. In one case which went to the courts where there was undervaluation charged, the judge heard the whole ease and he hesitated greatly at my putting on the full penalty. This might occur by parties making consignments to themselves at the wholesale price ; but a year or two ago we made the law very explicit. We said that where parties consign to themselves, not having made a sale prior to receiving the goods, they may come in, not at the cost price, but at the wholesale price; but if through an agent they have sold these goods to different customers throughout the country, and then bring the goods in at the wholesale price, that is a violation of the law, because where the goods have been sold prior to their being received on consignment, we require the value for duty to be the value at which the goods were sold.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it not a fact that this species of crime is on the increase owing to the leniency of the department in dealing with it ?


William Paterson: No. If the hon. gentlemen were administering the law, he would think that we were anything but lenient. We have very few repetitions by the same house.


Herbert Brown Ames: I quite agree with the minister in making a distinction between an involuntary infraction of the law through ignorance and a deliberate attempt year after year to defx-aud the customs. In the

first case, it would be in order for the minimum penalty to be imposed; but in the second case, I do not think the government are justified in compromising. It seems to me that it would be better to allow the matter to go to the courts and have such a penalty imposed as would deter others from doing the same thing.


William Paterson: If we thought there was a deliberate attempt to defraud the revenue, especially if it were repeated after a warning, we would not hesitate to take that course. But in many cases the goods have passed our appraisers and have been accepted by us, and the parties plead that fact. They say:	Your officers saw the
goods; they opened and examined them; if the valuation was wrong, why didn't you tell us at the time? If commissions are dutiable, we did not know it; why didn't you tell us? Why did you let us go on year after year? and now your officers come and seize our goods and the man who seizes them gets part of the fine.' I wish I could throw the cases into court: but ten courts could not carry through all the cases and hear all the pros and cons.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Could the hon. minister give us any information regarding the importation of uniforms from England by officers of the militia force ? I understand that practically a prohibitive duty is put on uniforms, but that if a claim is made to the department the duty will be refunded. Has that been settled yet?


William Paterson: That rests wholly with the Minister of Militia. Whatever he does in the matter I have no objection to ; but if the goods come in, they have to pay the duty.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What is the duty on uniforms?


William Paterson: Thirty per cent for British since last year.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: I,. BORDEN. I have had some representations on this subject from officers of the militia, who thought it was a little hard and unjust, when they spend a good deal of time and money in qualifying themselves to serve their country, to be obliged to pay a heavy duty on their uniforms. What was the object of the change in the law in that respect?


William Paterson: Up to last year all articles imported by every branch of the government came in free; but all along I have contended that the better plan was to let each department look after iself. I did not think it right that a department of the government should buy goods outside, where there was no duty against them, when the same goods could be got in this country. In other words, the clothing could be bought in England aud brought In free of duty Mr. AMES.
when it might be got from our own manufacturers. Uniforms' come in under that.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: In what position would an officer be who had ordered his uniform before the passage of this rule ?


William Paterson: He will have to pay the duty and get it out of the Militia Department.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What form has the application to take? Has he to get a certificate from the Customs Department that the duty has been paid, and then make an application to the Department of Militia for a refund?


William Paterson: The Militia Department will either take an extra vote out of which to pay the duty on the uniform and give it back to the officer ; otherwise the officer will have to bear the expense himself.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: In spite of this practically prohibitive duty, many officers are in the habit of buying uniforms in England and' paying excessive duties upon them, for the reason that they cannot get them here.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: Yes, they can.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Can an officer get an artillery or hussar uniform here and have the lace and braid put on it as well as in England?


Adam Zimmerman: Quite as well.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I very much doubt it.


Robert Laird Borden: If an officer pays the duty on his uniform and gets it back from the Militia Department, how can there be any protection to the Canadian manufacturer ?


William Stevens Fielding: He cannot get it back.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Customs suggests that he does.


William Paterson: That is the only way it could be done.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the minister said there was to be a fund established.


William Paterson: I said that was the only way it could be done.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Has not a refund been made by the Militia Department ?


William Paterson: I could not say. I would rather the minister answered for himself. Possibly for goods ordered before he may have done something, but he must answer for that. I cannot say.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Was it not looked upon as a custom that he paid the duty

and got a refund from the Militia Department?


William Paterson: No.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: In regard to officers' uniforms is not all the cloth that enters into the officers' clothing imported from the old country?


William Paterson: No, I think not.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The scarlet and blue cloth for the tunics?


Adam Zimmerman: There is considerable cloth made in Canada at the present time for the tunics. The cloth for the men's tunics is made here.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I am talking about the officers' uniforms.


Adam Zimmerman: If the officers look around they can get as well made military clothing in this country as in Great Britain, it can be trimmed as well and made as well. This I think is one of the wisest provisions in the new tariff, doing away with the granting of government work to outside tailors and manufacturers of all kinds. Formerly all classes of machinery and everything required by the government came in competition with our own manufacturers. This item in regard to military uniforms was put in the tariff with all the other departments, they are all placed on the same footing. Our manufacturers are delighted that the government have taken that stand, which is only a reasonable one. You cannot sell a dollar's worth of goods to the United States government that is made outside of their own country, and I would like our government to go further and take that same stand. One of the great troubles we have had in Canada in the past in certain manufacturing industries has been the large purchases made by the government from the United States, England and other places that came in competition with our own products. In regard to uniforms I can tell the officers that they can get as good uniforms and just as cheaply here as anywhere in the world.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I must congratulate my hon. friend on his protectionist principles. I agree that it is an excellent thing to patronize home industries and to have the uniforms made in Canada as much as possible. But I am right in saying that a refund was given from the Militia Department for duty paid to the Customs Department. The minister may recollect my going to him on one occasion with a question that came up in connection with the Lennoxville grammar school. A number of uniforms had been ordered by the cadet corps there previous to the passing of this regulation. The duty was levied and I think they were instructed to apply to the Militia Department for a refund. So I can-304
not see how this regulation is helping the manufacturer of uniforms at home.


William Stevens Fielding: There certainly is no general policy of refund. There may have been some circumstances arising out of the change which led the minister to make an exception, but there certainly is no general refund. The argument for imposing duty on government importations generally, in addition to what the Minister of Customs has mentioned, is this : It is convenient for comparison in the cases of tenders, ; for example jone party would tender for goods knowing it was the practice to import goods for the government free and would make a lower tender, placing the Canadian manufacturer at a disadvantage. Then there would be disputes. A man would say : I always assumed we would have the goods free. The whole thing was left in an uncertain condition. Difficulties would arise. I do not think the system was abused as much as some gentlemen thought, but it led to abuse, misunderstanding and sometimes inequalities in the matter of competition, so we thought it better to say that any one competing for the sale of goods to the government must quote a duty-paid price.


Robert Laird Borden: Do the government import the uniforms ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am speaking of the importation of goods generally. The old Act read : Articles imported for the use of the several departments. We found that people who imported goods which they intended to sell to the government claimed that they always expected to get them in free. That led to misunderstanding.


Robert Laird Borden: The militia uniforms could not come under that.


William Stevens Fielding: They could under a general importation.


Frederick William Borden: They are an individual importation not for the government at all.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. I understand that in some cases where parties expected to sell to the government they claimed that they expected to get them in free, although not specially mentioned.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I was present at the State Ball given at Government House. I saw a great variety of uniforms there but among the most striking there were two. One of these was worn by the hou. Minister of Finance and the other by the hon. Minister of Public Works. They were both very fine, there was a very large amount of gold lace on them and they both looked very new.


William Pugsley: They could not touch that uniform you used to wear as Mayor of St. John.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Since this matter came up to-night, I was wondering whether or not those uniforms paid duty, whether they ranked as militia uniforms or under what heading in the tariff they would be placed.


William Pugsley: If we tell you, you will let the item go through ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: The item is bound to go through.


William Pugsley: Upon the suit which I wore, I paid the full duty.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What was the amount.


William Pugsley: About 35 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: I am going to make a confession. I did not pay any. I bought my suit in England, I used it for official functions in England. It was a part of my not too extensive wardrobe.


Robert Laird Borden: Did you wear it across the Atlantic ?


William Stevens Fielding: I brought it back across the Atlantic. I had it made there for use officially there, some years ago, and I brought it back to Canada as part of my wardrobe.


William Paterson: Did you notice mine that night ? I was not there.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who had it on ?


William Paterson: But it is a nicer looking uniform than either of these. Whether it is a better shape inside or not, than the others, I do not know, but it was made in accordance with my patriotic desire that what can be bought in Canada ought to be bought in Canada and it was made here. If I can get a coat made here with ail that gilding on surely a militia officer can.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I think we should let the item pass now and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works will please retire.
Mr. STAPLE'S. What is the policy of the government in regard to the establishment ot tlie various customs officers especially throughout the western country) ? Is it done at the request of some particular member of parliament representing a constituency or have they any definite policy or system ? Take for instance Manitoba.	,
iir. I ATERSON. There are a great many reouests and I am sorry to say we Mr. DANIEL.
cannot meet them all. We have them from all parts of the country, from members, from boards of trade and it is simply impossible to meet them all. Wo -write them as nice letters as we can pointiug out the difficulties in the way. Sometimes it strikes us that owing to the position of a certain town it is desirable that we should make it a customs port. But we write to the ports of which the parties in that town enter their goods to ascertain the duty paid, and if the revenue amounts to over $5,000 we have felt ourselves sometimes able to grant the request. And prior to that, where there are so many applications, the question would arise how the point is situated. It may be 200 mles from the nearest port, but if it is on the direct line from the port, power of attorney can be sent to some one in that port to pass the goods and send them on. It is a fact that the people of Canada are better served in this matter than the people of any other country. We have more customs ports in Canada than they have in the United States- not proportionately merely, but more in number than they have for the eighty millions of the United States.


Mr. STAPLES.: I suppose the minister, in locating a customs office, considers whether the port is a railroad centre and its distance from the international boundary. I have urged in this House, and have called the minister's attention personally, to the town of Carman, in the constituency I have the honour to represent. It is one of the largest constituencies in Manitoba, and yet there is not a single customs office within its boundaries. Carman is a large town, the centre of three lines of railway-the Canadian Northern, the Jim Hill system, and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The minister knows that the board of trade have repeatedly made requests for the establishment of a port of entry. They have written nice letters-I have read some of them. If he will look at the files, he will see that great difficulty 'has been experienced through want of a customs officer there. Goods have been delayed for months, going away around by Winnipeg and even as far as Neepawa, I believe. I think he 'should make a statement that Carman is entitled to a custom port.


Robert Laird Borden: What is its population ?


William D. Staples: It is 2.000-a much larger population than that of other towns in Manitoba that are ports of entry. It is a town that has spent a great deal in its local development. Recently it has spent $125,000 in installing a modern water system and electric light. Everybody who has travelled in Manitoba says that Carman is one of the best towns in the province.
JUjSTE 1, 1908


William Paterson: Where is the nearest customs port ?


William D. Staples: I should think it would be Winnipeg of Emerson.


William Paterson: At what distance ?


William D. Staples: By rail, I should think about seventy miles from Emerson and about fifty miles from Winnipeg.


William Paterson: Imports would largely come in that way, would they not ?


William D. Staples: I do not know that they do. I suppose that now the Great Northern Railway is there the imports wTould come in that way.


William Paterson: Where does it cross ?


William D. Staples: Cross the boundary ? I believe at Gretna.


William Paterson: I do not wish to say that the port cannot be granted, but I will point out some of the difficulties we have. Here -is a thriving town, but it is on the direct line, we will say, from Emerson


William D. Staples: Not on the direct line, except on one road, that runs to Portage la Prairie. It is not on the direct line of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian N ortliern.


William Paterson: I was going to say that goods would likely come in on one of these roads, and if the merchants would give some one power of attorney at Emerson, Gretna or Winnipeg, to pass any goods for them, they could be passed and sent right on. I am not arguing now against establishing the port, but this is what we have to ask people to do sometimes because I eannot grant all the ports that are asked for. There are towns that have been at me for years, and I know I am in bad favour wilh many members because I am not able to concede what they ask in these .matters. .


William D. Staples: But the minister should give it to towns that have merit in preference to other towns that have not equal claims on public grounds.


William Paterson: We do. Minnedosa is larger than Carm'an ?


William D. Staples: No.


William Paterson: How about Neepawa ?


William D. Staples: It is' not as large. It is not as old a town nor as good or enterprising a town.	,


William Paterson: Portage la Prairie is larger ?	.	*


William D. Staples: Yes. The request of this town has been before the minister


William Paterson: It is only one of the twenty or thirty.
304i


William D. Staples: I am going to speak plainly here. I think the minister ought to give the citizens of Carman more attention than he has given them. I consider that before this item passes he should make a definite statement that he will grant the request of the petition long ago presented to his department. I would be quite willing, if the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is willing, to let this item pass providing he will staje that he will grant this request.


Robert Laird Borden: When I suggested that the item should pass I did not know of the scandalous default of the minister in respect to Carman.


William James Roche: I think the plea of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) is quite justified. What we complain of is unjust discrimination. In the neighbouring constituency of Portage la Prairie there are three ports, two on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Carberry has a much smaller population than Carman or Minnedosa, and it is about midway between Brandon and Portage la Prairie, yet they have a sub-collec-tdrship there. Portage la Prairie has two sub-ports, Neepawa and Carberry. But there is no customs port at all in either Marquette or Macdonald. Minnedosa is the centre of a new judicial district and is a divisional point on the Yorkton branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway. And there is no port between Yorkton and Neepawa. The- minister is aware that the board of trade has recently petitioned for a port. We feel that it is the same in the case of these customs ports as it is in the case of public buildings-we claim that there is unjust discrimination; some constituencies have three or four and others equally deserving have none at all.


William Paterson: I will look it up on the map.


William D. Staples: Let us figure this out and see what towrns have got customs offices.


William Paterson: Carberry, I am told, was a port of entry before I came into office. Neepawa also was established and so was Portage la Prairie. Then there is Yirden.


William D. Staples: And Crystal City and Selkirk.


William James Roche: And Mor-den.


William Paterson: Yes, these are border
towns.


William James Roche: Selkirk is not.


William D. Staples: What is the revenue from the customs office in Selkirk?


William Paterson: X am told that it is $1,000 for the nine months fiscal period. That is not enough. Selkirk should not have an office if it is going to keep down to $1,000.


William D. Staples: What is Portage la Prairie?


William Paterson: Portage la Prairie is $450,000.


William D. Staples: What is Carberry?


William Paterson: 


William D. Staples: What is Neepawa?


William Paterson: $4,500 for nine months.


William D. Staples: What officer is appointed at Selkirk?


William Paterson: Geo. Wood.


William D. Staples: What salary is he paid?


William Paterson: 


William D. Staples: What is the revenue at Crystal Xfity?


William Paterson: That is a border port. The revenue is $1,800 for nine months.


William D. Staples: Who is the officer there?


William Paterson: Mr. Kerr.


William D. Staples: Who is the officer at Portage la Prairie?


William Paterson: We have three or four.


William D. Staples: What are the salaries?


William Paterson: Mr. Marshall, the collector, gets $1,200. One gets $800 and another, $600.


William D. Staples: What is the duty on a threshing machine costing $3,000 under the new tariff?


William Paterson: It is 20 per cent; it was 25 per cent under the old tariff.


William D. Staples: What is the difference in dollars and cents on a $3,000 outfit?


William Paterson: I cannot tell that.


William D. Staples: You should be able to give me that information.


William Paterson: If the hon. gentleman will come around to the department tomorrow we will get it for him.


William D. Staples: I would like to get a definite promise from the minister as to what he is going to do about establishing a customs office at Carman.


William Paterson: I will take the matter up with the commissioner.


William D. Staples: The minister has made me that promise every session during this parliament.


William D. Staples: 


William Paterson: We must make inquiries before we can do it.


William D. Staples: I think it would be well
for the minister to state distinctly what he is prepared to do.


William Paterson: We will have to make inquiry to find out the conditions and then look at the position of Carman on the map.


William D. Staples: Provided you make these inquiries and discover that the amount of duty that is paid at Carman is as great as that at Selkirk will you promise to establish a customs house there?


William Paterson: If you do not pay more than they do at Selkirk I will not do it.


William D. Staples: I suppose, when you make your inquiries and find that it is as deserving, from the consideration of revenue, as the town of Neepawa is, you will establish an office at Carman.


William Paterson: You are asking me to do something that no other member has asked. I am going to do the best I can.


William D. Staples: This is a case that has been hanging for a long while.


William Paterson: I have applications from towns in Ontario that are almost twice as large as Carman.


William D. Staples: I have listened in this House to discussions about places that do not do anything like the business that the town of Carman would do. I did not hear
the minister say what the revenue of Virden is ?


William Paterson: $22,900 for nine months. If Carman is paying that much, you look out.


William D. Staples: I have been looking out for four years and I have not seen the horizon yet. If the Minister of Customs made inquiries he would find that the town of Carman is well entitled to a public building.


William Paterson: Selkirk will be a growing place.


William D. Staples: I don't think it will grow as much as Carman will.


Samuel Hughes: When St. Andrews rapids are constructed what will become of Selkirk ?


William Paterson: You know the country better than I do.


William D. Staples: I wish to know what lumber was imported and what duty was collected on it during the last five years.


William Paterson: Better put a question on the paper.


William D. Staples: Can you not answer it to-night ?


William Paterson: I regret I cannot.


William D. Staples: The member who lives in Selkirk goes around taking credit for getting new post offices and customs offices and lines of railway for his constituency and I think this is the proper time to discuss whether his claims are correct or not.


William Paterson: That will he out of order now.


Mr. STANFIELD.: When was S. Mac-donell, inspector, Port Hood, N. S., appointed, what are his qualifications and what is his age ?


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Macdonell was appointed in 1903. He was a barrister by profession and unquestionably a capable man.


John Stanfield: What is his age ?


William Stevens Fielding: He was not a young man, but by no means an old man. He was in the prime of advanced life. His age will be found in the civil list.
Miscellaneous-printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, &c., for various ports of entry, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds and uniforms for customs officers, $85,000.


William D. Staples: It is now nearly two o'clock and the last item having been passed we should adjourn as we have to meet at eleven o'clock in the morning.


William Paterson: There are plenty of other items and you don't want to bother me. I am going away to-morrow and I want to get the items through.


Mr SAM. HUGHES.: I hope you are not going to take part in the provincial election.


Robert Laird Borden: You will have to tell us what you are going for.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many officers are guaranteed out of this vote ?


William Paterson: 1,600 or 1,800 all over Canada.


William James Roche: Is there any particular guarantee company that the government deals with?


William Paterson: We deal with one company in the maritime provinces, one in Quebec. two in Ontario, which is the largest, and another company in Manitoba and the Northwest.


William James Roche: What are the two in Ontario ?


William Paterson: The Dominion Guarantee and Accident and the Imperial, I think. Thev are all Canadian or British companies, we refused to go into American companies. 1


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much was paid in legal expenses last year by the customs department ?


William Paterson: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How was that incurred ?


William Paterson: For the extradition and prosecution of the defaulting broker Hobbs.
Mr. LANCASTER, There are uniforms for customs officers, but I notice that all do not wear uniforms.


William Paterson: Those who meet the public at steamboats or on trains are supposed to wear uniforms.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have seen some customs officers in civilian clothes, come on trains to examine baggage.


William Paterson: They should have
uniforms.
Expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and preventive service, $40,000.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) desired to have some item reserved. Perhaps you will let the last item stand.


William Paterson: That would stop the whole item.


William Stevens Fielding: The several items constitute one resolution, so that there would be nothing to report.


Robert Laird Borden: Will you have any supplementaries ?


William Paterson: We may have, but I do not like to pledge myself that we shall have. Let the hon. member have the discussion on concurrence.


Robert Laird Borden: When does the minister expect to be back ?


William Paterson: On Monday next.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose the hon. member for Brantford wishes to discuss this on concurrence, I suppose you will not have any objection to his speaking three or four times if it is necessary to answer you?


William Paterson: If it is necessary to explain himself.


Mr.   I@: As long as there will be some freedom of discussion.


William Paterson: I cannot promise about the rules of the House, but I do not think there will be any trouble about that. The fact is, he should be here.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister should not go away.
Some resolutions reported.


SITTINGS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Mr. FINLAYSON moved :: That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts have leave to sit during the sittings of this House.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to the motion except perhaps that it does not go quite far enough. There are some other committees.


William Stevens Fielding: Banking and Commerce meets at 10, but we will probably get through by 11.


Robert Laird Borden: Then there is the committee on the Quebec bridge.
about fifteen months. There are some 10,000 files and each file occupies ten minutes to a quarter of an hour in the preparation of the return, so it is a very laborious matter. I have pressed it forward, however, with all the urgency possible and inquired about it no later than yesterday when I was told that special exertions are being made, that more than one person have been at work on it for some time past and I was informed that possibly it might be ready in the course of a few weeks. I cannot speak more definitely than that, but I am very hopeful it will be possible to present the return before the end of the present session.


RELEASE OF AGNES B. KUN.
Duncan Finlayson: They have asked leave.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the Minister of Finance bear in mind that the select committee on the Hodgins charges sits next day.


Duncan Finlayson: They have leave and have been sitting during the sittings of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will continue with Supply on the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, at 2.10 a.m. Tuesday.
and House adjourned
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 2, 1908.