1908-05-04

Mr. PUGSLEY W. H.@: With your permission, Sir, I would take opportunity to refer to what my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) said Friday last in the course of the debate on the Estimates. Referring to my hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), he used these expressions :
The hon. gentleman is very anxious to get his money, but there are measures on the Order Paper we never hear of and it seems to me he should advise his colleagues to bring some of those forward before he exhausts his estimates. To my mind there are important measures that ought to be dealt with before we deal with those estimates. I do not believe in leaving those to the end of the session when every one is anxious to get home and when proper consideration cannot be given them.
If this means anything, it means that in the mind of my hon. friend, and perhaps in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, the impression prevails that if we get our Estimates through, we might abandon what remains on the Order Paper, notably the Election Bill. We have no such intention. We intend proceeding with that measure but we tried to get the Estimates through because we thought they were the most pressing. It is immaterial to us in what order we take up the government measures, but when we have moved the House into Supply we have made but little progress. To meet the views of my hon. friend, I now give notice that to-morrow we shall take up the Election Bill.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Will my right h6n. friend state whether or not there are any other Bills to be brought down by the government this session ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Yes, there is the Manitoba Boundary Bill and one or two others.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the other measures ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I cannot give an answer off-hand but will to-morrow.



OLD AGE PENSION BILL.

Mr. PRINGLE.: I would like to ask my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, when he intends proceeding with the Old Age Pension Bill which has been referred to a committee.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Minister of Labour).: Not seeing the hon. gentleman here for a few days, I did not want to convene the committee in his absence. I intend calling it this week, and if suitable to my hon. friend will give notice for Thursday.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. ALEXANDER MARTIN (Queens, Prince Edward Island).: 

SASKATCHEWAN POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: I do not desire to take any strong objection to this Bill, if it is the view of the committee that it should pass. But I would call attention to the fact that it is purely local in its character. It is a Bill to incorporate a company for the development of a water power on the Saskatchewan river, simply in one province. I would think myself that this is peculiarly an undertaking which ought to be under the control of the province, and that the company ought to be incorporated by the province. I do not know whether the committee to which the Bill was referred has given that matter consideration. My own view would be that progress should be reported, and that this point should be considered. If we keep on, we may before long be in conflict with the province of Saskatchewan, just as we are with the province of Ontario.


Mr. HAGGART.: This Bill proposes to deal with a navigable stream. I do not think it would be under the jurisdiction of tile province.


Hr. HENDERSON.: I raised the same question on Friday last when this Bill was before the committee. X quite agree with what the Minister of Public Works has said.
I think this is purely a provincial matter, but I may be mistaken. One of the members for Saskatchewan gave an explanation the other day, and perhaps he will repeat it to-day. To my mind, this is a provincial matter, and should not be dealt with here.


William Pugsley: If I may be allowed to give an illustration of the mode in which questions like this should be dealt with-in the province of New Brunswick we have frequently incorporated companies to construct works of this, character, to establish booms and that sort of thing in navigable rivers, and then the company avails itself of the provision of the federal law which requires that before interfering with a navigable river there shall be an approval of the works by the Minister of Public Works for Canada. But the incorporation of the company, it seems to me, properly belongs to the provincial legislature, because by the terms of the British North America Act a provincial legislature is exclusively invested with power to incorporate companies for carrying on local undertakings with local objects.


Mr. McCRANEY.: I understand the objection of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugslev) is based on the ground that the incorporation of the gentlemen who are named here should be undertaken by the province, and that then permission should be obtained from the Dominion parliament for the use of those waters.


William Pugsley: From the Minister of Public Works, under the revised statutes relating to navigable waters.


George Ewan McCraney: By this Bill we are coming here for the authority of the Dominion parliament to use the waters of the South Saskatchewan river under terms which are set forth in the Bill. True, we could go to the provincial legislature and get incorporation, 'but that would involve a delay, which we desire to avoid. This Parliament could give the rights which we ask to individuals, who could assign those rights which they acquire to a company to be incorporated by the provincial legislature. I think, however, it is much better that we in this parliament who give the right to make use of the river, should also incorporate the persons to whom it is intended that these powers should be given as a corporate body, and that we should set forth the powers which are incidental to that incorporation. If the minister wishes to Mr. PUGSLEY.
have it stand for further consideration, I can offer no objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: Stand.
Progress reported.



ANGLO-CANADIAN AND CONTINENTAL BANK.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 141) to incorporate the Anglo-Canadian and Continental Bank.-Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. FOSTER.: Has this Bill had the revision of the Finance Department ? The Finance Minister does not appear to be here.


William Pugsley: >
This Bill comes from the Senate, where I think it was brought to tile attention of the Finance Minister.


Mr. MILLER.: It was carefully considered in the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and the Minister of Finance was present. There was some little objection made as to the financial standing of the incorporators. However it was thought that under this Bill capital would be brougth in from England and France, and the general opinion of the committee was that the Bill should pass.
Bill reported, read a third time and passed.



OCCIDENTAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 131) respecting Occidental Fire Insurance Company. -Mr. Duncan Ross.
On section 5,
John Graham Haggart: I observe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who looks after these Bills is not here at the moment. As I understand, this insurance company operated under a provincial charter. There are contractual engagements, of course, which will be limited by the provincial law. But the effect of this Bill will be to leave them free of these and place them under federal jurisdiction.


Henry Horton Miller: This Bill provides that all the liabilities of the old company shall remain as liabilities, notwithstanding that it comes under this proposed Dominion law. One clause of the Bill particularly discussed in the Banking and Commerce Committee was that providing that calls might be made on the stock to the extent of 25 per cent. The original Manitoba charter was consulted, and it was found that it provided that calls should be limited to 10 per cent. It was thought unfair to saddle the shareholders with larger calls than had been provided for under the original Act. And so the clause permitting the 25 per cent call was changed to 10 per cent in the present Bill-

Everything in the measure was carefully considered.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know what the insurance law of Manitoba provides, but I know that under the Ontario law an insurance company such as this is allowed to make only a certain contract with the Insured party-it cannot" contract itself out of certain liabilities. X do not know whether there is such a law in force in Manitoba. But the effect of this Bill would be to remove that safeguard, if it exists, from those who have insured with this company, by transferring the company to federal jurisdiction.


Henry Horton Miller: Their longest contract of insurance would be for three years, and a large number of them would be for twelve months or less. So, this would not be so serious a matter as in the case of a life insurance company. [DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) proposed the amendment of section 5 of a corresponding Bill, the name of which I have forgotten, upon my bringing to his attention the possibility of certain difficulties arising under that section. It seems to me that section 5 of this Bill should be amended in that way. Has the attention of the government been directed to that point ?


William Pugsley: I think it would be better to have the Bill stand until the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is here, as he gave attention to a similar Bill and had some change made.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, it would not be advisable to pass this Bill in one form when an exactly corresponding Bill has been passed iu a different form.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) to change the name and head office of the Anglo-Canadian Insurance Company.-Mr. Rivet.
Bill (No 156) respecting the Northern Bank and the Crown Bank of Canada.-Mr. Guthrie.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to an advertisement signed by one Thomas W. Lawson, of Boston, which appeared in several of the newspapers of Canada and the United States, of Friday, the 27th of March, 1908, with respect to placing on the market the shares of a company known as the Yukon Gold Company, and of j which one Daniel Guggenheim is represented 245
to be president, and Isaac Guggenheim is represented to be secretary?
2.	Is it true that the Yukon Gold Company holds claims for the Dominion government in the Yukon Territory located on Bonanza, Eldorado, Bear and Hunker creeks, and which have a production record of approximately $100,000,000, as stated in the report dated New York, 6th of March, 1908, of Oscar B. Perry, a synousis of which appears in said advertisement?
3.	If so, what is the extent or area of the company's holdings, and upon what conditions are they held by the company?
I.	Has absolute title been given to the company of anv holdings on the aforesaid creeks, or are they to operate conditionally? If the latter, what are the conditions?
5.	Is it true that the company, as stated in the said advertisement, has purchased sufficient creek claims and upper lever or bench deposits to control the mining situation in that portion of the Yukon Territory?
6.	If so, from whom did the company purchase its -creek claimsMfr0m the government, or the previous owners?
7.	If from previous owners, have any assignments or transfers been recorded in the Department of the Interior? If so, from whom to whom?
8.	Has the so-called Treadgold Concession been granted to the Yukon Gold Company? If so, upon what terms and conditions?
9.	Has the Yukon Gold Company acquired the following low grade areas, as stated in said advertisement, to be profitably treated at a later stage, namely, Hunker creek bottom. with its tributaries, Last Chance creek, Gold Bottom creek. Hunker hills and Last Chance hills, Lower Bonanza hills, and Klondike valley below Bear creek? If so, what is the extent or area of such claims, and upon what conditions have they been granted to the Yukon Gold Company?
10.	What are the total holdings of the Yukon Gold Company in the Yukon Territory, and what fees or royalties has the company to pay to the government in connection therewith ?
II.	If the statements, or any of them, appearing in the said advertisement are incorrect or misleading, what steps have the government taken to warn or protect the investing public?
12.	Has the government, or any member thereof, anv communications, written or oral, with the Thomas W. Lawson named in said advertisement, or with anv member of the Guggenheim syndicate, with reference to the purchase or acquisition of the aforesaid mining claims, or any of them, or regarding the public flotation of 700,000 shares of the stock of the said company at $5 per share?
13.	Is the government aware that the said lukon Gold Company is capitalized at $17,500,000, and that the public has subscribed for shares therein on the faith and basis of the statements contained in the said advertisement. as to the absolute ownership bv the Yukon Gold Company of the aforesaid claims?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	No.
2.	The Yukon Gold Company hold placer mining claims in the Yukon Territory situated on Bonanza, Eldorado, Bear and Hun-



ker creeks, but as no record of production by creeks has been kept, the government is not in a position to corroborate the approximate production record as stated.
3.	Many of the claims held by the company have not been surveyed, and as they vary in size according to the regulations under which they were acquired, the total extent or area cannot be computed.
The claims are held under the conditions of the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
4.	Title to the claims is conditional. Work to the value of $200 must be performed on a claim or in connection with it each year, and a renewal fee of $15 paid. The conditions are those set out in the Placer Mining Act.
5.	The government has not sufficient information to make a definite statement.
6.	Prom the previous owners.
7.	Assignments in favour of the company of the claims which they have acquired are filed with the mining recorder in whose district the claims are situated, in accordance with the provisions of section 46 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
S. The question is not understood ; but, if it has reference to a right at one time granted Messrs Ewing, Treadwell and Bar-wick to acquire certain reverted or abandoned claims, which right was subsequently rescinded, the answer is ' No.'
9.	The Yukon Gold Company have acquired certain claims on the streams mentioned, the exact area of which is not known as all the claims have not been surveyed. These claims were granted under the provisions of the Placer Mining Regulations and Act.
10.	The total number of claims acquired by the Yukon Gold Company appears to be 820. The fees and royalties paid by the company are those specified in the Placer Mining Act; that is, $15 for the annual renewal of each claim, and a royalty of 2i per cent on the gold exported from the territory.
11.	The government has no information as to the statements appearing in the advertisement.
12.	No.
13.	As the company appears to be operating under local ordinance, no doubt a statement as to the amount of capitalization was filed with the territorial government. The government, however, has no information.
DREDGING, &c., AT RIMOUSKI.


Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: What is the total amount of money spent bv this government at Rimouski in building wharf, dredging. lighting, and all necessary work, in order that the steamer ' Lady Evelyn ' could deliver passengers and mail ?


William Pugsley: The question is a little difficult to answer because there has been an expenditure upon wharfs, but, according to Mr. OLIVER.
my information, dredging is the only work which can properly be considered as having been done in order that the steamer ' Lady Evelyn ' could deliver passengers and mail.
This improvement results also in advantage to other vessels entering and departing from Rimouski .
The cost of dredging was $11,077.97.


SOURIS WHARF.
Mr. A. A. McLEAN asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that during the past summer a wharf or block has been built on the southern side of the railway wharf at Souris, Prince Edward Island, opposite the Souris fish drier, and within five feet of the railway wharf?
2.	Was permission given to any one to build such wharf or block at Souris? If so, to whom was such permission given?
3.	Does the government claim any right or interest in this block?
4.	Has the government paid Mr. E. A. Wallberg, or any one else, any money for the construction of this block?
5.	Has the government any knowledge ol
this block being built by Mr. J. J. Hughes, or any one else?	.	.
6.	Under the present law, is it permissible for private parties to build wharfs or blocks alongside of government wharfs and close up to them?
7.	Does the government intend to allow the
railway wharf to be used as an approach to this block?	.
8.	Did any one besides Mr. Hughes during the last five vears apply for permission to build a block at or near where Mr. Hughes is building his? If so, who applied, and why was he refused?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: There is no information in so far as this department is concerned, with reference to a wharf being built by Mr. J. J. Hughes, or any one else, further than that contained in the answer to the question asked in the House by Mr. A. A. McLean, to be found on page 2463 of the ' Hansard,' of the present session.


HOURS AND PAY OF LETTER CARRIERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr'. MACDONELL-by Mr. Blain-asked:
Is it the intention of the government to bring the service of letter-carriers to an eight-hour-a-day service and to grant them an additional week's leave of absence, and also to adopt an increased schedule of salaries therefor, as recommended by the report of the Civil Service Commission, 1908?
Rodolphe Lemieux: (a)	Practically the letter-carriers have an
eight hour a day service at the present time.	-
(b)	Under the present law it is possible for the letter carriers to obtain a period of vacation greater than three weeks not allowed to other members of the service.
(c)	Any increase in the salaries or vacation of letter carriers recommended by the

Civil Service Commission, 1908, must receive the general consideration of the government, the same as every other branch of the service.


SOUTHERN ALBERTA LAND COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HERRON-by Mr. Lake-asked :
1.	Has the Southern Alberta Land Company, Limited, successors to the Robbins Irrigation Company, made application to the. government to exchange a portion of the lands granted under their contract for other lands situated outside the original area?
2.	If so, what quantity of land do they propose to re-lease, and what quantity do they ask in lieu thereof?
3.	In what townships are the lands applied for in exchange located?
4.	Is it a fact that the company claims that the success of their scheme from a financial point of view depends upon securing the new area applied for?
5.	What are the intentions of the government in respect of said application?
C. In ease of the government consenting to' such exchange, will the contract be amended so as to contain a clause fixing the maximum selling price of lands without water privilege?
Hou. I?. OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 186,000 acres, approximately; (b) 180,000 acres, approximately.
3.	Township 13, range 6, townships 14 and 15, ranges 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, west 4th meridian.
4. Yes.	.
5.	The Commissioner of Irrigation has been directed to make a personal inspection of the company's scheme in connection with this application, and the application will not be dealt with until his report shall have been received.
0.	No decision has been made, gee answer to No. 5.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLEMENTS-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Regarding the patrol work in which Captain Haekett had charge of up to last season for the government in the vicinity of Lime Kdlm Crossing, Detroit river, did Captain Haekett resign his position, or was he discharged by the government?
2.	What remuneration did Captain Haekett receive for the work?
3.	What individual or company is doing the work now for the government and at what remuneration ?
4.	Were tenders asked for the work? If so, was the lowest tender accepted, and how many tenders were received?
Hon.   L.@: r. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :
1.	Captain Hnckett's tug was chartered by tile government last season at $50 per day, with a double crew for night and day work, the $50 including everything; the I 245J
charter was subject to withdrawal at 48 hours' notice; the patrol was discontinued at the end of the season of navigation.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Captain F. Trotter, same remuneration.
4.	No.


PURCHASE OP HACKETT DOCK, AM-HERSTBURG, ONTARIO.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLEMENTS-by Mr. Blain-asked :
Has the government any intention of purchasing the Haekett dock, in the vicinity of Amherstburg, Detroit river, for use as a government wharf?
Hon.   W.@: PUGSLE1' (Minister of Public Works). The matter has not been considered by tlie government.


COLLECTION OP CUSTOMS AT BATHURST.
Mr. CROCKET asked :: 1.	Has the Minister of Customs received a reply to bis letter to the collector of Customs at Bathurst, New Brunswick, in reference to the complaint that said collector engaged actively in the late provincial election in Gloucester. New Brunswick?
2.	If so, does the collector deny that he addressed a number of political meetings in different parts of the county in the interest of the Liberal candidates, or that he engaged actively in said election, as alleged in the letter of complaint?
3.	What action has the minister taken since communicating the matter of the above complaint to said collector, or what action does he propose to take in reference thereto?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs):: 1.	Yes.
2.	I have a copy of his reply in my desk which if the hon. member desires, I can read, but as it is somewhat lengthy I might say that as I understand it, Mr. Venoit does not admit that he addressed a number of meetings in the interest of the Liberal candidates, but he admits that he spoke at some public meetings, defending himself against personal charges made against him.
3.	In view of the explanation given by the collector, no further action has as yet been taken.


N. F. HARBOTTLE.
Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	Was a person by the name of N. F. liar bottle employed in the excise office at Edmonton until recently?
2.	Did the said party leave the service after having taken moneys belonging to the government? If so, what was the extent of his defalcation?
3.	When was the said Harbottle appointed and upon whose recommendation?
4.	What other employees of the government
at Edmonton have, during the last three years, left the service under similar circumstances P	.


Hon. WILLIAM TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue):: 1.	Neville Harbottle was employed in the excise office at Edmonton.
2.	Yes. $6,918.44.
3.	August 1, 1903. Upon the recommendation of the Minister of Inland Revenue.
4.	The Department of Inland Revenue has no knowledge of a similar case.


W. D. CURRIE OF SOURIS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr, R. N. WALSH asked :
1.	How much has been paid by the Department of Marine and Fisheries to W. D. Currie of Souris, Prince Edward Island since March 31, 1907?
2.	What was the amount and date ot each payment, and for what were said payments made?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes. A plot of land 50 feet square with right of way from the public road 10 feet wide. The proprietor offered the property in question to the department for the sum of $100, which was reported a fair price by the agent of the department at Montreal. The right of way being for 1,350 feet long.
2,	3 and 4. No. The employees of the Department of Marine and Fisheries constructed a lighthouse foundation on this land and for that purpose had to clear away the natural growth of brush. There were no trees of any consequence on the site.
LATE HON. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE. Mr. BOYCE asked :


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1. $218.81.
2. August 3,1907, $187.71. Provisions, &c., for herring drifter 33. October 9, 1907, $20.87. Provisions, &c., for herring drifter 33. January 16, 1908, $2.95. Small supplies and cartage for Souris East light. February 6, 1908, $7.28. Small supplies and cartage for Souris East light. Total $218.81.


HALIFAX COUNTY MAILS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	Is Gordon Parnell a contractor for the carriage tof ithe mails in Halifax county, Nova Scotia, or has he had such contract?
2.	If so, during what periods and over what route?
3.	What are the terms of his contract, and what amount has he received each year during the period of his contract?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Contract commenced April 1, 1906-due to expire March 31, 1910.
3.	Service tri-weekly ; distance twenty-eight miles each way. Usual conditions of contract. $475.
1.	On what date did the late Hon. Raymond Prefontaine leave for England 'previous to his death? ,	.	,
2.	Who was acting Minister of Marine ana Fisheries during his absence and until, and after his death?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	The late Hon. Raymond Prefontaine left Montreal on November 20, 1905, and sailed from New York either the night of the 21st or morning of November 22, 1905.
2.	The Right Honourable the President of the Privy Council.



SUPPLY-SHIPPING AT COLLIERIES.

['The lot is 150 feet by 05. The estimated cost is something over $20,000. The building will accommodate\nboth Whitby east and Whitby west. The total population is 4,060.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Pugsley, House adjourned at 1.30 a.m. Tuesday.', 'Tuesday, May 5, 1908.']
Hon.  W. S.@: Fielding (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.).: I desire to draw the attention of the government to a matter which is of great moment to the shipping interests of the maritime provinces. I refer to the system of loading vessels at the different collieries; the rule now in vogue being that steamships shall be loaded first. No matter how many sailing vessels may be waiting for loads, steamers that come in immediately receive



Mr. BERGERON asked:: 1.	Has the government taken any land from Martel Rajotte, of Ste. Anne de Sorel, for the building of a lighthouse in that locality? If so, by whom was the government authorized to do so?
2.	Is it true that the government employees destroyed many trees planted by Rajotte .on said land?
3.	Is it true that the landslide occurred on account of the disappearance of those trees, causing great damages to Rajotte?
,i. Is it the intention of the government to recompense Rajotte for such land and damages so caused? if so, has anything been done to that effect ?
their cargo, and this practice has become so much a nuisance that in the maritime provinces that sailing vessel owners are being compelled to withdraw their vessels from that trade and to leave it practically in the hands of steam vessels owned by Norwegians and other foreigners. In consequence of the present practice to which I have referred the rates on coal were increased last year and the price of coal in Prince Edward Island was advanced about 50 cents per ton. .1 have here a letter written by Mr. Alexander Weatherbee addressed to' the editor of the Halifax ' Chronicle,' and as Mr. Weatherbee is a seafaring man resident in Nova Scotia he explains the situation perhaps clearer than I could.


Mr. LAKE.: To the Editor of the ' Chronicle/
Sir,-Kindly allow me space in your valuable paper to express my views re the coasting trade and the Norwegian question or foreign shipping monopolizing our coasting trade. It is a difficult question to solve or bring to a satisfactory settlement and I believe if not settled it will lead to anarchy and rebellion in the end, as it is a terrible grievance for our vessels to lay at coal piers and steamers load and go away and return and load again and our vessels laying^ without cargoes or any recompense for their lost time as I have had the experience of it a number of times. Now I am aware that the companies have to have steamers to carry their coal. Also, do I know they have a right to charter wherever they can make the best bargain. I am opposed to unions and monopolies as they tend to coerce the freedom and rights of individual citizens, and my idea of bringing this vexed question to a satisfactory settlement is for the government to compel all coal companies to load all vessels in turn, no preference to steam over sailing tonnage, as all have equal rights. I have loaded coal a number of times for the last twenty years in American ports and never had to wait long for my cargo as everything was loaded in turn, steamer, barge or sailing vessel and no reasonable man^ will complain when he gets his turn or lights. This is my view for a satisfactory settlement ot the trouble or grievance.
ALEX. WEATHERBEE. Tatamagouehe, Dec. 21, 1S07.
You will observe in the recent issues of newspapers in the maritime provinces editorials and letters from correspondents calling attention to this matter. Sea captains and sailing vessel owners are to-day withdrawing their vessels from this trade because they cannot afford to continue in the trade as they cannot get compensation for the great los's of time which they are subjected at the collieries in loading. I hold in my hand a petition signed by the principal sailing vessel owners and captains in the province of Prince Edward Island, in reference to this matter, which reads as follows:
Whereas the system of coal mining companies in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton give a loading preference to steamers over sailing vessels at their respective piers and that said discrimination militates against the owners and charterers of sailing vessels;
And whereas the greater part of the coal imported to this province is freighted in sailing vessels, and owing to the condition of the harbours, must continue to be. freighted by vessels of shallow draught;
And whereas such systems may compel sailing vessels to abandon the coal carrying trade, to the great detriment of this city and province;
Therefore resolved, that our representatives respectfully request the federal government to pass such legislation as will give to sailing vessels and steamers equal rights in their proper loading turns at the coal ports in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, steamers when
taking in bunker coal to have preference only.
Captains and shipowners-
John Gilles,
G.	H. Day,
Donald McRae,
P. J. Cahill,
Alex. Roberts,
John McLean,
Richard Moran,
David Anderson,
William Davis, .
Frederick Cormier,
William Burke,
Garret Hubley,
Kenneth Finlayson,


John J.: Murchison,
A. E. Hogan,
Clarkin Brothers,
Chas. Lvoniy & Company,
A. Pickard & Company,
Wright Brothers,
Edward Boswell,
Wesley Mvers,
Johnston Lord,
Allan McLean,
Allen McLean,
W M. Snow.
C.	'J. Stright,
W. C. Lea,
Angus Brine,
Jabez Hudson,
J. H. Myrich & Company, Prank Gallant,
P. Smith,
John Ireland,
Chas. Bennett,
Paul Costain,


Daniel S.: Miller,
Ellis Brothers,
John Agnew,
George McDiarmid,
F. H. Lemon,
Harry Bruhm,
John' T. Dewar,


Amos J.: Robertson,
W. A. Johnston,
Prank Murphy,
Peter Porior,
M. McKinnon,
Alex. McLeod,	.
Hugh McLeod.
George Whightman,


Lester B.: Melli&h,
D.	J. McLean,
A. E. Smith,
William Murphy,
Daniel McGregor,
Patrick Kelley,
J. D. Bell,
M. F. McDonald,
John Beck,
William Horton,
S.	Bowdridge,
Hirman Hyde.


James H.   C.@: Beck,


John A.: Munn,


George B.: Dunn,
Louis Herrin?,	-
Louis Herring.
James Lanigan,
Patrick McCarthy,
Lawrence Lanigan,
Sterns & Son & Company,
H.	H. Sterns.
Allen Jos. McDonald & Co., Thomas Kichman,

John McLean,
H. H. Acorn,
Matthew & McLean,
William McDonald,
D. A. McDonald,
Sterns Brothers,


Capt.  C. E.@: Myers,
Secretary for Captains.
These are the signatures of practically all the owners and captains of sailing vessels in the province. But this matter affects not only tile province of Prince Edward Island, but also the province of New Brunswick and the province of Nova Scotia, in which these companies are incorporated. It also applies to vessels from the province of Quebec. I do not know whether any vessels from the province of Ontario coal there or not. This matter was referred to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Prince Edward Island at its last sitting, and I received a few days ago a letter from the clerk of the Legislative Assembly to the following effect:
The Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island,
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, March 27, 1908.
A. A. McLean, Esq.,
House of Commons.
Dear Sir,-Acting under instructions of the legislative assembly of this province, I beg to inclose a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by this House, and am requested to ask that the matter referred to receive your most earnest and immediate attention.
Yours respectfully,


R. H. MONTGOMERY,
[Stage Direction]
Clerk Legislative Assembly, Prince Edward Island.
The resolution referred to in that letter reads as follows:
Resolution passed unanimously by the legislative assembly, Prince Edward Island, March, 1908.
Resolved, that this legislature, recognizing the difficulties and loss entailed to the owners and charterers of sailing, vessels, also to the consumers of coal in this province on account of the preference habitually given to steam tonnage as distinguished from sailing vessels, at the piers of the leading collieries in Nova Scotia, in the matter of'loading coal caiwes, respectfully request the government ot Nova. Scotia to exercise such powers as may be within its rights, to secure fair and equitable treatment for the sailing vessels at.such piers, and if those powers be inadequate to the end proposed, recommend that said government shall have recourse to the federal authorities, with a view to securing the rights and privileges in question.
Further resolved, that this legislative assembly respectfully request the federal government to pass such legislation, if necessary, as will give to sailing and steam tonnage equal rights iij their, proper loading turns at the coal ports in Nova Scotia.
I understand that a copy of these resolutions has been sent to the government at Ottawa, and is now in the hands of the Mr. McLEAN.
Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I understand that it is a moot question whether the federal authorities have power to deal with this matter or whether the power rests with the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia. But I think this matter is one which peculiarly lies within the powers of the parliament of Canada to deal with. This is not a matter of purely local importance, because vessels from various provinces of Canada habitually load at these piers. It is true, these companies, or most of them, are chartered by the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia; but notwithstanding that fact, I think this parliament has power to regulate the manner in which vessels shall be loaded and unloaded at these piers. Under the shipping laws of the Dominion of Canada all the regulations for the unloading of vessels are subject to the parliament of Canada. If this parliament has power to regulate the unloading of vessels, I do not see why it should not equally have power to regulate the loading of vessels. It has power under the federal shipping law to say what space shall be allotted for cattle on vessels, how many bushels of grain a vessel may carry, how much draft it may draw, etc. Why, then, should it not have power to regulate the manner in which vessels from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec shall be loaded at these piers? It may be and probably will be said that these concerns are private concerns, and can make contracts to load as they please. Vessels from all parts of Canada come to these places for coal. Under the circumstances, this is a matter of federal importance which may come under the head of regulation of trade and commerce, subsection 2 of section 91 British North America Act. Why should not this parliament have the power, under that section, to regulate the manner in which vessels shall be loaded, the same as they regulate, under subsection 10, which deals with navigation and shipping, the manner in which vessels shall lie in the harbour or conduct themselves at a pier. Under these regulations, no vessel is permitted to carry any spars clear of her hull because that might interfere with other vessels coming in.
Mr. BRODEUR.: Does my hon. friend think that if the coal dealers were refusing to sell their coal we would have the power to interfere, or would we have the power to interfere when coal dealers deliver at their own piers?


Angus Alexander McLean: I suppose every one can refuse to sell his own goods, but when he does sell them and when he advertises that he has goods for sale, the parliament of Canada may pass regulations governing the conduct of his trade.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under what clause of the British North America Act?


Angus Alexander McLean: Under clause 2 of section 91 dealing with the regulation of trade and commerce. Take, for instance, section 92 which defines what matters come within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. Under that section, shop, saloon, tavern and auctioneer and other licenses, in order to the raising of revenue for provincial, local or municipal purposes come under the exclusive powers of the provincial legislature. Yet, notwithstanding that Section, it has been held by the Privy Council that this parliament had power to pass the Canada Temperance Act and to decree that that Act could come into force in any district at the instance of its people and thus take away vested rights from men previously engaged in the liquor trade. That Act of this parliament was upheld by the Privy Council in the case of Russel vs. the Queen. What did the Privy Council say in that matter ?


Sir   M@: Smith, in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, intimated that their Lordships-	_	.
Must not be understood as intimating any dissent from the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and the other judges who held that the Act, as a general regulation of the traffic in intoxicating liquors throughout the Dominion, fell within the class of subjects, 'The regulation of Trade and Commerce ' enumerated in that section and was on that ground a valid exercise of the legislative power of the parliament of Canada.
Our Supreme Court had decided that the federal parliament had power to legislate on that matter because it came within subsection 2 of section 91 of the British North America Act, covering the regulations of trade and commerce. That was the ground upon which the Supreme Court gave its decision, and the Privy Council said that they did not dissent from that opinion. Here, therefore, we have the decision of the highest court in the land that although the provincial legislatures have exclusive power over saloon and other licenses, still this parliament can step in and pass a Temperance Act and, as was argued before the Privy Council, take away the vested rights of liquor dealers. Then the judgment of the Privy Council proceeds :
The judgment of the Privy Council proceeds upon the grounds that the subject was not falling within any of the subsections of section 92 and was therefore within the power of the Dominion parliament as a matter pertaining to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
But if this matter of the regulation of coaling vessels would not come under the head of ' the regulation of trade and commerce ' or ' navigation and shipping,' still it might come under the head of ' peace, order and good government.' Why not? Here is a conflict every day at these collieries between the company and the steamship owners and the sailing vessels, so that this government should have the power to make some kind of regulation that would do justice to the owners of the sailing vessels. The subject is, of course, a difficult one, but all these matters are difficult to deal with. Frequently in such matters we have the Supreme Court of Canada giving one opinion and the Privy Council another, but on the whole I think that our Supreme Court has passed upon them very fairly. If the government have any doubts, I would suggest that a test case be made and sent to the Supreme Court. The matter is one of great concern to a great number of people who have large sums invested in sailing vessels. It is of importance not only to these men, but to every man who consumes coal in Canada. To-day it is agitating the people in the maritime provinces. To-morrow it may become a live question in Saskatchewan or Alberta or British Columbia.
I think, therefore, that the government should take it up at once and deal with it. Let them submit the question to the Supreme Court, if they have doubts of their jurisdiction, and if not satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court let them appeal it to the Privy Council.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: What solution by way of legislation, provided this parliament has power, would the hon. gentleman suggest?


Angus Alexander McLean: I understand from shipping men that in the coal ports of the United States there is a regulation providing that every vessel shall receive its cargo in turn.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On private property?


Angus Alexander McLean: Yes. There is one exception, and that is bunker coal for steamers which are leaving port-these steamers have the preference, and I believe they are the only vessels in American ports that have the preference.


Alexander Martin: This is a difficulty which occasions great hardship in the maritime provinces. It was a special grievance last year. I asked a question about this in April and the minister told me that it was ' under consideration.' I hope this question is not to be kept under consideration indefinitely. I also asked for the correspondence, but the correspondence has not been brought down. Now, the session is drawing to a close, and this is a very important matter, and should be attended to. I called the attention of the government to a resolution of the Board of Trade of Charlottetown, which had been sent me. I also received a copy of a resolution from the legislature of Prince Edward Island. In view of these representations and of the very serious importance of the matter to the people of the maritime

provinces of this question, I sincerely hope the government will find some way of overcoming the difficulty. I have here letters and petitions to show the very grave nature of this grievance to shipowners and masters and to the people generally. First, let me read a letter signed by Charles Reid:
Sir,-The system of loading vessels at coal piers is as tyrannical and out of date as the feudal system. Canadian vessels are not allowed coals as a rule, while a Norwegian steamer is at the same pier, and in many cases, coal is kept from "Canadian vessels until the ' Norman ' arrives.
Schooners sometimes hare been known to wait until the Norwegian steamer has made two voyages to Montreal. Captain Fred. Peters, of Summerside, can testify, as he is one of the captains who has had this experience.	[DOT]
That is, the steamer loaded, went to Montreal, came back and got a second cargo before the sailing vessel could get a pound of coal :
Why should Canadians be driven from Canadian waters ?-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At what colliery did that occur ?


Alexander Martin: This is dated Brule Shore, Tatamagouclie, Colchester County, N.S., November 29, 1907.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: What colliery ?
And here is a letter signed by fourteen captains at Port Hastings-I suppose the hon. gentleman is familiar with that place :
The following letter known as the ' captains' protest/ which might he regarded as the first gun in the campaign for the protection of Canadian shipping, like the shot ' at Lexington which was heard around the world/ was published in the Halifax ' Morning Chronicle/ Halifax ' Herald/ Lunenburg ' Daily News/ Sydney ' Post/ Sydney ' Record/ the ' Coast Guard ' (edited by M. H. Nickerson, M.P.P.). and other maritime province and Quebec journals.
To the Editor-
Sir,-As your paper has always taken a deep interest in the shipping of our country, kindlv publish this letter to show to the people of Canada how our coasting sailing vessels and owners are being ruined and our flag driven from our waters, and a foreign flag and shipping encouraged in our ports.
We, the undersigned captains of fourteen schooners have been at Port Hastings waiting for cargoes of coal. Some of us have waited for twelve da vs. and some were promised coal this week. Superintendent MiGilli-vray, of the Inverness Railway and Coal Company, was at Port Hastings Thursday, the 19th instant. We waited on him, and all the satisfaction we got from him was that we would get no coal until navigation closed up the St. Lawrence. One captain wanted to buv a barrel of coal for his vessel's use, and was told bv the superintendent that he would not get a barrel or pound of coal until the St. Lawrence was frozen up.
, Mr. A. MARTIN. Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) will hunt up some information that will suit him and will help him to speak, as he Is generally ready to do in season and out of season.


Alexander Johnston: I will hunt up the facts.


Alexander Martin: Your facts are often very doubtful. The letter proceeds :
Are we an inferior race or are wo not a law-abiding people? What is the cause oi such treatment? During the days of wooden ships we had as fine a fleet and as brave and noble a class of seamen as ever ploughed a sea. Why should all this wealth have passed away? Is it merely because wooden ships are a thiev of the past ? Nay, hut on account ot our shipping laws/
Again are not our home vessels a benefit to Canadians generallv? As soon as they all disappear, the conseouences will be experienced. Notice the towns situated away from the coast nav a higher rate of freight than freight sent oast that inland town to one on the coast. What is the cause ? Because places situated on the coast have their own vessels and water competition. Why should we be deprived of our birthright for the benefit of a lew moneyed people not resident in Canada ? We Canadian seamen hare no desire to leave our Canadian homes, although we would be 6 ee ainc 7<'.lllcl io!d Property in the . ^ l,fettates ,ishlpis- B.ut	we want is
our nvhts, and not until then will we be a contented and happy people.
Mr. 'MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.)
That must have been very cheering to the hon. member for Cape Breton, who champions this injustice. I think it is very cruel treatment that a sailing vessel cannot get a barrel of coal to keep the fire going in the forecastle. Letter goes on to say:	[DOT]
While we have been treated in this manner, a Norwegian steamer, .manned bv Norwegians, and flyinf' the Norwegian flag, hauled into the dock, and was loaded with over 3,000 tons of coal, and left Tuesday evening, and another Norwegian steamer hauled into the dock the following day and is being loaded.
A good many of us are in the coal carrying trade, and- some of us buy cargoes and have regular customers waiting for coal, and as we cannot afford to wait until the St. Lawrence freezes up, we are compelled to leave the port of Hastings to-day.
We trust that the members of the Dominion and local parliaments as well as the Halifax and other boards of trade and the newspapers, will come to our assistance.
On receiving such shabby treatment from the superintendent of the Inverness Railway and Coal Company, we wired to C. W. Spencer. general manager, Montreal, on the 19th instant.
Have booked here ten days for coal, wire it in ten load schooners or not. Have been promised coal Monday.
(Sgd.) L. GERRIOR, and thirteen other schooner masters.
Not receiving any reply to this, we wired again to C. W. Spencer at Montreal, on the 20th instant, as follows:

Superintendent McGillivray advises no coal to schooners until St. Lawrence closes. Please answer yesterday's telegram. Must we apply Toronto office.
(Sgd.) L. GERRIOR, and thirteen other schooner masters.
The above is signed by the following named captains: S. Boutillier, Jef. For-geron, J. White, C. Chasson, A. Biott, 0. S. Sangster, E. Sampson, B. Davis, L. Hubley, L. Rafuse, H. Deong, Mr. Boudrot, Mr. Landry, P. McCarthy. I think that letter from the owners and captains of vessels shows that they have suffered great hardship in the treatment they have received, and I think the government owes it to these people to provide some redress. It is not enough to say that the matter is under consideration. The minister asked my colleague what he was going to do about it. Now I have taken some pains to study this question, and I have consulted the Shipping Act in the revised statutes. I think that if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will not give the matter his attention, the Minister of Justice will acknowledge on reading this Shipping Act that there is a remedy, and that the remedy is in the hands of the government, whether they choose to exercise it or not. I have taken pains to prepare a summary of the provisions of the several sections of chapter 113 of the revised statutes known as the Shipping Act, w7hich I will read :
Section 857. Harbour master appointed by Governor in Council.
Section 853. Governor in Council by regulation defines powers and duties of harbour master.
Section. 854. Governor in Council may make regulations for government of any harbour (at ports of Quebec, Montreal, Three Rivers, Toronto, Halifax, Pictou and St. John, New Brunswick, apDlication must be made by local authorities to Governor in Council for rules and regulations.)
I presume from reading this section that the government has the power to make regulations. Of course the application must be made.
Section 871. Governor in Council may determine at what ports wardens are required.
Section 875. Defines duties of port warden.
Section 900.1 Port warden should perform all duties assigned to him by Governor in Council.
Section 909. Defines duties of masters and port wardens.
There is nothing in the Shipping Act to regulate the rotation of loading or discharging of cargoes; but that comes under the rules and regulations made by the Governor in Council for the guidance of the port warden or harbour master, as the case may be, in each port. Consequently, in the case in point, the port warden is at fault if he has received regulations. He either violated the rules and regulations, in which case
he is answerable to the Minister of Marine, or else the government failed to set down rules and regulations for his guidance. Now, I leave the minister on either horn of the dilemma. If he has not set down the rules, the department is to blame; if he has, the port warden or the harbour master has failed to carry out these regulations. This is a very important question, inasmuch as it has occasioned great loss to many people. The season is now far advanced, and if there is next season a recurrence of these tyrannical proceedings in those ports, there will be trouble. I think it devolves upon the government to solve the difficulty in order to prevent threatened trouble.


Mr. WM. ROCHE (Halifax).: This trouble of the detention of vessels at piers at the various mines is an old grievance in the coal trade. I remember some years ago when there were a good many sailing vessels in the business, that frequently at the larger coal piers and shipping points there was a detention to some sailing vessels sometimes of five or six weeks, occasioned by other sailing vessels and larger ships getting a preference in obtaining cargoes of coal for larger ports of consumption. At a certain time of the year large sailing ships took cargoes for the St. Lawrence, and as the period of navigation closed at a certain time, it was necessary to give them despatcli in order that they might reach their destination on the St. Lawrence in time. Undoubtedly a grievance existed. In my opinion a remedy might be found in two ways.


Alexander Martin: What does the bon. gentleman make of this statement I have read?


William Roche: I will come to that in a moment. I am now speaking of the conditions which existed twenty or thirty years or more ago. There was also more or less detention at coal piers owing to the circumstances I have mentioned. The great grievance which existed then was that when steamers began to ply in the coal trade and came to a pier, the master of the pier, or dock master, prevented the sailing vessels which had taken part of a cargo from taking the rest of it. Frequently when a vessel was partially loaded, steamers came in and the vessel had to haul away from under the coal chute without obtaining her cargo. Now if a certain number of chutes at these larger piers were devoted to serving small vessels, a great part of the grievance would be removed.
Another regulation might be made that no steamer ought to return and take on a second cargo until the vessels which were present at the pier before she loaded are loaded. As has been observed by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. A. A. McLean), it is a great vexation and annoyance to the masters of vessels lying at piers for them

to observe one of these steamers being filled with a cargo, perhaps ten times as much as these vessels hold, take her cargo up the St. Lawrence and come back again before these vessels have been loaded. The advent of the big cargo steamers has made a great change in the coal trade. The requirements of the St. Lawrence, no doubt, demanded vessels of a larger size. Formerly the largest cargo was probably 1,000 tons, but to-day, there are these Norwegian steamers that carry 6,000 tons. Some of the mines have so arranged that they shall have a steamer under the chutes all the time and that means that vessels that intervene can get no loads, because, when one steamer is loaded and moves away, another one takes her place ; this goes on in rotation and the result is that these smaller vessels are not. loaded. It is true that these vessels carrying large cargoes are under foreign flags, largely the Norwegian flag, but how this government is to intervene and prevent the owners of the mines from transporting their own products in their own way, I do not know. I do not know that the remedy is in the hands of the government. But, there is a question in regard to the supply of the St. Lawrence -the supply of Montreal and Quebec- and that is that these large centres require large quantities of coal and as a result a difficulty arises in connection with supplying the smaller ports in Nova Scotia. Before the period of navigation closes these large centres must obtain their coal and. notwithstanding that they have a large supply of tonnage, there are ports in the maritime provinces that receive no coal. Not only is there a grievance on the part of the owners of the small vessels but there is a grievance on the part of the smaller ports because the consumers of coal in these places do not receive the product that they require. They are practically the owners of the coal themselves as being resident in the province of Nova Scotia which is blessed by having a large supply and they naturally feel that they have a grievance because, as owners of the product under the ground, they are not in a position to receive the supply which they require and because they have to pay a larger price for that commodity. I do not intend to enter into the legal question or to discuss the point as to whether this government can provide a remedy for this grievance. The grievance undoubtedly does exist. It may partly remedy it to provide that no steamer shall receive her second cargo until the vessels that are at the piers at the time of her loading receive the quantity they require. Whether this government can enforce a regulation of that kind or whether it is the prerogative of the local government, I do not know. But, there is a very strong objection urged : Why should not the proprietor of the coal mine be able to sell and provide for the convey-Mr. W. ROCHE.
a nee of the product to the place of destination ? Certainly the demands of the sellers of the product are first to be provided for. In olden times, when there was too great an accumulation of vessels at the mines, the mine owners themselves stopped the delivery to vessels going foreign. Newfoundland sealers and vessels that made sea voyages came over to North Sydney and no other vessels could obtain cargo. The owners of the mines intervened and saw to it that the smaller vessels accumulated around the piers should be loaded before the Newfoundlanders came upon the scene. Something of that kind could be done by the voluntary action of the mine owners provided the government made representations to them that the wants of the vessels in the country and the wants of the small places consuming coal should first be satisfied.


Mr. ANGUS MCLENNAN (Inverness).: Port Hastings, that very important coaling station, happening to be in the county I have the honour to represent, I wish to say a few words in connection with the complaint mentioned in the letters and other papers referred to by the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. McLean), It seemed to me as if these gentlemen had exhausted the grievances of Prince Edward Island and, like Alexander, had gone abroad for other worlds to conquer. It would seem to me also that a certain gentleman has called perhaps, undue attention to any trouble in regard to the shipping of coal at Port Hastings. There is one particular point in connection with the agitation which has been set on foot that I would like to mention. A Mr. Alexander G. Bailey has been very much in evidence in the press for a number of months past and I may say, in order that the House may understand the matter, that there is something back of Mr. Bailey's agitation and It is this : Mr. Bailey was sales agent for the Inverness Coal Company, and, for some reason, the Inverness Coal Company dispensed with the services of that gentleman. From that day on every thing has gone wrong at Port Hastings with the shipping pier of the Inverness Coal Company. Nothing, in fact, in the eyes of Mr. Bailey, has been right since then. But, it must be conceded that there are occasions when there is a considerable congestion of shipping at the various shipping piers of the coal companies, and I may say, in passing, that the shipping and selling of coal have always been held, and rightly so, to be a private enterprise. What the government of the province or of this Dominion can have to do with a private enterprise of that character I fail to see. If there were any means by which the Dominion government or any of the provincial governments could do anything to rectify any grievance that might exist in this
.MAY 4, 1908
connection no person would be better pleased than myself, but, like all other lines of business I think that this mining business will adjust itself. There are occasions, particularly in the fall of the year, when coal is very much in demand, and when there is, consequently, great congestion at the shipping piers. It is something like the shipping of wheat in the west. All the lines of railway are pressed into the service and while they are not equal to the task of shipping the grain out of that part of the country just as speedily as the producers would like them to do, no person would say that the railways are not doing the best they can. So are the coal mining companies. There is one feature in connection with the selling and shipping of coal and that is that there are two markets-the local market and the distant, or foreign market. There was hitherto considerable competition among the Nova Scotia coal companies for the St. Lawrence market but fortunately for the coal trade and for the owners of sailing vessels the growth and extent of the local market which is supplied by the sailing vessels, is convincing the coal producers that it is fast becoming a very valuable market and that it requires recognition from them. Only the other day I was speaking with Mr. D. D. Mann, of the Inverness Coal Company, and he assured me that so profitable was the local market becoming that his company had made up their mind that it would be a case of first come first served as regards sailing vessels or steamrs at their shipping ports. The Mabou mine, another valuable mine in Inverness county, has vigorously started out to produce coal, and they advertise that as between the sailing vessel and the steamer it will also be a case of first come first served. There is another feature in connection with this congestion of shipping at Port Hastings and other Inverness coal ports which I might call the attention of the House to, and that is the very great superiority of the coal produced there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This question has been frequently discussed in the press of the maritime provinces and in the legislatures as well. The hon. gentleman who brought the matter to the attention of the House has not seen fit to suggest to the minister-that is providing this parliament has any power to deal with the question-any remedy. It has been said that in the United States certain customs exist at the coal loading ports, but as to that we have no evidence, and it does seem as if, before the subject was brought forward as it has been, the hon. gentlemen from Prince Edward Island should have been able to suggest some remedy for the grievance. For various reasons, last year was a peculiar year in the coal trade of Nova Scotia. Owing to the lateness of the opening of navigation on the St. Lawrence the coal companies could not begin to fill their
contracts until late in June, and as the trade with the St. Lawrence has been increasing greatly during the past ten years, and as there were very large orders last year, the time for the delivery of the coal was more limited than in previous years. Again, in the Springhill mines in Cumberland county, one of the largest coal producing mines in Nova Scotia outside of the island of Cape Breton, there was a strike, and in consequence there was a tremendous demand on the capacity of the mines in Pictou county, Inverness county, and Cape Breton county. While these gentlemen who have written in the press so vigorously had doubtless a grievance, yet it is only fair to remember the conditions under which the coal trade of the province was conducted last year. In conjunction with the causes I have mentioned, there is the further cause that the small consumers in the various provinces locally, did not attempt to get their supply of coal until late in the season, and having waited with their orders until the last minute there was more difficulty in supplying them. I do not think any one has the- right to assume that the coal companies deliberately intend to discriminate in this matter. Under ordinary conditions and if the opportunities for shipping were normal in each year, there is no doubt that the coal companies would do all in their power to supply anybody and everybody who might come along. We have had a great development in the coal trade of Nova Scotia in recent years, a developuent which did not take place during the time our friends opposite were in power although they claimed to be the friends of the coal industry ; a development which awaited the coining into power of the present government. Then coal areas which for many years remained untouched were brought into operation, and as a consequence new companies were pressing for business and making contracts to sell coal here and there so as to dispose of the immensely increased production. I might point out that the complaints which my hon. friends have given vent to to-day have no bearing against the coal companies in the county I have the honour to represent, or in the county of Cape Breton, but were confined to the county of Inverness. In proof of the fact that tiiere was some discrimination there a letter was produced from the manager of one of the mines to the effect that it was impossible for them to supply coal locally until the St. Lawrence was frozen over, which meant that this Inverness Coal and Railway Company had taken large contracts in Montreal which under the conditions of the shortened season of navigation it was encumbent on them to fill. Taking into account the abnormal season of last year and the deferring until the last minute of local coal orders, the natural result was that vessel owners might expect some difficulty in getting supplies. But they were not the only

people who experienced this difficulty because those who got supplies by rail throughout the province met with the same experience. If there was any evidence of a determined discrimination on the part of the coa! companies against the small dealers a remedy would have to be found in some way, but I do not think there is evidence of any such thing. As a matter of fact, I can tell my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island that I will undertake to be answerable for any coal companies in Pictou county, that they will supply all the schooners that can be sent over this summer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My constituents in the Magdalen Islands are making the same complaints that have been voiced here this afternoon, and I would like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) if he will give a guarantee that the people of the Magdalen Islands will be sup-P'ied with coal, just as he has promised that the people of Prince Edward Island will get a supply.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have the greatest pleasure in assuring the Postmaster General that the only mistake his constituents have made in the past has been that they have not come to the right place for coal, and that if they come to the county of Pictou they will get their coal without any delay or difficulty. Complaints have been made in regard to Norwegian vessels engaging in this trade. I am sure that my hon. friend who mentioned these vessels failed to apprehend that there is not the slightest connection between the usual supply of coal to schooners and the participation of the Norwegian vessels in the St. Lawrence trade. Unfortunately we have not in the mercantile marine of the maritime provinces or of Canada to-day, one-fourth the number of vessels registered under the British flag that are necessary to carry the quantity of coal which we send up the St. Lawrence from the province of Nova Scotia every year, and perforce we have to go abroad in order to get the necessary vessels. We would of course prefer to get those sailing under the British flag, but our people have to get them wherever they can get them ; and as we send up the St. Lawrence between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 tons of coal every year, and as this has to be moved within the space of three or four months, I would like to ask the hon. gentlemen who suggest too quick a method of removing from our Canadian waters the vessels sailing under a foreign flag which are engaged in this coal trade, to take into consideration the question where the vessels are going to come from to supply the deficiency, so as to make sure that that coal will be sent up the St. Lawrence every year ; because that trade is absolutely essential to the development of the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia. The Mr. MACDONALD.
difficulty to which my hon. friend referred is one which has no relation to any other province, and it must be worked out with the greatest possible care, realizing that, until we have in Canada a sufficient supply of vessels for the purpose, it will be imperilling the coal industry of Nova Scotia to take too drastic measures with regard to the vessels at present engaged in that trade. I only rose, as representing a coal producing county, to point out to the House and the country generally, that, so far as the county that I have the honour to represent is concerned, there has always been fair treatment accorded to schooners carrying coal, t will not express any opinion as to the right of this parliament to deal with this question. It is a grave and somewhat unique question. It is a matter of uncertainty whether this parliament can deal with the rights of lessees in the province of Nova Scotia in regard to the disposition of their products in the ordinary way, because, after all, that is the problem. It seems to me, however, that this discussion must elicit the fact that the difficulty which occurred last year is not one that is general or is likely to continue, but has been due to the peculiar conditions of last year, which I hope will not be found to arise in this or in any future year.


Alexander Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question, particularly to the maritime provinces, where it is a more live question than it is in other parts of the country. But the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) has been a little too serious in complaining that neither of our hon. friends from Prince Edward Island suggested a remedy, because it was not a remedy which these hon. gentlemen wanted.


Alexander Martin: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I suggested a remedy. I do not think the hon. gentleman has a right to attribute motives to me in taking up this question. If his motives are not correct, it is not for him to say that mine are not correct.


Alexander Johnston: My hon. friend is quite astray ; he has not suggested any remedy at all. If my hon. friend had desired a remedy, he would have moved in an altogether different channel. There are certain people who could have remedied this matter ; there are people who as a matter of fact have remedied it as far as it can be remedied, but not as a result of any representation from Prince Edward Island.


Alexander Martin: If you have a remedy, tell ns what it is.


Alexander Johnston: I certainly have a remedy, and I will tell it to my hon. friend; but I shall disappoint him-I shall spoil his little game. Now, I understand that re-

presentations were made to my hon. friend in regard to this matter some time ago. Am J not correct ?


Alexander Martin: What representations do you refer to ?


Alexander Johnston: Were there no representations made to my hon. friend ?


Alexander Martin: If you know what the representations were, tell it.


Alexander Johnston: I have an idea.


Alexander Martin: An idea ? You have no idea in your head.


Alexander Johnston: It is getting a little too warm for my hon. friend ; but he must not complain if he is told the truth, occasionally


Angus Alexander McLean: So far as I am concerned, I want to tell the hon. gentleman that no representations were made to me except those which come from the legislature of Prince Edward Island and from the captains whose petition I read to the House.


Alexander Martin: I can say the same thing, and I would like to know now what representations the hon. gentleman refers to.


Alexander Johnston: I understood that my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island were speaking this afternoon as a result of certain representations which had been made to them. If no representations have been made to them, I can quite understand their position. I take it, then, that the fact that no representations have been made to them accounts for the extraordinary position they take.


Alexander Martin: I do not want the hon. gentleman to put words into my mouth. I told him distinctly that no representations were made to me except what I referred to when I spoke.


Alexander Johnston: Then I am to assume that representations were made to my hon. friend in regard to this matter. If representations had been made to my hon. friend, as I am bound to assume they were


Alexander Martin: Your representations don't fit.


Alexander Johnston: I was right, it is evident, when I assumed earlier that the facts were the last thing my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Martin) desired with regard to this question. It was not a remedy for this alleged grievance that my hon. friend desired.


Angus Alexander McLean: What representations does the hon. gentleman refer to ? I do not know what he means.


Alexander Johnston: I am satisfied now none were made to my hon. friend. Alter he had finished his operations a little while ago, I came to the conclusion that none had been made to him. His remarks showed such an absolute want of knowledge on the question, that I cannot imagine he had received any representations. As my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has pointed out, the immediate question arose in connection with the difficulty at Port Hastings last fall. As my hon. friend has pointed out, the Dominion Coal Company have made special provisions for attending to the class of shipping referred to this afternoon. Some years ago a question arose of alleged discrimination against sailing vessels, but steps were taken by those interested to provide a remedy. Representations, for instance, had been made to myself, but when they were, I did not take the course followed by my hon. friend. I did not conceal the representations in my pocket, but went with them to the people who could remedy the grievance. I went to the operators of the mines in Nova Scotia and Cape Bretou, who are reasonable people ; and I may tell my hon. friend something perhaps he does not know, and that is that every coal operator in Nova Scotia is anxious to accommodate this particular trade of which he speaks. It is a profitable trade for them. There is not a coal operator who would not be pleased to be in a position to deal with it. I made representations some three or four years ago to the Dominion) Coal Company, and that company took steps to provide specially for the accommodation of this particular class of traffic about which my hon. friend is so much concerned. I can tell him that the Dominion Coal Company all last year were advertising in the newspapers for schooners to come to the coal pier which the company had constructed specially for the accommodation of this class of shipping, and a large number of these schooners did come. The company were prepared to accommodate more than they were able to get. At the other piers of the company there were from time to time people who represented that they had not been properly treated. I made representations to the company, and they assured me that during the coming season they will, at least three days in the week, give preference to the particular class of craft referred to. If my hon. friend had been interested in this question in any other respect than as a grievance, he -would have sought some information from the people engaged in the trade, and he would have found out that they are making provision to the best of their ability for the accommodation of this traffic. My hon. friend ought to know that the coal companies in Nova Scotia have, in order to keep their men about them, to go into the markets in advance and sell their coal. They

go out months in advance in order to find a market and enter into contracts for the supply of coal, and if they fail to deliver according to contract they are under a forfeit. And it might well happen that when a schooner arrives on a certain day, there is no coal available on that particular day because the company has already sold that day's supply and is under contract to deliver it to a buyer who bought it perhaps months in advance. These are some of the difficulties. They were correctly outlined by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Roche) a short time ago, when he pointed out that it is somewhat difficult to say to any company engaged in coal mining that it cannot make provision for the sale and transportation of its own coal. The coal companies charter their own fleets of steamers, sell their own coal, and carry it on those steamers. In no other way can they successfully conduct their operations. The St. Lawrence market is the one upon which, in the main, the collieries of Nova Scotia depend, and the main portion of the coal mined in Nova Scotia must be marketed in the St. Lawrence, and marketed not by the particular class of craft referred to, but by large steamers. So far as the grievances of the schooners are concerned, they have been removed as far as possible. I have consulted not alone the Dominion Coal Company but other proprietors in Nova Scotia, and they all assure me that they were willing to go to the extent to accommodate this particular class of vessels.' During the coming season they are going to lay themselves out still further to meet the demands made upon them. I would say to my hon. friend, the Postmaster General, who wrote me a short time ago, that I have directed the attention of the Dominion Coal Company in my county to the representations made by him. The general sales agent of the company assured me not later than last night, that if schooners from the constituency of the Postmaster General were in need of coal, he would be prepared to accommodate them during the coming season. Any impartial observer who takes the trouble to ascertain the facts, must admit that reasonable efforts are being made by the coal companies to meet the demands upon them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to interfere in the debate except to say that a few days ago I received a letter from the local member for the Magdalen Islands complaining of the trouble experienced in the last few years in getting coal from the collieries in Cape Breton, and he wanted me to see my hon. friend who represents Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) and endeavour to have satisfactory provisions made for the future. After talking the matter over with my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), I was glad to learn that they will Mr. JOHNSTON.
do their best with the collieries so as to have the people from Magdalen Island accommodated. I have the fullest confidence in my hon. friend's judgment and good intentions, and the electors of Magdalen Island will be glad to know that in the future they will get their coal at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P. E. I.).: There is no doubt that the owners and masters of small sailing vessels who were detained for weeks last autumn at Port Hastings and some other places where they were accustomed to get coal, and finally had to leave without cargoes, while they saw steamers arriving long after they had arrived, get cargoes and leave-there is no doubt that these men were subjected to loss and hardship and annoyance. They lost a trip of their vessels ; they had to disappoint the customers to whom they expected to supply coal ; and they had the annoyance of waiting there for some weeks and leaving, in many cases, without coal. This is a somewhat difficult thing to remedy. It appears that the demand for coal last year, at some of the coal ports was unusually large. This is one of the signs of the ' growing time.' I suppose that, in a growing country like this, where the demand for coal is increasing rapidly every year, some inconvenience will be experienced, particularly when vessels leave it somewhat late in the year before applying for their usual coal supply. The masters of these vessels did a reasonable thing, a natural thing, in applying where they thought they might find a remedy, in making their grievances known, in applying to the legislatures, and to the members of parliament. And the knowledge obtained in that way has perhaps resulted, or will result, in bringing about a remedy. For my own part, I have received several representations from captains on this subject. I have also received a resolution passed by the legislature of Prince Edward Island, and a resolution passed by the Board of Trade of Charlottetown. I have brought these resolutions to the notice of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and to the notice of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), because he is one of the ministers from the maritime provinces. But it appears to me that there was great difficulty in the government interfering in private business of that kind, and saying when and how and to whom the coal mine owners should sell coal, and in what way they should sell it. I am not learned in the law, but still I could see a difficulty in any government interfering in private business. Of course, I can imagine a condition of things arising that would be so important to the country that the government would be obliged to interfere for the greatest good of the people. But that condition, I am satisfied, has not yet arisen.

Now, in order to arrive at something practical in the way of a settlement of this difficulty during the present year, I made it my business to meet some of the directers of the coal companies from which the people of Prince Edward Island get their supplies. Mr. McLean, a director of the Port Hood mines was one of the directors I met. I represented this matter to him, and found that he had been considering it himself and with his co-directors. He told me that he was very much impressed with the representations that I and others made on the subject. He said that he believed his company in the future, would pay more attention to the supply of domestic consumers. They were looking at it from a business standpoint, and realizing that the domestic consumption of coal was increasing every year and would continue to increase, and that it would be a permanent demand, whereas by industrial concerns consumption of coal at Montreal or some of the other great points might be large one year and might fall off another year for causes, perhaps, general in their operations, he considered that it would be better for his company, which was supplying a good quality of coal, to cater first to the local domestic consumption, and then give the surplus, whatever it might be, to the industrial corporations in the large centres. He told me that, so far as his company was concerned, he believed it would pursue that course next year, and probably in the years to come. I also had occasion to speak to Mr. Mann, of the firm of Mackenzie & Mann, the owners of the Inverness mines. The Inverness coal, I may say, has an excellent reputation as a coal for domestic consumption; the people like to get it wherever it is possible to do so. And this was the colliery that caused the greatest congestion of sailing vessels last year. I pointed out the case to Mr. Mann. He told me that the company had had large orders for coal from the great consuming centres, such as Montreal and others; but he, too, recognized the importance of the domestic demand, and informed me that his company were taking steps to meet this domestic demand during the coming season. He thought that all reasonable objections would he removed, and intimated that, as far as possible, the local men should apply for their coal as early as possible in the season. Now, I think this was a practical way of going to work and a practical way of finding a remedy. I do not, of course, object to lion, gentlemen bringing up the matter in their own way and taking up a good deal of the time of parliament, but I really think the good work was all done before this afternoon and before the matter was brought up in the House. I am convinced that the grievance-a real grievance -that we complained of last year will be largely removed this year by the action of the coalmine owners themselves. And, if
that can be brought about, that is a practical way and the best way of doing it. If that cannot be brought about, and if there is great hardship inflicted upon the people for the want of coal, I presume that parliament would have to interfere. But I hope and trust-and I believe-that such a condition will not arise.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Lunenburg).: I have heard complaints in my constituency similar to that made by the two hon. members for Prince Edward Island this afternoon. But, whatever be the justification for these complaints, I submit that it is not a fair matter for discussion in this House [DOT] and I suspect very strongly that the hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken regarding the alleged discrimination, against sailing vessels are rather interested in votes than in coal. I cannot imagine what authority this parliament would have to deal with the subject. It is clearly a case which would come within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. I assume that this might very easily be done by an amendment of the charter of the various coal companies operating in Nova Scotia.
Now, this matter was discussed in the Nova Scotia provincial assembly just a few weeks ago. One of the chief promoters of the agitation against certain of the collieries of Nova Scotia was Mr. Moses H. Nickerson, who moved a resolution asking the Nova Scotia legislature to inquire into this grievance and as to the facts alleged against the collieries. In moving his resolution, he expressly stated that, upon investigation, the charges related only to the Inverness Coal and Railway Company. That resolution was supported by the legislature of Nova Scotia unanimously. It was accepted bv the premier of Nova Scotia. The resolution asked that the government take steps to ascertain the facts, and then, after learning all the facts, to deal with it if the facts seemed to justify intervention. The Premier of Nova Scotia, in closing his remarks, states :
However the situation might he in that particular, he was personally only too pleased to endorse the resolution calling upon the government to take steps to ascertain the facts, and after they obtained the facts they could determine the remedy, if any there was, under the powers of the provincial government.
Now, I submit that it is the provincial government of Nova Scotia alone which can deal with an issue of this kind, and that seems to be the opinion of the members of the legislature of that province, on both sides. In looking at the discussion upon this question I was impressed with a statement made by the member for Inverness, who I think put the matter very well, and 1 along the same lines as was done this after-

noon by tlie member for Inverness (Mr. McLennan) :
Hon. Mr. Macdonald said he was in full sympathy with the owners of schooners employed in carrying; coal, and when this agitation was coming on he thought the coal companies were at fault, and in order to satisfy himself he made a private investigation into the matter. One thing he found wa= that owing to the lateness of the spring last year the coal companies-he referred particularly to the Inverness and Richmond Company-notified their customers in the maritime provinces that they were prepared to load anv class of vessels with' despatch in the month of .May and up to the time that navigation opened in the St. Lawrence, but they met with no response. As a matter of fact, up to the middle of June, very little shipping was done. It must be remembered that in order to keep their mines in operation they had to make contracts for the delivery of coal np the St. Lawrence, as had all the companies in the island of Cape Breton, and they sent that notification out for the purpose of relieving the pressure when navigation opened in the St. Lawrence so that they would be that much ahead. But there was no response to the notice, and the schooners did not appear in any numbers, and as the result when the St. Lawrence cleared, they at once went to work filling there contracts for shipment up the St. Lawrence with as much despatch as possible. It must be remembered that as the result of the operation of these mines our people enjoyed good markets and steady employment, but the mines could not be operated if the company were prevented from filling their contracts.
Further on he says:
There had been accusations made against this particular company, but he maintained they were not well founded. He knew how this crusade started, and he could give some explanation of the motives behind it, but he would omit that for the present. Referring to the matter of the refusal of the company to supply a schooner with a barrel of coal-
Which alleged charge was referred to by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. A. Martin) this afternoon. The speaker said:
-he had investigated that, and the manager explained that he considered the request a joke. He was explaining the matter to the captains and trying to show them how impossible dt was for him at that time to do any better than lie was doing. He was up against a large contract that he was bound to fulfil or pay the penalty. If he had any choice in the matter he, would prefer the market in the maritime provinces, for one reason because the prices were better and it was in the interests of the company to sell as .much coal in the maritime provinces as possible, but the contracts for delivery up the St. Lawrence were necessary to keep the mine in operation and they had to be filled.
Now, I think that statement is a clear explanation on beliaif of the Inverness Coal and Railway Company, which seems to have been the only colliery complained of dur-Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
ing tlie last season. Since this matter has been brought to the attention of tne Nova Scotia legislature, the only body authorized or competent to deal with it, I think we had better leave it with them, and because it is a matter with which this House has nothing to do either one way or the other.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This question was brought some time ago to the attention of the department. I believe it was in the beginning of February that complaints reached the department to the effect that sailing vessels were discriminated against in loading coal at the collieries. At first we thought it was not possible for us to deal with this question except in cases where the wharfs or piers at which these vessels were loading, were under the control of the department. I caused some inquiries to be made from one of the complainants, who informed the department that the piers where they had been delayed belonged to the Dominion Coal Company, the Nova Scotia Steel Company, and also the Inverness Coal Company and the Acadian Coal Company at Plctou. He did not give, however, a statement of the dates when me delays occurred, he only mentioned those collieries as being those at which some delays occurred, without giving those other particulars. I thought it proper to communicate with our agent in Halifax, Mr. Parsons, in order to ascertain the nature of the complaints and whether it was possible to do anything in the matter. I received an answer from Mr. Parsons to the effect that these piers were all private property, that they were in no sense under the control of this government. If these piers at which sailing vessels were calling were government property, of course we might adopt some regulation that would meet the situation. But they all belong to the coal companies, and consequently the owners can do as they like. Now my hon. friend wants this government to regulate the way in which these mine owners shall sell and deliver their coal. That would be a very serious step to take; I do not know whether my hon. friend has given the matter all the consideration it deserves, I suppose he has done so. But once we undertake to interfere with the civil rights of any citizen in this country under the pretext of regulating trade, we enter upon a very serious undertaking. A citizen of the hon. gentleman's province is raising wheat, or oats, or potatoes, and he is certainly free to sell his produce in any way he likes; and what would my hon. friend think if this government were to frame a law by which a citizen of that province was obliged to deliver his grain or vegetables in such manner as this government thought best?


Angus Alexander McLean: Does not this government undertake to regulate trade in canned meats, for instance hogs and pork?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is true that we are regulating the sale of these things, we are regulating what should constitute the weight of a bushel of corn, or a bushel of potatoes, and what shall constitute a ton of coal. But what would he think of a law by which farmers were obliged to deliver their oats or potatoes in the quantity or to the person designated by this government. I am afraid that would be a dangerous step to take.


Alexander Martin: Is it not a fact that at Fort William and Port Arthur where the Canadian Pacific Railway and other private companies have elevators, the steamers have the privilege of loading in their regular turn, under a regulation of this government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Tnose harbours are public property.


Alexander Martin: Are not the elevators public property?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, the elevators are not public property.


Alexander Martin: Has not the Governor in Council power to regulate the way in which business is done at these harbours?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Where it is a public harbour or a public wharf well and good ; we have the right to interfere and to see that every one is treated in the same way, that vessels can load or unload in their turn, but tyhere it is a private property, as is the case here, it is another matter.


Alexander Martin: Are the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators private elevators ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think so, but they are in a public harbour. Take the case of these private wharfs, my hon. friend wants to force these collieries by legislation, to deliver coal to anybody who will go to one of their wharfs.


Alexander Martin: In their turn.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not only in their turn, but absolutely. Suppose my hon. friend were the owner of a vessel there and they would not do any business with him, how could he force them to ?


Alexander Martin: They are there to do business with any person who pays the price of the coal. If he pays the price of the coal the government, as I read the Act, have the power to make regulations in regard to this as they have made them in regard to it at Montreal and some other points. If they have done it at these other points then I claim it is right they should do so here.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am only pointing out the difficulties that are in the way. Suppose my hon. friend is a farmer, and a merchant comes to him and says : I want to purchase five bushels of oats or potatoes. My hon. friend would say :	No, I do not
want to sell five bushels ; I want to sell a larger quantity.


Alexander Martin: It is not a case at all of refusing to sell. They advertise to sell and they are ready to sell, but they say : We are ready to sell to you but we will keep your vessels here until some other vessels which have come after you are loaded.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the point that I intended to make. Perhaps, when I have made it, the hon. gentleman will see the serious difficulties that are in the way. I do not say that I do not sympathize with the situation made to these smaller vessels, but I am trying to point out some of the difficulties. Returning to this illustration that I was going to give about the oats and potatoes,	suppose that a merchant comes to my hon. friend and says : I want to purchase five bushels of potatoes, and my hon. friend says :	No, I want to sell 100 bushels, or
200 busheis, or 1,000 bushels ; my hon. friend would be perfectly right in saying that. Potatoes and oats are just as much a necessity of life as coal is. Well then, my hon. friend sees the difficulties there are in the way of trying to force a private company to do business with a certain class of people in the way in which the government and parliament would like to have them do it. I am simply pointing out that difficulty. This is a question of property and civil rights. I think that the question has been dealt with in a proper manner by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) and that, as he has pointed out, this is a question to be dealt with, not by this parliament, but by the province. The question is in the hands of the province. If it had been possible for us to have dealt with that question, if it had been a public wharf, I would have dealt with it immediately. When the correspondence is brought down my hon. friend will see that I took steps immediately to ascertain whether these were public wharfs or not. I wrote to the agent in Halifax in order to find out the situation and he says in his report that the situation which at present exists has existed for thirty years. Now, coming to the question which has been raised by the hon. member for Queen's, as to why we should not give the port wardens authority in the matter, I think that perhaps he has not given to that question the consideration which it deserves. Did I understand my hon. friend to say that we should pass regulations giving to the port wardens authority in the matter ?


Alexander Martin: I said that we have given authority to the port wardens at certain large ports, such as Quebec, Montreal, St. John and Halifax, and if we have done so at these ports I do not see why we should not give the same authority to the port wardens at other ports. The question I raised



has not been answered by the minister because he refers to these as private wharves. I referred him to several private elevators where they are subjected to rules and regulations which compel them to permit the loading of vessels in turn and if such a regulation applies to elevators and if the Governor in Council has power to make such regulations I do not see why the government could not do the same with reference to vessels at these coal loading ports.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As to this question of the port wardens, I see by section 875 of the Shipping Act, defining the duties and powers of port wardens, that the business which they have to perform does not at all relate to the point which my hon. friend wants to make :
The port wardens shall, at the request of any person interested proceed in person on board of any vessel for the purpose of examining the condition and stowage of her cargo, and if there are any goods damaged on board of snch vessel, he shall enquire, examine and ascertain the cause of such damage and make a memoranchim thereof, and enter the same in full on the books of his office.
If my hon. friend reads the definition of the duties and powers of port wardens, in this Act, he will find that the duties of port wardens have absolutely nothing to do with the placing and loading of vessels in a harbour. All they have to do is to see that a vessel is properly loaded.


Alexander Martin: Does the minister pretend to tell me that the harbour master or port warden has not the power to say where a vessel shall lie in the harbour, what wharf she shall lie at or what position she shall take ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend was referring to the port wardens. I am trying to show him that the duties of the port warden, under the Act, do not cover the point -which he was trying to make. His duties are absolutely different.


Alexander Martin: The minister is not answering iny question.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am going to answer it. My hon. friend has been interrupting me and I am trying to make my points as quickly as possible, but, unfortunately, he goes faster than I do. He must see that the duties of the port warden have absolutely nothing to do with the question of *whether we can force mine owners to load a sailing vessel or to discriminate between a sailing vessel and a steam vessel. As to the harbour masters, while they have the right to place vessels at public wharfs I do not think they have any jurisdiction over wharfs which are owned by private parties.


Angus Alexander McLean: They have the right to regulate any wharf whether it is public or private.


Mr. MARTIN (Queen's, P.E.I.).: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think my hon. friend is mistaken.


Angus Alexander McLean: I am not mistaken because I have had experience with it as a lawyer and have had cases. They have the power to regulate a private wharf.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend says he has experience in the matter and I do not say he is wrong, but I always understood that it was only at public wharfs the harbour master has the right to determine the berthing of vessels. For instance, at Montreal harbour the harbour master there has a right to locate a vessel, but have we the right to say to the owner of a private wharf that a sailing vessel shall be loaded at such an hour and a steam vessel at such another hour ? I do not think so.


Angus Alexander McLean: The. hon. minister is begging the question. I never said that. I said that under the regulations passed by the Marine and Fisheries Department the harbour master had the power to regulate how a vessel shall conduct itself at any pier whether it is private or public.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As to our constitutional right to deal with this question I fear it would be a serious step for us to undertake to regulate when and to whom a person shall sell his coal. I understand that the legislature of Nova Scotia is dealing with the question and I think it is much better to leave it in the hands of the provincial legislature than for this parliament to interfere, as it is a question of property and civil rights which falls under section 92 of the British North America Act rather than under section 91. I understand that some hon. members of the House have made representations to the coal companies about the matter and that is perhaps the proper way to deal with the question. In recent years there has been a great development of the coal trade. I remember that some years ago the industrial establishments of Montreal were using United States coal, but now I think that nearly all of it comes from Nova Scotia, and I should be sorry to see anything done which would restrict this trade and give opportunities to the Americans to take it up again. It is our duty to make every effort to encourage interprovincial trade and I am sure that the province of Prince Edward Island would be the first to manifest its desire in that direction. I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with some of the coal mine owners and they have informed me that the conditions of the coal trade last year were exceptional and that there would be no grievance this year. In view of all this I think the complaint of the hon. gentleman is hardly a live grievance to-day.

7762 [DOT]


Alexander Martin: The reply of the hon. minister is very unsatisfactory


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman having once spoken is. out of order in rising to speak again.


Alexander Martin: I am not going to speak. I was about to say that the reply of the hon. minister


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman is proceeding to make a speech.


Alexander Martin: I am not.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman says he is not, but he is proceeding to do so.


Alexander Martin: I desire to ask a question.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman desires to ask a question that is another matter.


Alexander Martin: I am going to ask the question if the minister thinks seriously that we should put these people in the hands of the coal owners who have dealt very tyrannically with them before. It may be something like the Japanese immigration ; you put yourselves in the hands of the Japanese


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order. The hon. gentleman is proceeding to make a speech.


Mr. BLAIN.: Before the House goes into Committee of Supply I have a matter to bring to the attention of the government, but it is now six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. CUSTODY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.


Richard Blain: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) directed the attention of the House to the fact that a large number of Are extinguishers had been purchased by this government during the past few years. Later on in the afternoon the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries took up the question in a personal explanation, and during the course of his remarks, which will be found on page 7901 of ' Hansard,' stated :
I sent over to the department for the file and I find that on July 20, 1906, Mr. Perreault applied to the depatment to sell some fire extinguishers, and on July 27, 1906, the letter which I have just quoted was written and signed by the deputy minister.
Further on in the discussion, after the hon. minister had quoted from the original file, Mr. Blain said :
246i
I suppose the hon. gentleman would have no objection to lay the file on the table?
Some further discussion took place which ended in the hon. minister laying the file on the table of the House. Immediately the House adjourned for six o'clock, and I applied to the clerk for the file, which was courteously given to me, with the understanding that I would return it before the close of that evening's sitting, so that the clerk, having the custody of the file, could lock it up in his vault. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), on the following morning, Saturday morning, applied for the file, and was told that immediately after it had been returned to the clerk on Friday night, the minister had come for it and had taken it away. This morning I made application to the clerk for the file, and the clerk immediately corresponded with the minister, with the result that at three o'clock, when the House opened, the file was not here. It is only fair to say that the minister sent for me and said that he was quite willing to have the whole file copied and the copies laid on the table of the House. I said to my hon. friend that was not the point, but that the point was as to whether the hon. minister, having quoted extensively from an original file, and having laid that file upon the table of the House, and while it was in the custody of the clerk for the use of members, would have the right to make application to the clerk and take the file away, and refuse to return it to the custody of the clerk. If any minister of the Crown has the right to do that, it will be impossible for the members of this House on the opposition side to make any thorough examination of any file or of any great public question. The hon. minister had no right to take that file away otherwise than to use it as any other member of the House would use it, and with the distinct understanding that he would return it to the clerk so that other members of the House could have an opportunity to use it. I cannot understand why the hon. minister should not have been quite willing to leave the file with the clerk. Is there anything in it which the members of this House should not see? We have had a good deal of discussion recently in regard to original documents. We have been told that copies were as valuable for the discussion of public questions as originals; but we have found that that was not the case, because when the originals were brought down, after a contest in the House, they told a very different story from the copies. As to whether the originals will tell a different story from the copies in this ease, I do not know, because I have had no opportunity as a private member to go fully over the file. I scanned it in the short time at my disposal. The file is a rather large one. The hon. minister has the original before him now. I take the ground that the minister has no

more right to these public documents after they are placed on the table of the House and in the custody of the clerk than any other member of this House.


Mr. TALBOT.: Will the hon. member allow me a question ? Suppose some business were to be transacted in the department in connection with some matters to which a part of this file referred, would not the minister be justified in calling that file back in order that he might transact that business?


Richard Blain: I want to be courteous towards my hon. friend. There is a way of getting the file. There certainly is the way laid down by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior a few days ago in a discussion on this important question. In answer to my hon. friend I may say that if any great public investigation were going on, and the hon. minister required the original file, he could bring the matter up in the House, and I am sure that the House would unanimously say that the original documents should be used. But to say that after a document has been laid on the table of the House, any minister of the Crown has the right to go to the clerk and take it away, and to suggest that he would put a copy in place of it, is something which I am sure neither this House nor the people of Canada will tolerate. I have before me ' Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure,' which at page 461 says :
It has been laid down by the highest authorities that when a minister of the Crown quotes a public document in the House, and founds upon it an argument or an assertion, that document, if called for, ought to be produced. But it is allowable to repeat to the House information which is contained in a private communication. When such private papers are quoted in the House there is no rule requiring them to be laid on the table. The rule respecting the production of public papers, quoted by a minister of the Crown, is necessary to give the House the same information he possesses and enable it to come to a correct conclusion on a question.
That is the opinion of a gentleman whose authority of course is accepted by the right hon. the First Minister aud every member of this House. I do not wish to detaiD the House at any length. This fire extinguisher question has created considerable excitement among the people. They are very much aroused at the idea that any man should sell fire extinguishers in so large a number to this government simply to be stored away in the city of Montreal. And, according to the correspondence, while they were stored away in Montreal, the department purchased other fire extinguishers. Mr. Charles Patton sold 600 at $15 each during 1903-4 and was paid $9,000. In 1907-8 he sold 100 more to this government at $15 each and received $1,500. And a new firm, styled Patton & Crowe, sold 95 more at $15 a piece, and were paid $1,425. As to whe-Mr. BLAIN.
ther the Patton of Patton & Crowe is the original Charles Patton I do not know. 1 have had no opportunity of examining the file to ascertain if that be the case, but 1 presume that he is. However on that point I may be wrong. What explanation can the minister give why he should have stepped in and taken away the original documents, and then, in answer to myself, promise to bring down in a day or two, when the opportunity presented itself, copies of these, original documents. I presume he will do so, but I repeat I am not aware that any minister of the Crown has the right, after having laid a file on the table and after having quoted extensively from it, to go to the clerk aud take it away from him and say that he will replace it by copies. Let me just give one extract from the file, which will no doubt create some interest among members of this House and the people in general, as a sample of what the file held:
Ottawa, July 8, 1903.
Copy of an agreement.
Por and in consideration of $1 and other good and valuable considerations, receipt acknowledged, the undersigned hereby agrees to and binds himself to pay C. S. Cameron the sum of $2,000 in the following manner: $1,000 on receipt of an order from the Department of Marine and Fisheries for 500 of my Star Glass-lined Chemical Fire Extinguishers, and a further $1,000 three months after date of the receipt of said order and pro rata thereof for -any order.


CHARLES PATTON.
[Stage Direction]
So we have reached the point in connection with these fire extinguishers when Mr. Patton is able, out of bis payment of $15 for fire extinguishers to pay Mr. Cameron the handsome sum of $4 apiece for securing an order from the government.
Mr. TAYLOR.: To whom does he agree to pay it?


Richard Blain: To C. S. Cameron.
The above is a true copy of the agreement between Charles Patton and the undersigned.


C. S. CAMERON.
[Stage Direction]
What happened ? Did Mr. Patton sell any fire extinguishers to the government ? Of course he did. An order was secured and $9,000 was paid. That is what the original document told us. I do not wish to take up the time of the House quoting any further extracts or copies from the letters on the file; but I say that, in fairness to the House and the country, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should place with the clerk the original file, so that every member of this House may have the opportunity of looking into it. It is no excuse for him to say he will give a copy. He might have had the right in the discussion to say that he would only lay on the table the letters he quoted-on which point I offer no opinion-but of his own free will
[Stage Direction]
he placed the whole file on the table and as I understood, put it In charge o£ the clerk of the House. Under the circumstances, I do not see that he has the right to take away again that file from the clerk. If after having laid the file on the table, he made application to the clerk before any other member had the opportunity of doing so, and carried away the file, he would thus deprive any other member of the right to look at it at all. After we have had so much discussion over the retention of public documents by this government, over their secrecy, and over their efforts to keep back original documents from the inspection of the House, and in view of the suspicions that have been aroused among hon. members on this side and the people owing to that secretive method, one would hardly expect that the hon. minister would think for a moment of keeping away this original file from inspection by the members of this House ; and I submit we have the right to expect that he will stand up in his place and agree to return the original file to the clerk, which he laid on the table in the discussion on Friday last.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say at the outset that I am extremely surprised at the unfairness which has just been exhibited by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). I have never seen such an unfair presentation of a case. Let me state the facts and we shall then see whether my hon. friend was in the slightest degree justified in the statement he has just made and whether I have not shown, since this incident has occurred, the best good will possible to furnish to my hon. friend what information he wanted. What has occurred? Let me give you a sample of the manner in which my hon. friends opposite are disposed to carry out discussion in this House or outside, so far as the Department of Marine and Fisheries and myself are concerned.	Insinuationslow, base insinuations-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The language is unparliamentary.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I withdraw the word.
Mr. FOSTER, Two words.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I withdraw the expression. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat knows very well that all my conduct with regard to this file has been most honourable. On Friday last the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), without having had the courtesy to give me notice, brought up this question of fire extinguishers which were bought from a Mr. Perreault, of Quebec, in 1906. He quoted from the report of the Civil Service Commission and the appendix to that report And here is what he said:
Let me draw attention to a letter which he wrote

He was speaking of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But I might read the whole reference :
Last evening we listened to the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) eulogizing himself for the course he has pursued since he became minister of that department. Let me draw attention to a letter which he wrote, following the lines on which his predecessor had worked. It will be found in the report of the commissioners on page 79. It was written bv the minister to Mr. Gregory at Quebec and was dated July 27, 1906:
So, you see, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Leeds stated that I had written the letter.


George Taylor: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) read the whole of the letter ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, I shall be very glad to do so. The letter reads as follows :
I have to inform you that if you consider that chemical fire extinguishers are necessary on board the vessels of the Quebec agency you are to purchase them from P. E. Perreault, 312 St. John street, Quebec. Mr. Perreault has been advised to call upon you in connection with this matter.
And, later on, we have the following :


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Where does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) find that I ever signed such a letter?
Here is a man who had not the courtesy to tell me that he was going to bring up this question, and yet he took the opportunity to make the assertion that I had signed this letter.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) cannot find in ' Hansard' that I said he had signed it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly. Here it is. Mr TAYLOR. Let him read it Mr. BRODEUR (reading) :
Last evening we listened to the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) eulogizing himself for the course he has pursued since he became minister of that department. Let me draw attention to a letter which he wrote. ... It will be found in the report of the commissioners on page 79. It was written by the minister.
Here is a man who had not the courtesy to state that he was going to bring forward this subject, and then he makes a statement of that kind. But that isn't all. For later on we find the following :


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Where does the hon. gen. tleman (Mr. Taylor) find that I ever 6igned such a letter?


George Taylor: If the minister will bring down the files, I will point out the letter.

He found the letter on the file and quotes it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tavlor) says he has seen the file and knows there is a letter written bv me? Does he assert that I have signed it?


George Taylor: The commissioners have gone through the files and have given the House their report stating what they found. They found this statement on the files.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no statement that I signed this letter.


George Taylor: If the minister will produce the letter, no doubt his signature will be found at the bottom of it.
So, the hon. gentleman's memory is bad.


George Taylor: No, it is not.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does the hon. gentleman assert that I signed that letter?


George Taylor: I am making no assertions. The hon. minister appointed a Royal Commission, and I am quoting what the Royal Commission said.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, that does not say that I signed the letter. Does the hon. gentleman say that I signed it?


George Taylor: The hon. minister will make his own speech. He made one last night-and of all the speeches I ever listened to since I came into this House over twenty years ago, that speech, as coming from a gentleman who ought to be a statesman, was the most extraordiary I ever heard.
That Is a good answer.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has stated that I signed that letter.


George Taylor: I did not make the statement.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I deny that I signed it.


George Taylor: Go on.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Something more ?
Mr. TAYLOR Yes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


George Taylor: I want to make my speech. The minister is not going to put me down. I am reading from the report of the Royal Commission. And I will give him the page -page 79. And any gentleman who reads that will say that it comes from the department to the agents at Quebec, and from the head of the department.


George Taylor: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman said I signed the letter.


George Taylor: I did not. The hon.-gentleman cannot find that.


Mr BRODEUR.: I find it here in * Hansard.'


George Taylor: No, you do not. I stated that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) wrote the letter. There is nothing in what I said about him signing it. He may have authorized his deputy to sign it, no doubt he Mr. BRODEUR.
did. It would not emanate from the department, however, without his authority.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What did the hon. gentleman (Mr Taylor) mean when he said that ' it was written by the minister to Mr. Gregory at Quebec ' ?


George Taylor: That does not say that the hon. gentleman signed it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Then, I am satisfied.


George Taylor: What is the minister for? His authority given to his deputy is the same as his own act.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am satisfied with the explanation of my hon. friend (Mr Taylor), that I did not sign the letter-he admits that now.


Mr. BARKER.: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask a question ? Will he say that he personally signs one-tenth of the letters from his department that are issued by his authority 1


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, on the contrary, many letters are sent out that I never see and do not sign.


George Taylor: But the minister is responsible all the same.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, let it go at that. Perhaps if the hon. gentleman had not intended to say more than that, he would not have put it as he did. Now, he was kind enough, after making that charge, to leave the House before I had an opportunity to answer.


George Taylor: I never run away. I had to catch the train to get home.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, let me repeat for the benefit of the hon. gentleman what I said on this subject. Perhaps, the next time he opens his mouth to speak against me he will be a little more eareful. The hon. gentleman states that this letter was sent by my instruction


George Taylor: My hon. friend must not take everything said against his department as said personally against himself. I was speaking of the department, as the commissioners spoke of the department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman said that the letter was written by me.


George Taylor: I consider that you are the department


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When I saw the statement the hon. gentleman made against me, I thought I would send to the department for the file. Perhaps 1 would have been able to asnwer him immediately if he had been kind enough to let me know that he was going to bring up this question. The letter is as follows :

The Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, July 27, 1906.
Sir,-I have to inform you that if you consider that chemical fire extinguishers are necessary on hoard the vessels of the Quebec agency, you are to purchase them from Mr. P. E. Perreault, of 312 St. John street, Quebec. Mr. Perreault has been advised to call upon you in connection with this matter.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,


F. GOURDEAU,
[Stage Direction]
Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries. J. TJ. Gregory, Esq.,
Agent Marine and Fisheries,
Quebec, Quebec.
George Taylor: Does the hon. minister mean that the deputy minister took the responsibility of writing such a letter without being advised by the head of the department ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am stating what happened. He seemed to be very much surprised at the reading of the letter, and seemed not to take my word, but wanted to have the file produced. I appreciate very much what these hon. gentlemen did, and I handed the file over that it might be seen by them. Now. my hon. friend states that the letter has been sent by my authority. I may say that he will find in the report of the' Civil Service Commissioners, letters from the department stating that they did not give any such instructions to purchase these fire extinguishers. More than that, I quoted the other day a letter which was sent to me by the hon. member for Quebec Centre (Mr. Lachance).
The letter was sent by Mr. Lachance on the 27th of October, 1906, of which the following is the translation:
Quebec, October 27, 1906.


Hon.  L. P.@: Brodeur.
Minister of Marine, Ottawa.
Could you not authorize Mr. Gregory to purchase them for the service of the lighthouses as well as in the steamers. Their efficacy has been several times shown by various experiments made at Quebec and elsewhere.
Yours truly,


ARTHUR LACHANCE.
[Stage Direction]
On the 6th March, 1907, he received this letter from me:
My Dear Member,-I received your letter of the 27th of October last concerning the extinguishers that Mr. Perreault desires to sell to the department. I have had Mr. Gregory written to on the subject and when his reply reaches the department I will communicate my decision.
I did not decide then, and there has never been any decision on my part to purchase fire extinguishers. What happened then ? Mr. Perreault applied de novo to sell fire extinguishers to the department and he received in reply this letter from the department:
I have *to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 6th instant with reference to fire extinguishers and have to advise you that none are required by the department.
First, there was a letter in July, 1906, asking for some fire extinguishers; then the deputy minister writes to the agent in Quebec on the 6th of May that if he requires fire extinguishers to take them from Mr. Perreault.
Mr. SPROULE.: That is hardly what the language would convey, ' I have to inform you.' Why do I have to inform you ? Presumably he was writing for somebody else.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, the deputy wrote, I have to inform you that if you require some fire extinguishers you may purchase them from Mr. So and So. Now that was in July. Some months later Mr.'Lachance, the member for Quebec centre, writes to me and asks whether I would purchase fire extinguishers from Mr. Perreault. I said,
I will write to the agent to find out what he says about it, and when I get his report I will communicate my decision to you. Later Mr. Perreault writes again, asking us to purchase fire extinguishers, and then he gets a letter from the department that we do not require any. That is the whole story, just as it happened. Now the hon. member for North Toronto and the hon. member for Peel did not seem to take my word when I read these letters, they wanted to see the originals.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think the minister is quite right in saying that because we wanted to see the originals we did not take his word. If we could only ask for the originals when we had the word of a minister, we would be in a pretty pass.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but that is the meaning I took from his request to see the original file. When he wanted to see the original-1 deduced that he did not accept my word for what I read.


Richard Blain: Will the minister show from the ' Hansard ' during the discussion where i refused to accept his word ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I simply say that the hon. member for North Toronto and the hon. member for Peel wanted to see those originals, and I deduced from their request that they doubted my word. More than that, when I saw that my word was not accepted
with regard to these copies


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend state to the House now where I refused to accept his word in the discussion that took place last week ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I quoted from the file, I read the documents on file, and I offered to furnish the copies, because I know that a minister has no right to refer to any written document unless he produces the copy of

that document before the House. But the member for North Toronto and' the member for Peel were not satisfied with my offer and asked for the originals. That is what happened, and I deduced from it that they did not accept my word.


George Eulas Foster: That is a mistake.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Now the hon. gentleman says that he did accept my word, and I am satisfied. I do not know why he wanted to see the originals. At ail events, I then stated that I did not like to part with the file for several reasons, and especially for this reason, that a document of great importance had some years ago been brought into the House from the department and handed over to an hon. member on the other side of the House, and was lost, it has never been returned to the department.


George Eulas Foster: If I remember rightly, after my hon. friend had made that statement he laid this file on the table.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, I laid the file on the table to be inspected, but I did "Ot wish to part with it.


George Eulas Foster: But you did.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I put it on the table there for the inspection of hon. gentlemen.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There was absolutely nothing to conceal. More than that, Mr. Speaker, I went with my hon. friend from Peel into the ' Hansard ' room. I pointed out to him the documents which I had read in the House and I said:	Here is a letter of the 20th of July, here is the answer and you see that it is signed by the deputy; here is a letter which was afterwards written by myself and here is the letter of Mr. Lachance, the member for Quebec centre. The hon. member for Peel was absolutely satisfied that what I had said was correct. These things did not happen in the House, but, as my conduct has been impugned to a certain extent and as I have been reproached with trying to prevent the House from knowing what is contained in this file,
I think I am justified in reporting the conversation which we had.
Mr. BLAIN, I am quite willing that the hon. gentleman should state everything I said in the House or out of it in connection with the whole matter, and I will have the same right too when he is through.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: After the hon. member saw this file he said : Perhaps I will see it at eight o'clock again. At eight o'clock he got the file and he kept it the whole evening, or during the whole sitting of the House. At the end of the sitting I thought he would be through. He had not only read the documents which I had put before the House concerning these purchases from Mr. Mr. BRODEUR.
Perreault but he read others. The documents concerning the purchases from Mr. Perreault were the documents which were before the House, they were the documents which had been read and the documents which hon. gentlemen had the right to see. I do not want to say that the hon. gentleman's conduct was irregular, but when he is given a file bearing upon a certain point what he has to do is simply to examine the file in regard to that point alone.


Richard Blain: That is another new doctrine.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But, he wanted to see whether the file would be interesting perhaps.


David Henderson: It would be interesting.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, it would be very interesting. We see that hon. gentlemen opposite are somewhat incensed by the fact that we have purchased fire extinguishers at a certain figure. I could quote a letter written in 1891, when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power-I do not think that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was Minister of Marine and Fisheries at that time-to show that these hon. gentlemen also purchased fire extinguishers. We paid $14 apiece for these fire extinguishers. It is an exorbitant price, said the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) the other day. What do I see ? I find the following dated the 17th June, 1891 :
I beg to inform yon that I have two large sized Babcock fire extinguishers in perfect order originally costing $15 each which I am willing to dispose of to the department at $30 each.
The offer was accepted and they were purchased at $30 each. I see that an order was given for these fire extinguishers by the minister :
I recommend the purchase of two fire extinguishers at the price named, namely $30, and that they be placed in two of our principal stations now without them.
This is signed ' C. H. T.' That shows that hon. gentlemen opposite were paying $30 for an article for which we are paying $14.


George Taylor: No, no.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No 7 The fire extinguishers that we have been buying are just as good as those. The Babcock fire extinguishers are not better than the others.


George Taylor: Yes, they are.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend cannot say that. .


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And they were second hand at that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: And they were second hand. Coming to what my hon. friend has

stated, he thought that he was justified in going over all of the file to see what was in it and just to think that he has discovered a big scandal in the form of the document which was signed by Mr. Cameron which he has read. But, my hon. friend should have sjtated the whole thing in regard to that. Since he wanted to make out a new scandal against the Department of Marine and Fisheries I think he would have been justified in quoting the whole document. If he had quoted it he would have found that an order was given to Mr. Cameron on the 9th March by the department and that the minister, Mr. Prefontaiue, hearing of it, gave instructions to cancel the order. So, the order, based upon the agreement which my hon. friend has read, was cancelled by the order of Mr. Prefontaine himself. That shows, Mr. Speaker, that, if my hon. friend wanted to give ail the information with regard to the purchase of fire extinguishers he should have quoted the whole thing and stated that the department would not recognize that transfer, that it would not give an order and that it cancelled the order which had been given to that man Cameron. That man Cameron complained to the department and the department said that they would not recognize such a thing. That shows that they have not been able to substantiate one of the hundreds of scandals that they tried to unearth in the department.
The hon. gentleman says that it is very unfortunate that I did not leave this file in his possession on Saturday. Does he not know that this matter is being investigated now before Mr. Justice Cassels ? All the facts which are mentioned in the report of the Civil Service Commission are being inquired into and this question of fire extinguishers is a very important subject in the report of the Civil Service Commission. Yet, my hon. friend says that we should have kept that file here instead of placing it before the commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That commission is not sitting now.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: It was sitting on Saturday. My hon. friend was making a great scandal because I took that file in order to place it before the commission. The officers of the department are working at the present time in order to put before the commission next Monday every contract and everything connected with all the purchases that have been made there during the last few years, including these documents, and still hon. gentlemen say :	No. Let us be fair
for a moment to the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Let us be fair for a moment to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, let us be fair to the men who are now brought before their judges on very serious charges. Let us give an opportunity to these men to defend themselves against these charges. That is what I am asking before the House.
I am ready to have copies made in order to get all the documents before the House. We will copy all this file and, if you want it we wil] copy the previous file concerning fire extinguishers. We may go back still further probably and copy the file of the time when the Conservatives were in power and we will bring all these documents before the House, but we want to have these documents copied and we do not want these documents to remain here in order that we shall be deprived of the opportunity of putting them before Mr. Justice Cassels.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All the ministers need do is to have a motion made in the House at any time f.or their return and they would be returned.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We need the papers just now, and if my hon. friend goes to the department to-night he will find the clerks working making copies of these contracts during the last four years in order to present them to the commission. The copies of the documents on this file have to be submitted to the commission also.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These documents were in possession of the House and it is only by motion that they can be disposed of. Were they required before- the commission on Saturday or were they asked for by the solicitors or any one connected with the commission? The commission has adjourned until next Monday.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The lawyers are working in the preparation of these documents and the clerks are busy copying them. I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) in all fairness if we should not have an opportunity to get them copied. I will have two copies made, one for the commission and one for the House, and I will bring the original afterwards if necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I am concerned about is that the papers have been laid on the table of the House and are in the possession of the House, and it is only on motion that they can properly be given back. When we get the evidence in a divorce case and other documents from the Senate we do not return them except by motion, and properly speaking we can only dispose of papers in possession of the House in the same wray. The minister himself took the liberty' to demand these papers . from the clerk of the House when other members could not pretend to exercise that authority.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman is mistaken ; these papers have not been laid before the House in the ordinary sense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They were laid on the table.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They were simply put there to be inspected.
Mr. BLAIN1. You read them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They were to remain in my possession.


Richard Blain: No. There is no use making that statement for the reason that when I applied for the original file which was laid on the table the clerk of the House said that I could have it on the distinct understanding that I would return it to him before the House closed in order that he would lock it up in his safe.
en place in the committee; if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) had followed the evidence he would have seen that one day Mr. Yenning stated before the committee


Mr.   SPEAICER@: The report of the commission has not yet been submitted to the House and until then no reference can be made to the proceedings in the committee.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was about to refer to it only by way of explanation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There was no motion made and no order of the House granted for the bringing down of these papers and consequently they have never been formally in possession of the House, hut were simply placed there for inspection. I have not seen the votes and proceedings but I think I am correct in saying that there was no entry with respect to these papers being brought down, and so they were not before the House in the legal sense of the word. I told the clerk of the House that I wanted to have these papers for the next sitting of the commission and he gave them to me, and I suppose all will admit that it is necessary to bring these papers before the royal commission. I know that my hon. friends opposite are going to state in their newspapers to-morrow that we are trying to hido every thing, but I can tell them that there is nothing to hide. I simply ask to have an opportunity of having copies made of the documents on this file. I do not want to have the file lost as was the Markey lease which was given to an hon. gentleman opposite and which has never since been returned.
Mr. BARKER, Does the minister state of his own knowledge or does he merely deduce it from certain circumstances ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That lease was brought down by the minister as was this document; it was laid on the table, it was taken by an hon. gentleman opposite and read by him in the House ; it was sent by him to the ' Hansard ' reporters and the * Hansard ' reporters gave it back to him and it never since has come back to the department. Later on we were asked to produce that original document and of course we did not have it.


Richard Stuart Lake: It was probably lost in the hon. gentleman's department..


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman can only do so with the consent of the House.


Samuel Barker: Let the hon. gentleman explain.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Venning stated before the committee at the first sitting that the original lease was not on the file and that he had not seen it. Then, on making inquiry X found that in 1904 Mr. Prefou-taine placed that document before the House as was stated in the ' Hansard ' and the document was read in the House by Mr. Boyd, a member of the opposition, and was handed to the ' Hansard ' reporters and according to the usual custom the reporters gave that document back to Mr. Boyd, and we have never seen that document since.


Samuel Barker: It was proven before the Public Accounts Committee that the department had sent one copy to the lessee ; that they had no copy themselves, and the hon. gentleman did not attempt to state in the committee what he says to-day.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Neither Mr. Yenning nor myself knew any thing about it when the question first came up in the committee. Mr. Venning was simply speaking from the file he had before him and he said he did not find the lease on the file. Later on search was made and Mr. Venning came before the Public Accounts Committee again and stated exactly what I am saying now with regard to that document. We will have copies made of this entire file if that is what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) wants.


Richard Blain: The minister having placed the original file on the table of the House, what I want the hon. gentleman to do is to put it back where it was.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, it was last seen in the hands of a member of the opposition.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The file was never placed before the House on any order of the House.


Samuel Barker: The evidence so far is that only one copy of that lease existed and that that is in possession of Mr. Markey.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman is absolutely mistaken as to that.


Samuel Barker: That is the evidence.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. I presume I may be pardoned for referring to what has tak-


David Henderson: That won't do.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is nothing before the House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the House had better not assume without consideration that the practice in the one case is the same as in the other. If a minister of the Crown quotes from a public document, and


Richard Blain: a demand is made it is necessary to produce it and lay it upon tlie table of tbe House for tbe purpose of inspection and for use in tbe debate which is then in progress. But, the House is not to assume that the rule in that case is the same as when a document is laid before the House by order of the House on motion. I am not now laying down any particular rule except to ask that the House may not assume that the rule is the same in the one case as in the other. In the ordinary course of laying documents upon the table of the House there must be some parliamentary authority for that purpose and that is expressly laid down in Bourinot's work-from which the hon. member for Peel has quoted-at page 357 :
No documents can be regularly laid before the House unless in pursuance of some parliamentary authority.
Hon. members can easily see what would happen if a different rule were to be assumed and followed. In the midst of a debate a minister might quote from a public document, and at the request of a member produce it and lay it on the table of the House, as he would be obliged to do, having quoted from it or having based an argument upon its contents. But without an order of the House it would not be regularly laid on the table of the House; and it would hardly be a regular proceeding to interrupt a debate for the purpose of moving that an order of the House be made to lay it on the table. Without desiring to lay down any hard and fast rule at the moment, but only gathering from the discussion as it has been going on that it was assumed that the proceeding would necessarily be the same in the one case as in the other, I thought I should call -the attention of the House to this distinction. The chair would assume that in this instance the proceeding would be that the minister, when called on to produce the document, should produce it for the purpose of inspection, though it would not go formally into the possession of the House and become a part of its archives, as in the case of a document laid on the table, by motion; and that will appear from the fact that in the present instance there is no record in the Votes and Proceedings of the matter, as is customary in the case of documents laid on the table of the House by order of the House itself,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend expressed to me this afternoon his desire to see the whole file, and I have no objection to letting him see it. If he comes to my department I shall be glad to show it to him. and as soon as the copies are made-I am having it copied-if he wants a copy brought to the House, I will bring it. I shall be glad to have all the facts contained in this file made known; I have nothing to hide, and have no intention
to hide anything. In conclusion, I think the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) will bear testimony to my strong desire to meet his wishes in every respect. He knows that I showed him all the papers in connection with this matter, and that he expressed to me his satisfaction that the documents had been signed as I stated. He found, however, that it would be advisable for him to go over the whole file and see if he could not discover something else. He seems to have discovered a document which shows that a man wanted to sell some fire extinguishers to the department and did not succeed. So that it is shown conclusively that there is absolutely nothing against the department, and I am sorry that we have lost so much time on this incident.


Samuel Barker: However much time has been occupied in the discussion of this question, I think it is so important that nobody will object to time being so occupied.


Mr.   POSTER@: If my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt him, I would like the minister to put this file on the table so that I may inspect it. He has been quoting from it and making his case anew.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will do so, subject to inspection.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman, starting out with what I suppose he thought was an answer to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), immediately began as a diversion with an attack on the hon. mem-mer for Leeds (Mr. Taylor). He sought to represent that the hon. member for Leeds had misstated the facts with regard to letters sent b.v the hon. gentleman's department, that is by the hon. gentleman, to persons having dealings with the department. Now, I have before me ' Hansard ' unrevised of May 1, page 7877, and we will there see exactly what the hon. member for Leeds said, and precisely what line the hon. minister took in answer to him. The hon. member for Leeds said :
Let mo draw attention to a letter which he
,p, minister) wrote, following the lines on which his predecessor had worked. It will be found in the report of the commissioners on page 79. It was written by the minister to Mr. Gregory at Quebec, and was dated July 27, 1906.
I do not propose to occupy the time of the House in entering into the question that was raised by that correspondence. Tbe sole question here is, as to whether the member for Leeds quoted honestly and properly as a member of this House, and whether the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was correct in his repudiation of the letter, because it amounted to that. If he did not repudiate the letter or his responsibility for the letter, there was no need for his intervention. We all know In these days that a business man does not sign one

letter out of twenty with his own hand, and yet they are all his letters. We all know that a business man writes hundreds of letters in a day; but he does not sign_ them all; he dictates them, and they are issued by his authority, and he is responsible for them. A lawyer will write hundreds of letters in the course of a day; he does not sign one of them, but they are all his letters. Above all the head of a department, with hundreds of letters going out everyday, would never undertake to sign all the letters; he makes no pretension of doing so; and yet every letter is his letter, and he is responsible for it. Now, the hon. member for Leeds said that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wrote a letter on a certain subject, and he went on to say :
If Mr. Gregory could get a letter that indicated more clearly to him that he should purchase a number of these fire extinguishers than that letter written by the minister on the 27th of July, 1908. I do not know what better authority he could have. This is the letter from the minister.
Then the hon. gentleman went on to quote the letter. Now, let us see how this ingenuous, straightforward minister dealt with that question:


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Where does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) find that I ever

Did he say wrote ?
-signed such a letter?
Was that an equivocation ? I would say it was. Then the hon. member for Leeds went on:	.


George Taylor: If the minister will bring down the files, I will point out the letter.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman says he has seen the file and knows there is a letter written by me. Does he assert that I have signed it?
Signed it. That is the point which this minister of the Crown is making-the minister of a great department, who knows that he seldom ever signs a letter unless it be one marked ' private and confidential,' What did the minister mean this House to understand by that? Did he mean that the House was to understand merely that it was signed by his authority but not by himself? No, it was intended to convey the idea that he repudiated the letter entirely; but he used the word 'signed' to convey the impression that he had not written the letter. The hon. member for Leeds went on to say :
The commissioners have gone through the file and have given the House their report stating what they found.
The minister then replied:
There is no statement that I signed the letter.
Note how he sticks to that word ' signed.' Did he not know the distinction between Mr. BARKER.
putting his own name with his own hand to a letter and the writing of a letter by his authority? Then the member for Leeds went on:
If the minister will produce the letter, no doubt his signature will he found at the bottom of it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Hear, hear. What does that mean?


Samuel Barker: It did not mean that the signature was -written by the hon. gentleman himself. The hon. minister is again resorting to a quibble.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know what a quibble is then.


Samuel Barker: Let me tell him. Did any man ever find a business firm, a railway company, a large corporation, a law firm or anybody repudiating their letters because a member of the firm did not put his own signature to it? The letter was signed by the minister's authority and he knew it.


Mr BRODEUR.: But the hon. member for Leeds said that if I would produce the letter, no doubt my signature would be found at the bottom of it.
Mr. BARKER, It was signed by the minister's authority, just as 90 per cent of the letters to-day are written and signed. No honourable man, no honourable firm, no honourable corporation, repudiates its signature when put to a document by its authority. The hon. minister goes on. He sticks to his point. He knows the distinction between a letter written by authority and a letter signed by the minister himself, hut he goes on and asks again:
Does the hon. gentleman assert that I signed that letter?
He sticks to that quibble carefully, absolutely, knowing the distinction. The hon. member for Leeds says :
I am making no assertion. The hon. minister appointed a royal commission, and I am quoting what the royal commission said.
The miniser then replies.
No, that does not say that I signed the letter. Does the hon. gentleman say that I signed it ?
Again sticking to the quibble-a little trumpery distinction between the man writing his signature himself and that signature and letter being written by his authority. Then he says again :
The hon. member for Leeds has stated that I signed that letter.
The hon. member for Leeds replies:
I did not make that statement.
Then we have the minister again saying:
I deny that I signed it.

Now the hon. minister in a certain sense says truthfully that he himself did not sign that letter, but did the use he made of that word ' sign ' from the beginning of this discussion to the end, convey the impression of truth? No honourable man in this Dominion will doubt that the hon. gentleman was seeking to convey a mis-statement to the country. He was trying to convey to the country the idea that he was not responsible for that letter by repeating that he never signed it, although it was signed by his authority. My hon. friend from Leeds went on to say:
I want to make my'speech. X am reading from the report of the royal commission.
What does the minister repeat?
The hon. gentleman said I had signed the letter.
He was holding him to the word 1 signed,' and he construed that word. The hon. member for Leeds repeated:
I say this is from the head of the department, from the minister, for further down there is one from the deputy and they quote his name.
The first, on page 78 and 79, he says was from the minister, but the second letter purported to come from the deputy. From whom did the first purport to come? From the hon. the minister, and it was signed by his authority; yet again, after all this was asserted and re-asserted before the House, the minister gets up again and asks: Does the hon. gentleman assert that I signed it? What a pitiful, wretched, miserable attempt at an explanation. Why, Mr. Speaker, such conduct is worthy alone of a political police court shyster. It was a mere sham, a pretense, and the hon. minister knew it

an absolute sham and pretense intended to convey to this country that that was an unauthorized letter and that the minister was not responsible, when the absolute contrary was the fact. I now come to the question raised by my hon. feirnd from Peel. He asked why he, a member of this House, had not every right which the minister had. Inside these four walls of this chamber what distinction is there, as a matter of right, between he member for Peel and the minister? Have the people of Britain been fighting for centuries for popular rights and are we now to be told that the Crown, through its minister, can claim rights the people do not enjoy? Is that to be the case to-day? Is It to be the case that a minister can take away from the clerk of the House of Commons certain public papers and that that clerk cannot give these papers to the humblest member of this House? Is that what we are to be told by a Liberal government under the aegis of the right hon. gentleman? Are we to be told that a member of this House cannot see an original paper, which Is in the possession of the
clerk of this House, but that a minister of the Crown-or in other words the Crown itself-can take that paper and say to the House: Oh, you can have a copy but you shall not see the original. Is that the position to-day? Will the hon. gentleman contend for a moment that a minister can take from the custody of the clerk of the House papers which that clerk has in his possession -original papers-and prevent other members having access to them? Has a minister the right to say to the members of this House: You shall no see the original paper, but if you like I will, by my grace and courtesy, give you a copy ? Has it come to that point in a British parliament that we are to be told that that is the sum of our rights-that an hon. gentleman, a minister, can stand up and say: Oh, there is a commission sitting, and I took these papers because that commission might want them. Why, the hon. minister does not dare tell the House that he took these papers for the commission. Did he give them to the commission? Did the commission ask for them? A member of the House wanted to see them, but the minister had taken them from the possession of the clerk. Why, we had a week's discussion not long since upon papers put into the possession of the House, and we were then told by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver)-and I think by the right hon. gentleman himself and other ministers-that they could not allow original papers to go into possession of the clerk because they oculd not be got back again by the department, for the use of the department, without an order of the House. When, however, it suits the minister, when it is convenient, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries can go to the clerk and take the papers out of his possession without our order. That is the point my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) has raised; and the hon. minister has not uttered one solitary excuse, not a word in answer to the charge made against him that he took papers out of the possession of the clerk of this House and thus prevented other members of this House having access to them.


George Taylor: The hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) has seen fit to refer to a discussion which took place here on Friday night last and to repudiate altogether a certain letter that was written to Mr. Gregory, agent of the department at Quebec, on the 27th July, 11309. Let me quote that letter again. it is dated July 27th, 1906:
I have to inform you that if you consider that chemical fire extinguishers are necessary on board the vessels of the Quebec agency, you are to purchase them from P. E. Perreault, 312 St. John street, Quebec. Mr. Perreault has been advised to call upon you in connection with this matter.
That was a letter from the department of which the hon. minister is the head, author-

izing Mr. Gregory, if lie required any fire extinguishers, to purchase them from Mr. Perreault and stating that Mr. Perreault had been written to.
Then, he quotes here to-night a letter of his own, dated March 12, 1907, and saying that they did not want any fire extinguishers. But before this, the letter of July 27, 1906, had been acted upon and the department had been loaded up with these fire extinguishers. If the minister will turn to the Auditor General's Report, he will find a record, page P-19, showing that Mr. Perreault had sent in an account for eight of these fire extinguishers at $112. Then, at page P-23, 8; page P-36, 8; page P-57, 16 ; page P-100, 8 ; page P-104, 4 -altogether 52 fire extinguishers bought on the strength of that letter of July 27, 1906, and before the minister wrote his further letter. Then, there was the letter written to Mr. Gregory to know by what authority he purchased these articles, and Mr. Gregory wrote back that he had purchased them ' by authority of your letter of July 27.' If the minister repudiated that letter of July 27, why did he pay the accounts ? Why did he not repudiate the accounts also ? But the accounts were certified correct, and the Auditor General paid the money. And now the minister gets up and tells us that when the matter came to his notice he wrote this letter of March 12, 1907. But was not this purchase authorized by him ? When I speak of the minister, I speak of the department.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is getting more cautious.


George Taylor: I am not getting more cautious. Has a Minister of the Crown no responsibility ? Why, let the president of a bank say of any act of the bank: This was done by one of the clerks ; let the president of any mercantile company say : I did not authorize this, it was the act of one of the clerks or superintendents, and what would be thought of him ? Why, we might as well have a sack of wool in the minister's	chair if	that	is all the responsibility he	is going to	assume.	Wemight as well	have a	man	of putty	as aman if he is	allowed	to repudiate	what
his deputy does. He kept his deputy there even after this came to his knowledge. I am surprised at the minister saying that he did not write this letter of July 27, 1906. I am satisfied that there is not a deputy in any department who would take it upon himself to write such a letter, for it is a political letter. It simply says : If you consider that chemical fire extinguishers are necessary, you are to purchase them from my friend P. E. Perreault, who has been advised to call upon you. And, of course, the man thus instructed did buy them to the amount of $792. And the minister tells us in his speech that the late government purchased two Babcock Mr. TAYLOR.
engines. Why a Babcock is worth a dozen of these. Everybody knows what a Babcock is. But these little glass-lined things that were sold at $14 to the Department of Marine and $15 to the Department of Public Works are not in the same class at all. They were sold to the Public Works Department through my friend Le-mieux, agent for the firm of Patton & Crowe, which was really the firm of Patton & Grant, with no Crowe in it at all. I know something about it, and I received a letter from my friend Lemieux, published in the ' Free Press,' saying that his * honoured name ' should not be dragged in. His ' honoured name ! ' I will not refer further to this matter, though, if he provokes me much more I will. And the idea of the minister saying that I ran away and was not here when he spoke in answer to me. I never ran away from anybody in this House. There is enough Irish in me that if I am knocked down I will get up and fight again. No minister can bluff me, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries tries to do. And the minister pleads the baby act. He goes to the province of Quebec and says:	It is because I am
a Frenchman that they attack me.' No one but a baby would make such a plea. And hear him yelping here to-night, and read the speech he made on Friday night. I am surprised that any man professing to be a statesman should resort to such conduct in this House. I will say no more about this at present, but I wanted to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the letter written on July 27, is borne out by the facts in the Auditor General's return, showing that the minister himself purchased 792 of these machines after he wrote that letter to Perreault, and before he wrote the other letter in March, 1907. I say he was responsible for the purchase. No matter who did it in his department or in his agency, it was done with his' consent and his knowledge.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does the hon. member menu to say that this purchase was made on my authority and with my consent ?


George Taylor: I say that this letter was never written by the deputy without his having been authorized to do so by the minister. If a deputy of mine would do it, he would not write a second one. The facts are there. Gregory went on and bought these machines knowing that that letter was authorized by the minister. Besides, Gregory had a private letter, because this letter says, Gregory had been advised of the fact. There is no jury in the world who would acquit the minister and convict the deputy on a statement such as his.


George Eulas Foster: The matter that has occupied the time of the House to-night, and that some might say has been wasted, might well not have

been wasted it the Minister ot Marine and Fisheries had been a little more reasonable. He knows that the Prime Minister said that he was anxious to see the truth and the whole truth spread before the House. Why then should he object to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) and myself looking over that hie ? If there was nothing to conceal why did the minister take up the time of the House and cause all- this hubbub by taking away the papers which the member for Peel thought he should not have done ? Why could he not this morning have given this file to the member for Peel ?-and I venture to say that in three or four hours the member for Peel would have got all he wanted out of them, and could have handed back the papers to the clerk, and nobody would have suffered from any delay. It seems to me to be childish for the minister to try to avoid showing these papers for a few hours on the pretext that the commission is sitting and his department is preparing papers. If we are to believe the minister that all the contracts are being prepared to go before this commission, does he mean. to say that any great delay would have occurred, that anything would have been broken, if for a few hours to-day he had handed these papers over to my hon. friend from Peel and allowed him to look at them ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At noon to-day while I was sitting in a committee of this House, I received a letter from the clerk asking me whether I had the file in my possession. I was busy until one o'clock or a quarter past one, in the committee, and as soon as I came into the House at three o'clock, I showed the file to my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: I came up about half-past eight or nine o'clock on Saturday morning and went to the clerk's office thinking I would find the file there, and if I could have seen it for an hour or two, I would have been satisfied. The minister could have avoided all this row if he had furnished us at the proper time the file for inspection. What is meant by inspection ? It is sufficient when a minister quotes from a large file, that he shall lay it on the table and then take it off the next minute, or after five minutes, or after half an hour ? Inspection means that the member who wishes to see it shall have reasonable time to look over it and familiarize himself with it. The minister comes to-day and makes the matter still worse by taking hold of that file and quoting from still other documents that are in it. For what purpose is the file requested to be placed on the table ? That you may see some letter that he quotes ? Of course not. What we are discussing is the question of fire extinguishers, this whole file refers to fire extinguishers, and you are not at all in possession of the information when you simply see one, or two, or three
letters that the minister chooses to read. What you have a right to do is to look over the file to see whether there is anything that sheds light, and may be gives a contradiction to the gloss the minister himself puts upon it. Is it sufficient to take up a scientific work and read ten lines out of a book of two hundred pages, and then, when any one questions whether you have correctly stated the essence of the book, for you to hand it over to him and say, Well, you can read these ten lines ; there they are. That does not satisfy the conditions at all. What he needs to do is to take the sense of the whole document, and to do so he must examine the whole file. After what the House has heard to night it has come to the. conclusion that my hon. friend from Peel struck a mare's nest when he read something about an agreement between Mr. Cameron and Mr. Patton with reference to ROD fire extinguishers, and the minister thought he had set it all at rest by declaring that that order was cancelled. I think there is a little more history in this affair than the minister has shown us. I have only had three or four minutes to look over the file, but I find in it a little bit of his tory that will put a different gloss upon the matter. I find that on December 14, 1901, Mr. A. W. Fraser interests himself in this matter of fire extinguishers. Is there anything in which Mr. Fraser has not interested himself in connection with all these departments? Here we find him and there we find him. Here is what he says :
Hon. James Sutherland,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I am informed that many of the lighthouses under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries are not supplied with any appliances for extinguishing fire, should such occur, and that some of the officers have under consideration the fire extinguisher being sold by Mr. Patton of this city.
That is Ottawa.
As I mentioned to you the other day, Mr. Patton has been a very good friend of the Liberal party

And here is where it comes in.

and a liberal one.
Does that mean liberal in the way of political or party doctrine? I will read it again.
Mr. Patton has been a very good friend of the Liberal party and a liberal one.
I take it that that is to be interpreted not in the party sense but in the financial sense. Here is the old principle coming out again-you scratch my back and I will scratch yours; you put money into my pocket and I will give you a little money back for yourself; you give me patronage and I will whack up when It comes to the election.

Therefore I hope you will be able to give him an order

Because he is a very good Liberal and a very liberal Liberal.
Therefore I hope you will he able to give him an order for at least 100 of these extinguishers. Mr. Patton is quite willing to wait for payment until after your estimates have been voted providing he receives an order, as he can arrange the matter in the meantime.
There is again the old virus. There is again the well known principle which actuates this government. It does not make any difference as to parliamentary appropriations. You give the order, sign the contract, make everything fast as far as the government is concerned, and by and by when you come to the House you will get your money because your men will stand behind you. Mr. Fraser knew that.
I have just learned also that some time ago he supplied some of these extinguishers to the Public Works department and that the order was given during the time Mr. Mulock was acting minister of the department. After you have looked into the matter will you kindly let me know what prospects there are of doing anything for him?
Yours sincerely,


A. W. FRASER.
[Stage Direction]
So much for that, away back in 1901. And then it goes on until we come to the incident that was mentioned by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) in which it appears that Mr. Patton and Mr. Cameron joined forces. Mr. Cameron was to get an order for 500 or 600 extinguishers and he was to get $2,000 paid to him for getting the order. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is well to inquire who loses by the payment of that $2,000. We know who would pay the $2,000 for getting a proper person to sell to the department. We know who would make the loss. It is so much more that the country has to pay for this go-between. And, who was the go-between? So, that went on and an order was absolutely given to Mr. Cameron. Here it is :
March 9, 1904.
I am to inform you that the department has made a careful examination of the Patton fire extinguisher, and considers that it is suited for the lighthouse service of Canada inasmuch as it will not freeze and being glass lined will not corrode, the acid being hermetically sealed in a bulb.
The department will require six hundred of these extinguishers with materials sufficient to recharge twice, at a cost of $15 each which I am to request you to supply, it being understood that they are to be furnished ready to act and boxed as per sample. No payment to be made until after July 1.
I am sir, your obedient servant.
(Sgd.) F. GOURDEAU,
Deputy Minister Marine and Fisheries. C. S. Cameron, Esq.,
Manager Patton Fire Extinguisher, Ottawa.
George Eulas Foster: That was the letter issued by the department. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says : Oh. that does not amount to anything, the minister never signed it. But, the department or the minister, who is the head of the department, is absolutely responsible for the order. Well, but the minister says, that order was caught up on the way. That is true ; It was caught up on the way. Shortly after that we have a letter from Charles Patton to one O. E. Culbert, solicitor for the Montreal Fire Extinguisher Company :
Dear Sir,-I hereby agree that in consideration of your organizing a company in the province of Quebec to manufacture and sell my machines to give to such company the right to manufacture and sell my machines and I appoint such company as my attorney and agent in that behalf.
Yours truly, CHARLES PATTON.
That goes. Then we find on March 22, 1904, this very peculiar letter :
C. S. Cameron, Esq.,
54 Sparks street, Ottawa.
A departmental letter dated 9th March, instant, purporting to order from you some fire extinguishers which the department had decided to order from the Montreal Fire Extinguisher Company, on instructions received by me to that effect, through error, was addressed to you instead of Mr. O E. Culbert representing said company. As the error has come to my knowledge and might create some misunderstanding I hereby make you acquainted with the facts so that you may not consider said letter as an order.
Believe me, yours truly (Sgd.) R. PREFONTAINE.
The deputy minister was instructed to send out that letter and he did send out that letter to Mr. Cameron. Shortly afterwards there is the following letter :
Ottawa, April 16, 1901.
The Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Dear Sir,-I' would like the order for fire extinguishers to be made out to Charles Patton and Mr. Cameron has agreed to this. As we are making our arrangements to-day I would be very greatly obliged if the order could issue this morning. With your permission I shall send a messenger for it.
Faithfuly yours,


O. E. CULBERT.
[Stage Direction]
Then there is this other letter:
April 14 1904.
The Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the letter from your department dated March 28, 1894, cancelling the order from said department for 600" Patton fire extinguishers dated March 9, 1904, and I agree to the cancellation of the said order. I am also willing that an order should be issued to O. E. Culbert for the said fire extinguishers he having entered into an agreement with me

bearing even date .herewith in regard to the same.	,
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
April 15, 1901.
To the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Sir,-I am willing that the order for fire extinguishers should be made out to Charles Patton or to O. E. Culbert, and as these gentlemen would rather have it issued to Mr. Patton I would make it out in his name he having signed the agreement to me with Mr. Culbert.
Yours truly,
C.; S. CAMERON.
There Is an agreement, first signed by Mr. Culbert, and second, signed by Mr. Patton with Mr. Culbert. Mr. Cameron says:	I have made my agreement with
these gentlemen and you may send the order to them if you please. The agreement made between these gentlemen, is, as far as I have seen, not on the file. What was that agreement? It is plain enough to me, I think it is plain enough to any one, that by the change Cameron's interest has not been sacrificed, and that, although he did not get the contract himself, there is every probability that his interest has not been sacrificed but that it has been taken care of by these other gentlemen getting it and that the country has paid the amount of the remuneration received by the go-betweens. Well that order was absolutely issued; it was not only issued but here is an acknowledgement of it.
F. Gourdeau, Esq., Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the 20th instant ordering from me 600 fire extinguishers. I shall fill the order at the earliest date possible. Thanking you for the same, I remain yours,

Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the date of that ?


George Eulas Foster: April 25, 1904. Then we find that Wm. Alexander Cameron and Robert George Cameron doing business under the name of Cameron & Company give a power of attorney to a certain bank and that the bank notifies the department of the power of attorney being given authorizing the payment to the bank of any moneys which are coming on this contract, and so it goes on and on. What else there is I do not know because I have not had time to look into it. Now, I say that puts a different face upon this transaction to what it carried when the Minister of Marine read the partial correspondence. I say that if this laying on the table a document from which you quote is going to be any thing but a farce, you must not only lay the Simple quotation but you must lay the whole document upon the table and you must lay it sufficiently long for a person to look into 247
it and become acquainted with all its contents. It looks to me as if this is absolutely as much a document as if it were all printed and put within covers and laid upon the table of this House and used by any man in the House. That it is in manuscript does not prevent its being considered one document for it is the whole history of the fire extinguisher business, and you have got to go into this case as far as 1901 and maybe further in order to show the beginnings which afterwards resulted in this 600 extinguisher order with this very large amount of bonus or of commission which was paid. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while I quite agree that there is a difference between this and a document coming down by an order of the House, yet it is the property of the House the moment it is put here and no man can take it away and keep another member from having it for a reasonable time to satisfy his own curiosity or desire for information. It seems to me that if there is any virtue at all in the rule which makes a minister put upon the table of the House a document from which he quotes, the virtue must be in it for the reason that it gives the other person to the argument a chance to test the argument, and test the conclusion which was come to by the first gentleman who uses it-the minister in this case. If that had been done there need be no row about it at all. It could have been done if the minister had conceded thBs paper to my friend (Mr. Blain) and if he wanted to take it back when no one else was using it and use it in his department I think that would not be going much beyond what was right. When it was asked again for the very purpose for which it was in the first place put upon the table of the House I think it would have been well for the minister courteously to have conceded and said : Yes, Mr. Blain, look this over and send it back.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is what I have done. I told the hon. member for Peel that he could see the file as long as he liked.


George Eulas Foster: Where could he see it ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In my room this afternoon.


Richard Blain: At three o'clock ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has no right to dictate where a man is going to peruse these papers. When a paper is laid upon the table of the House the member who wishes to use it uses it where he thinks proper, takes his notes, and when he has done with it he puts it back. If these papers are left on the table of the House my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) would be able to satisfy himself without any very great length of time, and if it were necessary to have them back in the Department of Mar-

ine lie would be only too glad to let the minister have them when they were required. But it is pretty perilous to allow a minister any more than any other member to take a paper which was put upon the table of the House in accordance with the rules and allow the minister to come and take it away and refuse to give it back again. I think that is not courteous to the House and I do not believe it comes within -the rule of the House which if it means anything must mean that it gives reasonable time for a member to look into a document from which quotations have been made. With reference to the letters; looking at page 79 of the report I would have done exactly as my hon. friend from Leeds did. There are five letters referred to on that page, the first one is :
July 27, 1906.
I have -to inform you that if you consider that chemical fire extinguishers are necessary on board the vessels of the Quebec agency, you are to purchase them from P. E. Perreault, 312 St. John street, Quebec. Mr. P. has been advised to call upon you in connection with this matter.


George Taylor: Is there a copy of that advice on the file.


George Eulas Foster: I think I saw that letter on the file.
Mr. iBRODBIJR. You had better quote it because the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) does not believe it yet.


George Eulas Foster: That is not an assertion which comes very gracefully from my hon. friend. I think he had better treat his fellow members a little differently.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) did not seem to believe it.


George Eulas Foster: To-night I noticed that the minister referred to my hon. friend from Leeds as ' that man ' and ' the man.' You might as well call him the hon. member for so and so.


Mr. PATERSON.: Do you always remember these little courtesies ?


George Eulas Foster: I am generally very courteous to the members of this House.


William Paterson: Sometimes.


George Eulas Foster: I try to be. Then, under date October 8, 1906, Gregory writes about fire extinguishers bought from Perreault, and on October 12, there is another letter from the deputy. I would have done the same thing as my friend from Leeds did ; 1 would have thought that the first letter was a letter from the minister himself or written by the minister's authority and I could not have come to any other conclusion. The second letter shows it was from Gregory, the third letter shows it was a letter from the deputy, the next one shows Mr. FOSTER.
it is a letter from Gregory and the next one is a quotation from Gregory's letter. Maybe the fault was that the commissioner was not explicit enough or he would have said that that first letter was a letter from the deputy but on the face of it it appears to be a letter from the minister himself or written by authority of the minister. Anyway the contention is absolutely good that where orders are made in a case of this kind if they are made by the deputy minister they are made with the authority of the minister.


Hon.   WM@: PATERSON1 (Minister of Customs). I do not profess to be an authority on this matter, but I wish to say a word as to how it strikes me in view of what Sir. Speaker has laid down, not as a ruling but in a general way. It does seem to me that what he says must commend itself to the good sense of the House. Complaint was made that a document which had been laid on the table had been taken away by the hon. gentleman who had laid it on the table.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will allow me just there. I do submit to him that that would have no force in the argument at all. You might have an original paper brought down by the order of the House, and it might be lost; but that would be no argument that thereafter no original paper should be brought down. Now, this might be lost. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is a lawyer, and I vflll venture to say that if any advocate would endeavour to prove before a court of law on the evidence which he has adduced tonight, that an original paper in the Markey case was lost by a member of the opposition, no one would depreciate that argument more quickly than the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The evidence does not form a perfect chain. Has he proved that the ' Hansard ' reporter put that original back again, after it was read by a member of the opposition, into the hands of the opposition ? He does not prove it; he assumes that it was done. But I myself have lost documents between my handing them over to the * Hansard ' and their not getting them back to me. They are very careful, and in the main I get them all back ; but instance after instance has occurred of their having unaccountably gone astray.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not the point of the objection. The point of the objection was that it was lost anyway, however it was lost.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose a dozen papers are lost, do you found on that fact an argument that thereafter neither the government nor a minister shall bring down original papers ?


William Paterson: The file from which quotations were made is in the custody of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ; it being in his custody, he is entitled to take care of it. The House has power to order that that file be produced, and if the House so orders, it comes down in obedience to that order, becomes a matter of record, and goes into the charge of Mr. Clark, who becomes responsible for it. Going into his possession in that formal, constitutional way, it would require an order of the House to release it. Has that file come into the possession of the member who has it now or of the hon. member for Peel in that constitutional way ? They will not say that it has. It came into their possession for this reason, that the Minister of Marine had quoted from one or two documents in it. If I understand it, the hon. member for Peel or the hon. member for North Toronto might demand, and would be entitled under the rules of the House, that the Minister of Marine should take from that file the documents which he had quoted from and lay them on the table.


George Eulas Foster: These are not documents upon documents; they are pages of one document.


William Paterson: Precisely ; but the hon. gentleman will not say that because one letter has been used as an argument, in a file containing the papers of years, and because as a matter of courtesy, at the personal request of a member, the minister allows him to have the whole of the file to look at, there is any power that would compel him to do it? The fact that he handed that file as a matter of courtesy to a member did not impose upon the clerk of the House the necessity of guarding it, as would have been the ease had it been brought down in response to a formal order of the House.


Richard Blain: The clerk of the House understood it as such, because I was only able to obtain the document from him on the understanding that I would return it so that he might lock it up after the House adjourned.


William Paterson: I can understand that the clerk, finding a valuable file on the table, would be anxious that it should be
taken care of. But the hon. member for Peel claims that the clerk was permitted to give that file back to the minister who laid it on the table only on a formal order of the House to do so. If that is so, it seems to me that it could only come into the constitutional possession of the clerk as the result of a formal motion to lay it on the table. Surely if the action of the House is requisite in the one case it is in the other. If the minister in an informal manner lays a document on the table, can he not in the same informal manner withdraw it?
247 i


Samuel Barker: After quoting part of the papers ?


William Paterson: Yes. I grant that he would be required to leave on the table the papers which he quoted from out of that file. That would not be a matter of courtesy, but a matter of right; but he would not be bound to lay the whole file on the table.


Richard Blain: But he did lay it on the table.


William Paterson: He laid it on the table in an informal way, retaining his right of control over it. Is the Minister of Marine not at liberty to take that file away to-night ?


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon. gentleman want my answer ? If I ask the minister,
not as a matter of courtesy to me, but as a matter of right, after he has exercised his own right of quoting from that document and basing his argument upon it, to lay it on the table of the House, I have a perfect right to take the document and keep it for Hie reasonable time that is necessary for me to look up that which he quoted and everything cognate to it within the file.


William Paterson: I do not suppose that Mr. Speaker is to be asked for his decision on that point ; but I would be pleased to know whether that is the rule or not. I admit that papers quoted from must go into the possession of the House as a matter of course ; but the whole file, which was laid on the table in an informal way, and at the request of a member, must not go into the posession of the House unless with the consent of the hon. gentleman who places it before the House, and does so with the understanding that it is to be looked at, but is not to leave his possession. He certainly has a right to take it back, if he sees fit to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
William Paterson: Is there any rule for more?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think so.


William Paterson: Read it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to submit this. If the point made by the Minister of Customs be correct, suppose an order had been given and then cancelled, and afterwards renewed, the House would be then misled into the supposition that that order had never been given. In this instance, one portion of a state document said the order had been cancelled; but afterwards, as the

lion, member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has pointed out, that same order had been given to another individual, of the same interested parties. By not producing the whole file, the House would then be misled into the belief that the order had never been given. You see therefore, if you give only one letter and not all the documents, how inconvenient that would be and how the House might be deceived. Does the hon. minister not think that in pursuance of our undoubted practice-and that I regard as authority- when a minister quotes a document that document has to be laid on the table, and it has to be laid there for a purpose. What purpose ? It is not that every member shall have an opportunity of informing himself with regard to it, and does that not imply that a reasonable time must be allowed members to examine that paper ? Can that opportunity be given when the paper is laid on the table a few minutes and before the discussion is through it is taken away, or before those who desire to see it have an opportunity of doing so. Does not the rule ] imply that there shall be u reasonable time given to allow the whole House to examine the document ?


William Paterson: I think not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If not, then I do not know what rights this parliament has.


William Paterson: I am not questioning the right of parliament to ask for public documents and to get them. If the hon member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was not satisfied, if he thought there were more papers on that file which he would like to see, he would move for them. I am simply speaking on the point of putting the documents in the possession of the House in the proper way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The rule and the practice, as I take it, is that when public papers which are quoted by a minister of the Crown, are required to be produced for the information of the House-not the information of any individual member-in order to come to a correct conclusion upon the question, they must be laid on the table so that all can examine them.


William Paterson: Precisely.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And not one portion of the papers but the whole of them.


William Paterson: The document quoted from, which the minister has in his possession, has to be laid on the table, so that all the other members may have the same knowledge of it that the minister has. Might I ask the hon. member for North Toronto, (Mr. Foster) now? There were one or two letters quoted from a file the other day by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Suppose, instead of having the file before him, he had simply the two letters, Mr. SPROULE.
could you require the whole file to be laid on the table or just the two letters?


George Eulas Foster: The minister might read the two letters, but if any hon. member came to the conclusion that it would be well to know whether those were the only two letters with reference to the subject, he could put the question. And if the minister replied that there were other letters, any hon. member would have the right to insist on his bringing down the whole correspondence.


William Paterson: Would the minister have to lay the whole file on the table without a motion being made ordering it to be produced?


George Eulas Foster: He could not lay anything on the table that he did not have in his immediate possession.


William Paterson: But would an individual member have a right, on his mere request, to have the original file laid on the table?


George Eulas Foster: Under those circumstances ?


William Paterson: Under any circumstances. If the minster had brought to the House simply the two letters from which he quoted, is there any rule which would compel him to lay on the table, not only those two letters, but any others? The letters he quoted, any hon. member might insist on his laying them on the table. But suppose the file were not here and a member would say there must be other letters which the minister has not read, would he not require to make a motion in order to have the file produced?


George Eulas Foster: What I would do first would 1ft; to ask the minister to bring them down.


William Paterson: Would he be bound to bring them down?


George Eulas Foster: Not unless he had an order of the House. But if he only read two letters out of the whole correspondence, any member could ask him to be kind enough to bring down the rest, and in nine cases out of ten the minister would consent. Of course he might refuse, and in that case I would make a motion.


William Paterson: The minister might do as an act of courtesy, just what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did. The file was in his possession and could be taken away by him, with the exception of the documents he quoted from which must be laid on the table.


David Henderson: The Minister of Customs has probably been as long here as any hon. member in this House. Under ordinary circumstances, I would be inclined to accept his opinion, but I am afraid I can-

not do so in this instance. He does not seem to realize that once documents have been laid on the table of this House, they are in the possession of the House. Let me read -what I understand is an authority on the matter we are discussing :
It has been laid down by the highest authority that when a minister of the Crown quotes a public document in the House and founds upon it an argument or .assertion, that document, if called for, ought to be produced.


William Paterson: Yes.


David Henderson: What is the document?


William Paterson: The document that is quoted.


David Henderson: Suppose the Minister of Marine and Fisheries read half a letter, would he only be obliged to produce that half?


William Paterson: He would be obliged to produce that half certainly.


David Henderson: Nothing more, according to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs.


William Paterson: He would put the whole document from which he quoted.


David Henderson: If my hon. friend is right, he would have the right to cut that document in two and just place one-half on the table. He must be consistent. Surely the meaning of the rule is that, in a case of this kind, the whole file must be produced from which the minister quoted, just as he would have to produce the whole of a letter, and not merely the portion he read.


Mr.   RRODETJR@: Even if the file should refer to a subject absolutely different from the one under discussion? The other night a document was quoted relating to the purchase of some fire extinguishers from Mr. Perreault. Because that document was quoted, was the minister obliged to bring down the whole file containing the dealings of the department with reference to fire extinguishers?


Richard Blain: Is there any other correspondence on the file except that relating to the purchase and sale of fire extinguishers?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is a file concerning fire extinguishers but the point brought up by the hon. member for Leeds was whether a certain letter had been signed by me or not. and that letter had to be produced.


David Henderson: I think we have drifted entirely away from the question as to who signed the letter before the controversy came up about placing on the table the file in question. From my experience in this parliament, I would have no hesitation in saying that the ordinary rule is that when a file of papers is quoted from, even if only one letter in it be quoted, the whole
file must be produced in order that the House may be able to judge whether there are any other letters to throw light on the subject. What is the object of placing a document on the table after it has been read? After an hon. member has heard a document read he knows all about that particular document. But he asks that the file be laid on the table in order that he may ascertain whether there is anything else in it bearing upon the question or not. That, to my mind, is what occurred in this instance.


William Paterson: But if the file was not in the House at all?


David Henderson: But the hon. gentleman quoted from the file, and I maintain that the file itself is the ' document ' referred to in the rule of Dr. Bourinot. Certainly,
I cannot put any other construction upon it. I look upon it, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said, the same as if it were a bound volume. Suppose that these letters had been printed and bound in a book, and suppose the hon. gentleman had read from that book, would not he be obliged to lay the whole book on the table? And what is the difference, whether it is printed in a book and bound, or fastened together in the ordinary way of a file of letters in one of the departments? The minister asks: How if there are other subjects referred to in that file? But I understand that the practice in every department is to have a file for each subject. Certainly, that is what must be done if the business of the department is to be properly looked after; and that, I assume, is the case here. I understand that these letters refer to the one matter which we have been speaking about, and, if so, I can see no good reason for disconnecting one from the other. What right would even the minister have to open that file and take out a letter? I question very much the propriety of it. To my mind, a file is sacred, and, if this government went out of power today that file should be left in its entirety, no single document being taken from it Therefore, it would be impossible for the minister to lay one letter on the table without laying the whole on the table. If we apply reason and common sense to this question, we shall come to a better conclusion than by treating it in a technical way-and the treatment suggested is very technical to my mind. I express my opinion candidly, and I am perfectly serious in this matter. I think that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) was quite entitled to have possession of the file on Saturday morning, or at such time as he desired. -I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made a mistake in going to the clerk, and asking, or demanding that the file should be handed over to him.


Mr.   BRODEFR@: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) wishes to he fair

to me. Therefore, will he permit me a word at this point? The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) had that file for the whole evening, and was asked if he would be through with it that evening, and he said he would.


Richard Blain: No.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I sent some one to him, and I certainly understood that he had said so.


Richard Blain: No.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Will the hon. gentleman state what>he did say?


Richard Blain: The hon. minister must not put words in my mouth. I asked the clerk for the file and it was given me with the understanding that I should return it to him before the close of the sitting, he saying that he must have it to lock it up in his safe.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Will the hon. gentleman deny that he told me, in the ' Hansard ' reporters' room, that he would probably need the file after eight o'clock, and would give it back to me. Does he deny that?


Richard Blain: I am not here either to state or deny


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does the hon. gentleman deny it?


Richard Blain: I do deny it emphatically; I never made such a statement. I never had such a thought in my mind, and the minister knows that very well.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Let us make this clear: The hon. gentleman denies formally that, after six o'clock, in the ' Hansard ' reporters' room, after I showed him the letters on the file, he said he would require it after eight o'clock, but he would give it to me after he was through.


Richard Blain: That is an entirely different story. I told the clerk


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I am speaking of what happened in the ' Hansard ' reporters' room


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is impossible to allow the discussion to go on in this way. An hon. member has the floor and unless he gives way


David Henderson: I am perfectly willing to give way, Mr. Speaker; but I do not wish to be deprived of my right.


Richard Blain: What I say is this: The minister laid the file upon the table at my request. When I applied to the clerk for the file, the clerk said I could have it with the distinct understanding that I was to return it to him so that he could lock it up in his safe, as it was in his custody-that was the understanding he had. I took the file and went over it for an hour or two and returned it with the expectation that I Mr. BRODEUR.
should have an opportunity to get it again on Monday morning. But when I applied to the clerk for it, he told me that the minister had taken it away. He kept it all the rest of Friday, Saturday and Sunday and had not returned it up to three o'clock to-day. I said to the clerk that I would expect him to get it back from the minister, as it was in the custody of the House, and he said he would communicate with the hon. gentleman. He tried to get the minister by telephone, but was unable to do so. He then wrote a letter, asking the minister to return the file, but the minister had not returned it up to three o'clock. I asked the clerk if the file had been placed on the table at three o'clock, and he told me it had not. A few minutes after, the minister sent for me to go to his room. He said, ' Here is the file; what do you want from it?' I said that I did not know exactly, but I wanted him to return it to the clerk


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is that all the hon. gentleman said?


Richard Blain: I said to the minister then that if he would bring the original file back to the clerk, I would not mention it in the House. That was my position. I wished to deal fairly with the minister, which I have done. But I may say the minister has not dealt fairly with me, and I will take another opportunity to refer to the matter.


David Henderson: I have very little more to add on this question. If any further evidence is required to show that the rule applies to the whole file and not to one particular letter that may happen to have been read, it is the fact brought out by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.'Foster) that letter after letter, a continuation of letters, relating to this same matter is contained in the file. Surely, we cannot dissociate these other letters from the one read by the minister. They all go to constitute one document, and in no way can I understand the rule iald down by Bourmot unless it be applied as I have indicated.


George Eulas Foster: I would ask the indulgence of the House for a moment, to correct in the same ' Hansard ' that it will appear in what appears to have been a mis-statement or not a full statement by the minister concerning these fire extinguishers bought in 1891. He stated that the old government, in 1891, bought two Babcock extinguishers at $30 each. He made other comments, that I will not allude to. What he did not state was this, that before these were bought, communication was had, both with Great Britain and the United States, and there is on file here a statement from F. A. Mahan, captain of engineers of the United States artillery, saying that they had called for competition and got the prices of some Babcock machines, and that as a result of

the competition they had taken six machines at $31.40 each. The price paid by the Marine Department here for these, after that report of the engineer, was $25 each.


DOKIS INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. GEO. H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: Before you leave the chair I would like to say a few words with reference to an advertisement that has appeared lately with regard to a sale of the timber on a certain reserve on the French river known as the Dokis Indian reserve in the province of Ontario. I will read the first part of it :
There will be offered for sale by public auction, at an upset price, in the Russell House, in the city of Ottawa, on Wednesday, the 21th day of June, 1908, at the hour of ten o'clock in the forenoon, timber berths numbered 1 to 8 inclusive, covering the pine timber of nine inches diameter and over at the stump, and no other, on the whole of the Dokis Indian reserve, situate on the French river in the province of Ontario.
Each limit will be offered separately at a bonus, ten per cent of which to be paid in cash on day of sale, and notes to be given for the remainder, payable in three, six and nine months, at the Bank of Montreal, in the city of Ottawa, with interest at six per cent.
And there are other conditions of sale. With regard to this matter I asked a question, which was answered in the House last Thursday, on page 7735 of the ' Hansard.' In this answer it is stated that the notice regarding this sale was sent out from the department to certain newspapers, beginning in the 9th of April," and the list of newspapers is given. I may say that although the notice was said to be inserted iu the newspapers at that date, I received a notice from the deparment only on the 23rd of April. The list of newspapers is quite large ; of course they all appear to be Liberal newspapers. I do not know why this should be a matter of patronage to newspapers supporting the government, because it is a matter of business, and I fancy that every man in this House will agree that Conservatives are just as likely to buy these limits as Liberals. I think it would have been wiser for the government to advertise this sale in some Conservative newspapers, because some Conservatives do not take Liberal newspapers. I notice by this advertisement that the government propose to put an upset price on these limits. I desire to say that I think a reserve bid is much more effective in the selling of such a property than an upset price. Naturally many bidders, when they reach the upset price which has been made known before the sale, will not go any further ; whereas with a reserve bid, which is not made known to the bidders, there have been many instances in which limits have been sold for a great deal more money than the reserve bid. A reserve bid tends to bring a higher price from the bidders, because the limit purchasers naturally will be affected when they reach the upset price. With regard to the terms of payment, I find they have been made very easy in that only ten per cent of the bonus is to be paid in cash. This is a most unusual provision, because it is customary that from one-quarter to one-third of the bonus shall be paid in cash at the time of the sale, or within a few days afterwards. With regard to the notice of the sale of these limits, I may say frankly that at the proper season of the year the time allowed between the notice of sale and the auction would be sufficient, provided the lines between the different berths had been already surveyed. In the province of Ontario more notice is given than two months and a half. It is better to make the notice too long than too short. But this particular notice has been given at a most unfortunate time of the year. Frome the 9th of April when this notice was sent out, up to the present moment, it has been practically impossible for any person to go and examine that country. We all know that when spring comes on no one can get about in these woods, because there is still a good deal of snow on the land and ice on many of the lakes, and a person cannot go about either on snowslioes or by canoe. Therefore this notice is of no avail whatever up to the present time. The latter part of the month of May is usually a good time to travel in the country, but the Prime Minister will realize another objection when I say that there is no season of the year when there is as much danger of fire from prospectors as in the month of May. As soon as the snow is gone and the leaves get dry, there is more danger of fire than at any other season. For that reason also an unfortunate time has been selected for the sale of these limits. Then when the month of June comes on the flies get bad, and it is almost impossible for anybody to make a proper survey of the limit on account of the flies. Why the government should have chosen this particular time to give this notice I cannot understand, because it is the most unfortunate period in the whole year.
Now, the picking out of this time seems most peculiar for many reasons. I notice that the surrender by the Indians of their rights'to this timber and the authorization of the notice of sale were dated January 7, 1908. The Minister of the Interior recommended to council on February 20, 1908, that this surrender should be accepted and that the limits should be sold. The copies which I have do not show whether the order in council passed at that time for that purpose. But, if the sale could have been advertised in February then the number of weeks' notice given would have been amply sufficient. This timber is most valuable. It has been talked about by all the lumbermen

in this part of the country, to my certain knowledge for twenty five years. The old chief of these Indians who died, I think last year, always refused absolutely to agree to the sale of this timber, but, at certain times, the rumor would get about, that this timber was going to be sold. Therefore, it is not a new thing, it is something which has been in the eye of the lumbermen, at any rate, if not in the public eye, for twenty-five years at least. The Indians, having at last signed the surrender of their rights and having permitted the sale of this property, I submit that it is most extraordinary that after all these years of discussion, such a short notice should be given of the sale of this valuable property which, I am informed. will bring many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr, FOSTER. If they get the proper price.


George Halsey Perley: If they give a proper chance to the people to examine it and bid upon it. On Thursday last I put a series of questions to the government and I desire particularly to call attention to No. 4 :
Have the lines been run on the ground dividing the said reserve into the different timber berths which are advertised to be sold separately?
There are eight different berths within this Dokis reserve. I think there are about fifty miles of country altogether and it is proposed by the government to divide it up into eight berths. The answer which I received is as follows :
No, but a surveyor has been instructed to do the_work, and it is expected that he will be on the ground this week.
That is the part of this proposed sale to which I most strongly object and for which I think there is no justification whatever. The department sends out a blue print of this reserve showing it divided into eight berths which they propose to sell separately, but these lines have not been surveyed on the ground and any one knows that it is impossible for any cruiser or bush ranger to go there and make a proper estimate of each one of these berths unless there is a line for him to go by so that he may know what he is doing. In a property of this kind which is worth such a lot of money, a very small variation in these lines would* make a very great difference in the value of berths as compared with what it might be before and after the lines were actually run. With reference to the manner in which the advertisement was sent out, this was what was sent out to me from the department-a little clipping from a newspaper and a blueprint. Nothing is said to show that these lines have not been run. I do not happen to be personally interested in this matter. I have no intention of bidding on or buying in this property, but a person who received this Mr. PERLEY.
notice from the department would naturally take it for granted that these lines were run, he would send his men to examine that timber and if he did so they could not make a report on which he could bid for these different berths when they came up for sale.


Mr. McCOOL.: Does not that blue-print state that it is a proposed sketch of the
survey ?


George Halsey Perley: It says ' sketch showing timber berths in the Dokis Indian reserve, French river, Ontario, scale 3 miles to the inch.' At the bottom it says ' approximate areas.' It says nothing as to whether the lines are run or not.


Charles Arthur McCool: That would show that they are not surveyed.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member for Nipissing knows full well that no one selling a limit guarantees the areas. Here it says ' Approximate areas.' If the ordinary expression had been used, it would say
*	more or less.'


Charles Arthur McCool: Yes, but that is not the
approximate area.


George Halsey Perley: I submit that the words
*	approximate area ' and ' so many miles, more or less ' mean the same thing. Under these conditions a man who did not know' that these lines had not been run would send his men up there to examine this country and they would be unable to present such a report as would enable him to bid on these different berths. The government, in this matter, are trustees for the Indians ; they should give every opportunity for the proper examination of this country in order that it may bring all that it is worth and I submit that no person selling this property for himself would give a notice at this time of year and without having the lines run. The government themselves cannot put an upset price on these limits without having the lines run, but perhaps they can do that later on themselves if'they get anybody who will undertake to do the work in the month of June and I presume that they cannot have it done before that.
In regard to the circumstances connected with the surrender of this reserve, which certainly, from the papers, seem to have been very peculiar, I do not propose to speak this evening, but probably they will be brought up later on in the session. I simply rose at this time, before it is too late, to call the attention of the government to this matter. I regret very much that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) is not here this evening. I gave him notice today that I was going to speak on this but I have been unable to get a chance until this late hour. I want to urge upon the government-


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) waited

until nearly eleven o'clock when, thinking that it would not come up, he went home.


George Halsey Perley: I quite understand, it is unfortunate, but I want to urge upon the Minister of the Interior and the government, before it Is too late, to extend the time for this auction sale in order to give people who wish to bid a proper and reasonable chance to go and examine that country after the lines have been run on the field dividing these valuable berths one from the other. I thought that if it were brought to the attention of the government now they might act in the matter and as this property has been talked about and known for so many years, why should not the government be willing to wait a reasonable time before putting it up for auction sale and thus give every person, who might think that he would like to bid on these limits, a chance to know their full value in order that they may living all that they are worth. In that conection I would like to ask that the copies of the balance of the file to this date be brought down. This is reference No. 233 and the papers were asked for by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). As the Minister of the Interior is not here I would like to ask that copies of the balance of the papers in connection with this matter may be brought down promptly in order that we may have a chance to discuss the question a little more fully at some other time.


Charles Arthur McCool: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Argenteull, than whom there is probably no more practical lumberman in this country, take exception to the method of advertising this limit. I may say in the first place that the surrender was obtained from the Indians on the distinct understanding that they would not have to bear the fire risk during next season. That was the reason why a longer time was not given for the sale. However, there cannot possibly be any injury done to anybody, neither to the Indians nor to prospective buyers by reason of the length of time that will be available for exploring after the lines are run, because there are only altogether about 12 miles of line to run to divide the berths. Even from the blue print, anyone looking at No. 1 and No. 2 berths will see there is almost a natural line as there are two bays there one almost directly opposite the other. I think the line is only about a quarter of a mile across and it would only make a difference of a few trees anyway. I have been informed that a number of lumbermen are already on the ground. This reserve is well known and its value as a timber limit is well known also. The lumbermen have been trying to get a surrender from the late chief for years, but he always objected. There is not much wonder that he did object because he could look back at a time
when an almost equally valuable timber limit was sold by our friends on the other side of the House for the sum of three hundred and some odd dollars, to prominent politicians in this city. The chief naturally feared that something similar would happen had he consented to surrender the timber on this reserve. The lines will be completed and there will still be six weeks time to travel that country. It is not 100 miles out from civilization ; a man can leave here on the midnight train and be on the reserve the next evening. The Indians were given a positive pledge by the Indian agent who got the surrender, that they would not have to bear the fire risk this season.


George Halsey Perley: There is nothing in the agreement with the Indians to that effect.


Charles Arthur McCool: There was an understanding which is 1ust as binding as an agreement. There was a pledge given and were it not that the Indians have confidence in the agent that surrender could not have been obtained. There have been deputations of lumbermen as well as officers sent by the department, both by this government and previous governments, to that reserve to try and get a surrender not only in the interests of the lumber trade but in the interests of the Indians themselves because of the danger of that country being swept by fire, but hitherto the Indians refused to sell. There is no question at all about it but that that country will bring a very large amount of money. I would not like to risk an opinion because I have not examined the timber and know nothing about it except from hearsay, but the general expectation is that it will realize something in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000. I believe that when the sale comes on the day mentioned, it will be found that no mistake has been made as to the time and the competition will prove whether people have had time to explore it or not. There is only about 43 miles in it altogether and about one-third of the whole territory in which the line is almost marked out now. This is an island and it narrows down by two bays opposite each other to about a quarter of a mile in width, so that there Is no trouble in any bushman travelling that part of it even without a line. A man could not make a mistake of $500 worth in the difference between where the line will be and where he would plant it himself by looking at a blue print sketch.


George Halsey Perley: What about the other six berths.


Charles Arthur McCool: It means 10 or 12 miles of a line at the outside which would mean 10 or 12 days of a surveyor. The surveyor, who has been ordered to go there is well accustomed to that kind of work ; he has been doing it all his lifetime and is a very capable man. He certainly will run all

these lines in 12 days, so that there will be six weeks time to travel 43 miles.


George Halsey Perley: Oh. no.


Charles Arthur McCool: Oh, yes, and even if there was only one month it is ample time. Having regard to the pledge given the Indians there was no possibility of extending the time and keeping faith with them. I happen to know about that, because I was instrumental in getting the agent appointed as I had every confidence in him and one of the reasons why I wanted him appointed was in order to get the surrender of this and another reserve. I felt that it would be for the benefit of the Indians as well as for the benefit of the whole country, because the timber surrounding has been cut and the limit was in very great danger from fire and of course if it was burned it would be no good to the Indians or any one else. As to the terms, they are exactly the terms given by the Ontario government in all their large sales. That is, with the exception that the present Ontario government have lately been selling by the thousand feet instead of by the mile, and they take the risk of fire. The purchaser may leave that timber standing until a year before the term of the lease expires, and then he can go in and cut and in the meantime they put up a small deposit and the government takes all risk. There was the sale of a township at the head of Garden river a short time ago where $10.52 per 1,000 feet board measure was obtained for the limit and $2 dues making $12.52, and it was held up as being a tremendous sale. But you must take into consideration that the government carried the fire risk for 15 years, or rather for 14 years because the timber could be cut in the last year. In the present instance the intention is that the Indians will not have to take the fire risk but that the purchaser of the timber will. With regard to an upset price or a reserve bid, I do not know that there is very much difference between the two. I do not know that the up-set price means that the price is to be made public. I doubt very much if it is. It does not necessarily have to be told to the auctioneer until the sale is in progress. I do not quite understand why the hon. member (Mr. Perley) said the upset price was to be made public for I am quite sure such is not the intention of the Minister of Indian Affairs. If I understand it aright an upset price means the same thing as a reserve bid. You can rest satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that there is no such thing as the upset price being made public at all ; the upset price is to be made known to the auctioneer at the time of the sale aud not before.


George Halsey Perley: If the hon. gentleman bought the right from the Indians on the 7th of January, and would probably sell, would he have had those lines run before I


Charles Arthur McCool: this time, or would he have waited to have them run within a month of the sale ?


Charles Arthur McCool: Does the hon. gentleman sate that the government were in a position to advertise it in January ? My information is that they were not. My information is that there was not one minute lost from the time of the surrender until it was advertised. There were some conditions put in the surrender which were not satisfactory, and these were only arranged later. That is my information. I am quite sure that the government were not in a position to advertise the sale in January.


SPRING FLOODS.
Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: Mr. Speaker, before we go into Supply, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to a very serious matter. I have been notified this evening by telephone that a dam belonging to the government at Valleyfield has broken and the waters of Lake St. Francis are overflowing to such an extent that barns, stables and even dwellings are threatened to be carried away, and the people are fleeing from the place. I would ask the hon. Minister to send an engineer to-morrow morning to see what can be done. Lake St. Francis is a part of the St. Lawrence river.


Mr. R. N. WALSH (Huntingdon).: Mr. Speaker, in this connection I would like to bring up the matter that I spoke of the other day, namely, the breaking away of a portion of the same embankment at Ste. Barbe in the county of Huntingdon. After the embankment broke this year I addressed a letter to the minister in regard to the matter. The land there is splendid farming land, and the people bought it and cultivated it believing that the government would protect the embankment. This break occurred at a time when the farmers were ready to put in their grain. I would urge the minister to get a report from his engineer in regard to making the embankment secure so that the people will not be drowned out every year.


George Perry Graham: The question raised by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) is a very serious one. The difficulty this year is that the water in the St. Lawrence is higher by several feet than it has been in the memory of the oldest residents along the river. We have been notified that thousands of dollars of damage has been done in the Thousand Islands owing to the water having risen above high-water mark. I will act on the suggestion of my hon. friend and send a man down to-morrow morning to see what can be done. With regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Huntingdon,

it is difficult to say what can be done in this exceptional year ; but in an ordinary year protection ought to be afforded.


CUSTODY OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.
Richard Blain: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if after hearing the somewhat lengthy discussion on the fire extinguisher matter to-night, he will consult his Minister of Marine, and have all the original documents laid on the table, so that the members may examine them at a later day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I thought that after all that had been said on the subject it had been exhausted, and that there was nothing more to be said.


THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, before we go into Supply, I beg to call attention to a dispatch which I find to-day in the Toronto ' World ' and which is also published in the Toronto ' Mail.' It purports to come from Montreal and reads as follows :
Will the government come down to parliament and admit that a mistake has been made in the location of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway hundreds of miles north of the big cities, instead of starting from North Bay or thereabouts, thus easily tapping Montreal and Toronto ?
This is a question a good many wise men are asking here to-day. One thing is certain, there is a big ' something ' in the wind.
The Grand Trunk noon train to-day brought down Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hon. Sydney Fisher and Hon. ltodolphe Lemieux, and it was soon evident that the mission was an important one.
Of course the matter of an interview with Premier Gouin was readily admitted, and as a matter of fact this interview took place, but the meeting between Mr. Hays and the Prime Minister was of another kind.
Those who are familiar with the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific officials declare that a grievous apprehension of coming difficulties has settled down upon both for some reason or other, and the statement is made that the trouble is all over what is said to have been the awful blunder made in the location of the transcontinental away from the freight and passenger producing centres of the country.
It has now- become painfully evident to the ministers and company alike-so the story goes-that Fitzpatrick and Parent must have intentionally or no, pulled the wool over their colleagues' eyes, and to-day the latter are committed to what one man styled ' the most stupendous blunder ever perpetrated in this or any other country.'
A prominent railway man said to-day that he had never vet understood why Toronto and Montreal looked on with so much apathy and indifference while the matter was before parliament.
' But,' he said (and his name if divulged would carry tremendous weight, both in parliament and the country), ' even at this late hour Sir Wilfrid should face the situation, admit the error and put the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific right before the country and posterity.'
It is a well-known fact here that all concerned are greatly worried, and it only remains to be seen if the proper parties will have the courage to grapple with the question of the modified route in the way that it should be grappled with.
I have to say that whoever penned that paragraph for the press had not even a shadow of reason for so writing. That there has been any hesitation or doubt as to the proper location of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway has never come to my knowledge or even been hinted to me or expressed in any way. When it is said that ' all concerned are greatly worried,' I have to say that we are not worried at all, and that the matter referred to has not engaged the attention of any one so far as I know. The statement that I went to Montreal for the purpose of interviewing somebody in respect to this matter is also another fallacy. I do not know for what purpose this statement is published-evidently to create suspicion in the minds of somebody and to arouse Toronto and Montreal, which are not on the line of the railway. If that is not the object of the dispatch, I know not what the ob'ect is. But I have to repeat that there is not a shadow of foundation for the statements made.


CUSTODY OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.
Richard Blain: My right hon. friend has no doubt overlooked the question that I put to him in respect to the original documents.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I have not overlooked it. I thought my hon. friend had exhausted all he had to say on the matter and that the House had also.


Richard Blain: I asked the right hon. gentleman if after hearing this long discussion he would instruct the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to lay the original documents on the table of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in accordance with your ruling the minister has laid the papers on the table of the House for the reasonable inspection of members, the same to be returned to him afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public buildings, Ontario-North Bay public buildings, $17,500.
William Pugsley: Petitions were received for the erection of this building from the municipal association, the board of trade, the ' mayor and some two hundred people. Up-

wards of a dozen properties were submitted to the government's agent, Mr. P. McCool. After examination, he secured options on eight. The department then sent an expert, Mr. Hewitt, to make an examination, ami he selected four with the purpose of getting offers. The site finally approved of cost 92 cents per square foot. The next most eligible site was offered at $2.31 per foot. The other sites were low lying, required expensive draining and were not central. The agent reported the price of 62 cents per foot as fair and reasonable. My hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. McCool) will corroborate my statement when I say that the property acquired by the department for $8,100 was valued by many people at as much as $10,000 and could have been sold afterwards for that sum. It was bought from Mr. William Doran. The site is 66 feet on Queen street and 132 feet on Fraser street.


Mr. FOWLER.: Any buildings ?


William Pugsley: Some old buildings.


George William Fowler: It is a large price ?


William Pugsley: North Bay is growing rapidly. The next eligible lot was offered at $11,000 or $2.31 per foot.


George William Fowler: What is the population?


William Pugsley: At present between 5,000 and 6,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is this for post office and custom house?


William Pugsley: Yes, and an armoury as well. All in one building.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: $61,373 including site, heating, electric wiring, fittings, &c.


George William Fowler: Who has the contract ?


Mr. PUGSLEY W. H.@: McGillivray and P. Lebel of Ottawa. The contract price is $33,879.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Were there many tenders?


William Pugsley: Nine, and the lowest was accepted.


George William Fowler: How much has been done?


William Pugsley: On the 15th December, $33,511.03.


George William Fowler: Who is the inspector?


William Pugsley: The clerk of works is Mr. William Martin.


Charles Arthur McCool: He is a builder and a practical man.


George William Fowler: That is a departure from the ordinary rule.


Charles Arthur McCool: When it was decided to erect a public building there I was asked Mr. PUGSLEY.
with regard to the site. I went to North Bay and placed the selection in the hands of the mayor at that time, who is now custom house officer, Mr. William Mackenzie, and the president of the board of trade. The president of the board is a very prominent Conservative politician as well as one of the leading citizens of the place. I asked them to select a number of sites and mark them Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and so on, in order of preference, and I handed them over to a namesake and a cousin of mine in the real estate business. And if any one should inquire as to his fitness for that kind of work, he will find that it was given into proper hands. They handed a list of the sites to Mr. McCool who got options on them and sent them down to the department. The minister sent up a representative and he made a selection. I had nothing whatever to do with it and had no preference for one property over another. The site chosen is considered the most suitable. Mrs. Doran was offered $10,000 for the property for commercial purposes, but she had sufficient interest in the town to give her preference to the department. Her interest was perhaps not altogether unselfish because her son was running one of the large hotels at the time and this site was within reasonable distance of it. and no doubt it would add to the value of his business to have this public building in its immediate vicinity. Otherwise she would not have been justified in taking $1,500 less than other people offered her. $8,500 was the original price but there was a building on it which sold for $400. making the net price $8,100. At that price, the property was the best bargain in North Bay for years. The town is very prosperous. It has a population of not less than 6.000 people at present. When the census was taken, its population was only 2.500, but the country north has increased since the census from 1,300 to 40,000. When this question was up here Friday, I think some hon. member on the other side said that North Bay would not be much after the Toronto-Sud-bury line was running. But North Bay will still be North Bay even after that line is built, because there is a tremendous country for which it is the distributing point.


Mr ARMSTRONG.: I understand the minister to say that the total contract for the building is $33,000. Does that include heating and lighting ?


William Pugsley: No, that is for the building only.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: With $33,000 for the building .and $8,000 for the site, how does the minister make up this $60,000 ?


William Pugsley: The site cost $8.100; survey of site, legal expenses and clerk of works' salary. 1901-3. paid the contractor to 15th December. 1907. $22,510 ; total pay-

rnents, 832,511.03. Amount due on contract, $11,369 ; heating and boilers, $4,500 ; electric wiring and fixtures, $1,500 ; fittings, furniture and lock boxes, $6,000 ; sidewalks, and fencing, $500 ; contingencies and superintendence, $4,993-total, $61,373.03.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is the contractor to receive more than this $33,000 ?


William Pugsley: There appear to be no extras.


George William Fowler: Is the electric light to be put up by contract ?


William Pugsley: This is not a contract, but an estimate.


Charles Arthur McCool: I may state, for the information of the committee-and I am very sory to say it-that the contractor has lost money. The excavation was of very hard rock.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We ought to get his picture.


Richard Blain: The minister is increasing the wages of the clerk of works to $4 a day. In the discussion we had last week, I did not notice any case in which the pay was over $3 a day.


William Pugsley: The further we go west the higher wages we have to pay to gentlemen in these positions. In British Columbia we have to pay considerable more.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: You only pay $4 a day in British Columbia, do you not ?


William Pugsley: No, more. I am advised by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Mc-Cool) that the services of a competent man for this work could not be had for less than $4 a day. In British Columbia we are paying $5.50 and even more.


George William Fowler: Do you pay these men for Sundays ?


William Pugsley: I presume so. But I intend to try to make an arrangement in future under which they will not be paid for Sundays. Of course, if you figure it on a monthly basis, it will come to the same thing.


George William Fowler: No, figuring by the day they will not claim wages for Sundays.


Richard Blain: This clerk of works has already received over $600. What does the minister expect the total pay of the clerk of works to be ?


William Pugsley: I am told that the building is about completed, with the exception of the fittings.


George William Fowler: You do not need the services of a clerk of works for the fittings, do
you ?
Mi-. PUGSLEY. I think we would require somebody to see to it that the work
is done according to the plans and specifications. At all events, we shall soon be able to dispense with his services.


Richard Blain: Was he a contractor or builder V


George Perry Graham: A builder. .


Charles Arthur McCool: Yes, and he took contracts occasionally.


William Pugsley: I will ask to take up again some of these Kingston items. I would ask for a reconsideration of the item (or a new gun-shed, with a view to striking [DOT]it out. A new plan is under consideration by the Militia Department for the erection of a barracks. If that is carried out, tiie gun-shed would form part of the new building. I move the reconsideration and striking out of the following items :
Kingston-new gun shed, $10,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Pugsley: Now, I move the reconsideration and striking out of the following item :
Kingston Artillery park-new guard house, including offices, &c., $8,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the object of striking it out?


William Pugsley: This would come into the scheme of the new barracks, for which the Department of Militia is going to ask an appropriation, which appropriation, perhaps, will appear in the supplementary estimates of this year.


George William Fowler: I take this opportunity of congratulating the minister on his economy. It appears that the result is to be a very much larger expense.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Pugsley: I move the reconsideration and striking out of the following item:
Kingston-new hospital for ' A ' and ' B ' batteries, $10,000.


William Pugsley: Now-, the following item was allowed to stand:
Kingston, Royal Military College-new servants' quarters, $10,000.
I have some information as to that. The information I have from the deputy minister is that these quarters are for the civil subordinates as well as for the riding school attachment. The building is for four non-commisioned officers and for 12 civil subordinates.


George William Fowler: That doesn't explain anything.


William Pugsley: These are for the married men's quarters.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: It would be better to leave all the military buildings, because I have not got full information.

Leamington public building, $7,000.


Mr. MARSHALL.: How much is going to be spent at Leamington?


William Pugsley: It is expected that the building will cost about $20,000. This estimate is to purchase land and make a commencement.


Mr. LALOR.: Leamington is a small place in the county of Essex. What peculiar claims has the town of Leamington for a post office?


William Pugsley: To begin with, the census of 1901 shows a population of 2,451. Then the town of Leamington is second only to Windsor, in the county of Essex, in the extent of its population, and it stands next to Windsor and Walkerville in the amount of revenue derived from the post office, customs and inland revenue. These three services will be accommodated in the new building. In some years the inland revenue lias amounted to $14,000. It has a number of factories, and does a large trade in lumber. It is being supplied with natural gas.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I concede that Leamington is a thriving town, but I would like to know what rule is adopted by the department according to which post offices are supplied. It strikes me from the public buildings that I see being voted, that the chief qualification must be that the county shall be represented by a supporter of the government.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman had been here when we discussed this matter last, he would have heard that in Sherbrooke, London and Brantford, which places are represented by Conservatives, the government are putting up public buildings. I think the hon. gentleman will find evidence that we are endeavouring as far as possible to meet the requirements of the people in respect to public buildings, irrespective of political considerations. It is also just possible that our friends may be a little more insistent in asking for public buildings than our opponents.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I have been begging for a long time for a drill hall for the town of Dunnville in which I live. We have a fine militia company there, and we cannot get accommodation for them. We are also in great need of a post office. I think there is no town in the province of Ontario that is worse off than we are, when the size of the place is considered. I think it is a far more important town than Leamington. I notice in the next county the town of Welland, which has not only a new drill hall but also a fine post office and customs house.


William Pugsley: What is the population of your town?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think 2,800. We have no public building of any kind whatever,


Frederick William Borden: either drill hall or post office. I think in the disbursement of public money for these purposes some consideration should be given to other counties than those sending Liberals to this House. I hope the Minister of Public Works will give my county a little more consideration than it has received in the past.


William Pugsley: I shall certainly give the matter careful consideration.


Richard Blain: The present minister is new to his office, but if he will look up the records of his department he will find that one of his predecessors sent out a circular asking members and defeated candidates to send in requests for public buildings.


William Pugsley: I have enough requests without sending out circulars inviting more.
Ottawa departmental buildings-renewal of skylights, $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is asked for by the chief architect for renewal of the present skylights in the new departmental buildings. It is for the purpose of providing metal skylights including flashings. There was an appropriation in 1907-8 which was not used. We are asking for a revote.


George William Fowler: What departmental buildings are these-the eastern and western blocks ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: Is that under contract ?


William Pugsley: It is not yet.


Mr. J. D. REID.: ' Is it going to be done by contract ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not understand how the work can be done for that amount ?


William Pugsley: If it cannot be done we will do as much as we can.


George William Fowler: That seems a large price for simply putting in these metal windows.


William Pugsley: They are skylights, and the work will be somewhat extensive.


John Dowsley Reid: The department know exactly how many skylights have to be renewed and there should be no difficulty in asking for tenders.


William Pugsley: We have a carpentering and glazier's department in connection with the Public Works Department.


John Dowsley Reid: 
William Pugsley: If it can be done by tender, I will certainly have it done in that way.
Ottawa Printing Bureau-electric motor machinery, $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is a vote of $6,000 to provide for electric motors for the new machines that are being installed at the Printing Bureau The total probable cost is $20,504. There was a vote previously and we are asking now for $6,000. The assumed expenditure of $11,176 to the end of the fiscal year added to the $6,000 which we are now voting and $2,000 which was expended to December 31, 1907, makes a total of about $20,000.
Owen Sound public building, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is a vote which is asked to make provision for completing, during the present fiscal year, the public building which is under contraction at Owen Sound.


George William Fowler: What is the total cost ?


William Pugsley: The total probable cost including site is $90,000.


George William Fowler: Owen Sound is not a large town ?


William Pugsley: Yes. This building is to be 82 by 52, with two storeys and basement.


George William Fowler: Why do you provide
such a large building ?


William Pugsley: This is to be used for the post office, customs and inland revenue.


George William Fowler: We have the sarile in my town and the building there only cost $14,000.


William Pugsley: Your town, of course, is very much smaller than Owen Sound.


George William Fowler: What is the population ?


Henry Horton Miller: About 12.000.


William Pugsley: In 1901 the population was 8,776. Owen Sound, I believe, is one of the best harbours if not the best natural harbour upon the Georgian bay. *


George William Fowler: What rent have you been paying for the post office and customs house ?


William Pugsley: The postal revenue is $16,865, customs duties, $45,000 ; excise, $40,000 ; money orders issued, $40,000 and money orders paid, $65,000.


Richard Blain: What did the site cost ?


William Pugsley: I cannot give my hon. friend from Kings and Albert the rental that was paid. The site cost $10,000.


Richard Blain: Pretty high, is it not ?


William Pugsley: It is a very finely situated lot with 70 feet frontage on Baker street and 95 on Scope street. My hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Telford) is not here.


Richard Blain: He would be in favour of it.
Mr. FOWLER, Perhaps it may be the same with him as with the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Zimmerman) whose speech appeared in the Hamilton ' Herald ' or ' Times ' although that hon. gentleman was not here to deliver it.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: I was not responsible for it.


George William Fowler: I am not saying that the hon. gentleman was responsible, but it shows a strong imagination on the part of the reporter of the ' Times.'


David Henderson: I think the newspaper should be excused. I made the statement just as the hon. member for Hamilton was going out that the item would be passed and by mistake, they have reported the speech as having been delivered by Mr. Zimmerman instead of Mr. Henderson.


Richard Blain: May I ask the minister what newspjapers the advertisement appeared, when tenders were asked for the Owen Sound building ? I notice that $353 was paid for advertising. Does not my hon. friend think that is a large amount ?


William Pugsley: That would take in the Toronto daily papers and my deputy tells me that it was advertised in about thirty different papers.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend think any of these would be Liberal-Conservative papers ?


William Pugsley: I would hardly suppose so, unless I had information to that effect.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend was, the other evening endeavouring to lay down the policy that there was no politics in advertising for tenders.


William Pugsley: No, what I told my hon. friend was that if I anticipated that the circumstances should arise that the advertising could not be widely circulated by the insertion of the advertisement in Liberal papers, I would not hesitate to avail myself of Conservative papers.


Richard Blain: I may say that I think the newspaper having the largest circulation in the town is the Liberal-Conservative paper.


Henry Horton Miller: Owen Sound is the county town of my county. It has a population of 12,000 and almost adjoining it is the village of Brook with a population of

7S20
about 2,000. The nearest large towns to Owen Sound are Durham, 28 miles to the south, Meaford, 18 to 20 miles east, and Wiarton, 25 miles northwest, so that Owen Sound does business with a very large territory. It has one of the finest harbours on the lakes and during last winter there was tied up in that harbour a larger amount of shipping than in perhaps any other harbour in Ontario ? The site chosen for the post office met with the approval of all the people of the town, and it is considered a very fine one. As to the circulation of the newspapers referred to by the hon. member for Peel, I do not know which of the three papers has the largest circulation but I should say it was between the Owen Sound ' Times ' the Conservative paper, and the Owen Sound ' Sun ' one of the Liberal papers. The Owen Sound ' Sun ' is published twice a week and the Owen Sound ' Times ' once a week.


Richard Blain: Will the minister lay on the table a list of the papers in which this advertisement was published.


William Pugsley: I will be glad to.
Mr. BLAIN1. The hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon) stated the other night that the ' London Advertiser ' had about the same circulation as the London ' Free Press.' I have here a certified statement which gives the daily average circulation of the London ' Free Press ' as 19,589 and the daily average circulation of the ' Advertiser ' at 11,827. I again ask the minister if he will publish advertisement with reference to the Glencoe building in the London ' Free Press ' which has the largest circulation in that section of the province.


William Pugsley: I cannot promise the hon. gentleman, but I should think that the ' Advertiser ' with a circulation of 12,000 (if that figure is correct) would afford sufficient publicity. It must be remembered that the advertisement is published in several Toronto papers one of which is the ' Globe ', and I think my hon. friend will admit that the Toronto ' Globe ' has a much larger circulation in Ontario than any Conservative newspaper; its circulation is twice or three times as large.


David Henderson: Not at all.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) would not suggest that there was any want of wide circulation for this advertisement seeing it was published In thirty different newspapers.


Richard Blain: My point is that the minister is using this large amount of public money for political purposes.


William Pugsley: Oh, no. ,


Richard Blain: The minister will not say that any single one of these thirty news-Mr. MILLER.
papers was a Liberal-Conservative newspaper. If he will frankly admit that the policy of the department is to put these advertisements in Reform papers and refuse them to Liberal-Conservative papers I can understand him.


William Pugsley: I told my hon. friend that I would only avail myself of the columns of Conservative papers in cases where I felt it was necessary to give wider circulation by doing so. I may say to my hon. friend that we make out a list of newspapers in Tillich advertisements for works in the district are to be inserted and every day we are refusing to give our friends advertisements. We feel that by advertising in newspapers in the district and surrounding cities where the works are to be carried out that we are giving ample publicity and we do not yield to the request of our friends to extend the patronage.


Richard Blain: How will a Conservatitve contractor know about these works if he only takes a Conservative newspaper.


George Perry Graham: He would not be so narrow as that.


William Pugsley: We have not found any difficulty in that direction. We find that Conservative contractors tender and they always get fair play.


George William Fowler: Would it not be much cheaper and do just as well to advertise in the ' Canada Gazette.'


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that you are spending too much money on advertising, and that if these advertisements were published only in the ' Canada Gazette ' they would reach contractors and builders all over the country because if such were known they would all take the ' Canada Gazette '. I do not find fault with the minister giving these advertisements to the Liberal newspapers.


William Pugsley: You think I would be an anomalous sort of individual if I did otherwise.


George William Fowler: If I were running a Liberal newspaper and you advertised in a Conservative organ and not in my paper I would feel dissatisfied. We do not run a political department the same as we run a Sunday school, and you are expected to give the patronage to your friends. That part of it is all right. But, if these advertisements were only published in the ' Canada Gazette' they would reach all the contractors who would be on the outlook for them. A contractor living in Ottawa might tender on a building in New Brunswick and as we know the Sussex building was erected by an Ottawa contractor. It might be a little tough on the newspapers to advertise only

In the ' Gazette ' but it would be satisfactory.


William Pugsley: It would be a great departure from the practice of the last forty years and I fear it would be said that I was not giving sufficient publicity.


George William Fowler: It would be said that you were not giving sufficient pap to the newspapers that are supporting you. The hon. gentleman need not be afraid of a new departure because he is supposed to be a Liberal now and Liberals are always making departures.


David Henderson: I have some sympathy with the suggestion made by the hon. member (Mr. Fowler). I have often thought it would be a good idea to have one standard publication in which these contracts would be advertised, and the contractors all over the country knowing of that would look out for these advertisements. With reference to the Owen Sound public building, I do not agree with the hon. member for South Grey that it is necessary to spend this large amount of money for a public building even in the thriving town of Owen Sound. It seems to me that for a great deal less, ample accommodation could be furnished for the Post Office, Customs and Inland Revenue Departments. To my mind, this would be an admirable case in which, if the government are determined to spend $90,000 in a county they could divide it up among the various towns in the county. I do not know that there is a public building in South Grey or in East Grey. We do not ask the government to increase the expenditure; I would be very sorry to do that: but by dividing the expenditure amongst the different towns and villages in a county, the minister could provide ample accommodation in the county town. and small public buildings in other towns and villages. I hope the minister will take this into consideration.


George William Fowler: The minister seems to think that $90,000 is a very trifling sum for a custom house in the town of Owen Sound, with a population of 7,000 or 8.000 people.


William Pugsley: Twelve thousand.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for South Grey has made a census of his own, and says 12,000; but he does not know any more about the population of Owen Sound than I do. I would remind the minister that in the city of Fredericton the parliament house, a very handsome and commodious building, was erected and completed at a cost of only $108,000.


William Pugsley: When was that built?


George William Fowler: About twenty-five years ago. It is a large and handsome building of stone, a credit to the province, and it cost only $18,000 more than you are going 248
to spend on this custom house in the little town of Owen Sound.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think the minister told us that the postal revenue of Leamington was $14,000 and that of Owen Sound, $16,000. A $7,000 public building is good enough for Leamington, but $90,000 is to be spent on one in Owen Sound.


William Pugsley: The excise revenue in Owen Sound was $40,000.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I am speaking now of the postal revenue. I quite agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Halton. that there should be some arrangement by which some of the public money would be spent on the smaller towns and villages. I think they are entitled to some consideration. It does seem to me that $90,000 for a public building in Owen Sound is excessive, and that there are many other places that are equally entitled to be provided for.


George Perry Graham: Owen Sound is one of the towns I know something about. It is one of the principal gateways to eastern t anada from the Great Lakes and has perhaps the best natural harbour in the western part of this province. Along a stretch of fifteen miles, a disabled vessel can get in and be in perfect safety. Last year they did a large business. It has large elevators and handled some 6,000,000 bushels of grain and expects to handle more. I have a good deal of sympathy with the idea of the government spending money on good buildings wherever there are a revenue and population to justify it. I do not take the ground at all that we ought to be parsimonious although we ought not to be extravagant. This money is placed where necessity demands it and we should take into consideration the necessity for a building and not say promiscuously that we ought to spend so much in the country and so much in the town. That is not a business way of looking at it.


David Henderson: Why not ? Is not the country entitled to public buildings as
well as the town ?


George Perry Graham: I said where the business needs it. We ought not to say that we shall give so much to the country villages and so much to the towns without recard to the needs and interests of the different places. The Inland Revenue at Owen Sound is something like $40,000 last year. The postal revenue is about $16,000 and the customs about $45,000 or over $100,000 year-1 v revenue. In the smaller places, my hon. friend from Haldimand forgets that they iust require post offices whereas here we have three services in the one building. The Dominion ought to take pride in having a good building where there is a large revenue and also out of regard for the safety of the service we ought to have a fireproof building. Owen Sound is one of most



thriving places in the Dominion. It has the situation and the enterprise and to this day they have never had a government building there. For the present needs this building may be a little large, but it is wise economy to look to the future and I believe that no more justifiable expenditure could be made by any public department.


Mr. OWEN.: I think the hon. minister must be mistaken when he said the revenue of the post office at Leamington was $14,000 and at Owen Sound $16,000.
Mr. LALOR, From the latest report, the town of Dunville in my constituency has a postal revenue of $4,437 and it has no post office.


William Pugsley: I did not give the postal revenue at Leamington as $14,000. I said that the Inland Revenue was that amount and the postal revenue $3,375.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Dunnville has a postal revenue of $4,437 and Leamington $3,177. The money order revenue at Dunnville is $15,759, Glencoe $9,773 and Leamington $12,750. Much smaller places get magnificent bulid-ings while Dunnville, which is much more important, cannot get them. The government should take into consideration the importance of the town and the public revenue collected there, and should not make it their first consideration that the town elects a supporter of the government. Towns of less importance should not be given public buildings while the more important ones are suffering,
. Mi\ BLAIN. I want to attract my hon. friend's attention to the large increase in expenditure over the Estimates first made when the votes are first asked for. For instance in 1906 the Estimates for the building at North Bay was given at $14,000 by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman). Now my hon. friend says the total cost will be about $60,000.


William Pugsley: Probably my predecessor did not include the site and fittings and furniture. The contract was for $33,000.


Richard Blain: There may be something in that. The estimate for the Owen Sound public building, when the vote was first asked, was between $40,000 and $50,000. The ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) said it would depend on whether the building was to be of stone or brick. Now-' we have the minister saying that the cost will be $90,000, almost double. I hope my hon. friend will be more careful and see that his estimates are more in accord with the total expenditure. The opposition are alw'ays tw'itted with having consented to these expenditures, but after voting certain amounts, they are then asked to vote a great deal more than was estimated and when objection is raised they are asked if they are going to refuse money to complete Mr. GRAHAM
the work after so much has been expended on it. As the minister is new to the department and is reforming it on every hand, I hope he will see that his department in future will give a correct statement of what these buildings will cost. I am quite sure that this is one of the ways in which the enormous expenditure of which the people of Canada are complaining is arising and taking possession of the government-and, I fear, is mastering some of the departments.


William Pugsley: I have been a good deal impressed by the arguments of some hon. gentlemen opposite-my hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler), my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) and others-as to the reasonable demands of the people for erecting buildings in the smaller towns throughout the country.	I entirely
sympathize with that view.	In towns
where there is no other very considerable expenditure of public money, even though the population of such towns may not be very large, it is not unreasonable that they should have the accommodation afforded by a public building. They contribute to the revenue of the country proportionately to people living in larger cities and towns. But we must be patient; we cannot erect all these buildings at once, as some of our friends would like us to do. If I am to judge by some of the expressions of our friends opposite, instead of providing for a moderate number of buildings, such as I have provided for, they would like a public building for every town in the country.


David Henderson: I have not suggested anything of that kind.


William Pugsley: Well, I hope our friends will be patient.


David Marshall: When this matter was discussed a few days ago, I think I did not make myself clear. I stated the population of Leamington at 2,451. The population of Aylmer is about the same. Now, with regard to the town of Aylmer, I would like to call attention to the fact that the postal revenue of that town is $4,459; the amount of money orders issued about $20,000. I did not bring out these facts the other day when I was speaking about the matter.


William Pugsley: Aylmer is a very nice town. I am going to try to go there. Will the hon. gentleman promise me, if I go, that he will not accuse me of trying to bribe the people?


David Marshall: I will undertake to take the minister out and show him a good country. Let me add to what I already said that we have one of the largest canning factories in Canada, also a large condensed milk factory, large iron works and other manufactories. Aylmer is a very important town As I understand it, the

reason given for not building a post office in Aylmer before now is that we have not made claims. I intend to keep on making claims, and I hope to be successful.
Port Arthur public building-addition, $10,000.


William Pugsley: Of this, $2,000 is a revote. It is for the erection of a one-storey brick addition on a stone foundation, in rear of the existing building, extending from the examining warehouse towards Court street. The new building will be 38 by 36 feet.


George William Fowler: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: The contract is for $7,475. It is estimated that heating and lighting will cost $1,000, fittings and furniture, &c., $2,000; contingencies and superintendence, $1,548.	Tenders were called
for by public advertisement and two tenders were received, one for $7,475 and the other for $10,000. The lowest was accepted.


George William Fowler: I have had some experience in building, and I must say this seems an awful price for a building 38 by 36 feet. It is only a plain building, I understand- a sort of warehouse.


William Pugsley: It is an examining
warehouse. It is very substantially built- very large girders carried on iron columns.
Renfrew public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This building is to be of stone on a concrete foundation. The main portion is to have a frontage of 50 feet, and 40 feet in depth, with two storeys, basement and attic; and addition in the rear 27 by 27 feet, and two storeys high.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is to be me total cost?


William Pugsley: Including everything, $41,154.06. This is for both post office and customs house.


Richard Blain: Are there to be any extras?


William Pugsley: There is a contract for $24,500, and I think there is no estimate of extras.


George William Fowler: What is the population of Renfrew, and what is its revenue?


William Pugsley: In 1901, the population was 3,153; postal revenue, $5,212.79; customs revenue, $3,392.89; money orders issued, $26,681.89; money orders paid, $27,681. Renfrew has a fine water-power. There are there a foundry, tannery and woollen, saw, flour and planing mills.


George William Fowler: This building is altogether too expensive ; $20,000 would be enough.


William Pugsley: I would be glad to cut these buildings to $20,000, but it is pretty difficult.
24Si


George Taylor: It is not difficult at all. Put your foot down and say that the building shall not cost more than a certain price, and tell your architect he must draw the plans accordingly. The public building in my town houses the post office and inland revenue, and is ample for the purpose, and it cost $14,000 equipped.


William Pugsley: I am going to see what I can do.
St. Mary's public building, $12,000.


William Pugsley: This is for a public building in the town of St. Mary's, in South [DOT]Perth. The total cost is estimated at $40,819.23.


George William Fowler: An outrage again.


William Pugsley: You can hardly call it an ' outrage,' though you might say we might erect a smaller and cheaper building That is possible. In future. I am going to try to cut the prices down.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What was the cost of the site ?


William Pugsley: It was $2,300.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the population of St. Mary's ?


William Pugsley: Quite a large town- 3,384.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The total post office revenue is $5,740, and we are expending $40,000 upon the post office in a town with a revenue of a little over $5,060.


William Pugsley: But you must remember that this building is for post office, customs and inland revenue purposes. The customs revenue alone is over $13,000.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It strikes me that the expenditure is far in excess of the importance of a town of the size of St. Mary's. I urge again the same objection, that sq large an amount of' money is being expended in one town while another town is overlooked.


William Pugsley: We are endeavouring j:o cut down the cost below the sum asked for,, and we are endeavouring to do the same with all these votes. The contract price of this builing is $22,500. The town is in the county of South Perth.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Why is it costing $40,000, when the contract price is only $22,500 ?


William Pugsley: We have to take into account the cost of the site, heating, fittings, furniture, and lock boxes, which alone cost $5,000 Inspection is included in the survey of the site. Contingencies and sunerin-tendence, $3,009. Survey of site, legal and travelling expenses, printing and advertising. salaries and superintendence, amount to a little over $5,000. The plans were prepared in the department.


George William Fowler: How long will this contract last ?


William Pugsley: The contract was dated in September, 1906, and the building is to be completed by the 15th of December, 1907. There are the travelling expenses of the architect to and from Ottawa to examine the building from time to time. It may be that the $3,000 for contingencies will not be all used.


George William Fowler: Who is the architect ?


William Pugsley: 1 have not the name of the architect.


Mr LALOR.: Was the inspector appointed by the patronage committee of the town?


William Pugsley: I do not know that there is any patronage committee.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Was the inspector a local man, or was he sent by the department


William Pugsley: I have not the name of the inspector.


Richard Blain: His name is J. C. Wieder-hold.


William Pugsley: When we were discussing public buildings before I stated that in some cases the clerk of works got $3 a day, in other cases $3.50, and in some cases $4. That man, as my deputy tells me, is not paid for Sundays ; therefore he gets a little extra pay per day.


Charles Lewis Owen: I want to draw the minister's attention to the town of Oampbellford on the Trent canal.


William Pugsley: If we were to erect all the buildings we have in the estimates and all that are asked for by hon. gentlemen opposite we would exceed the revenue.


Charles Lewis Owen: The postal revenue of Camp-bellford is $3,500, money orders issued $15,000, and money orders paid $11,000.


William Pugsley: What is the population?


Charles Lewis Owen: Three thousand. I have not a statement of the customs revenue, but it is in the neighbourhood of $12,000. The Trent Valley canal will be completed through that part of the country within three or four years and we expect then to bloom into a city. It would be a very deplorable thing if Oampbellford should bloom into a city with such a progressive government as we have and we found we had no public building.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman expects it will bloom into a city. How does the operation take place?


Charles Lewis Owen: When the Trent Valley canal is completed we expect to bloom into a city. We are developing in the neighbourhood of 25,000 and 30,000 horse-power.


William Pugsley: Have you any flour mills there?
Mr. PUGSLEY


Charles Lewis Owen: Yes, and a large woollen mill, but, I regret to say, the woollen mill is running rather slack at present. We have a shoe factory, a sawmill, a planing mill and a sash factory. It is a very progressive town and a large amount of manufacturing is done there. At the present time we have to climb up a long stairs to the custom office and while the post office is moved to a more commodious building the accommodation is inadequate.


William Pugsley: Is the custom house a public building?


Mr OWEN.: No, we have no public building.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to hear as to Oampbellford and if I have the opportunity of visiting that section of the country I will be very glad to look into the requirements of the place. It is not at all impossible that next session the wants of Oampbellford may receive favourable consideration.


Charles Lewis Owen: If the minister comes to Oampbellford I will guarantee that we will give him a splendid time.


William Pugsley: I am sure of that.


George William Fowler: I was going to point out to my hon. friend from East Northumberland (Mr. Owen) that he might save his breath in regard to asking the minister what he shall do next session, looking forward to the time when the blooming process shall take place in Oampbellford, be-caused by the time that Cambellford blooms forth as a city this present administration *will be out of power, his friends will have the locating of post offices throughout the country and this town of Oampbellford will be looked after.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The minister said that if we only had patience for a short time all these things would come right; I suppose he had in view the change which is likely to take place in the administration.


David Marshall: We have three customs ports in East Elgin and the revenue amounts to $108,000. Aylmer is the centre of East Elgin and it is a very important place.


William Pugsley: There are a great many important towns in Ontario.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot help thinking that the minister would expedite matters if he would just be honest with the opposition and tell us that he did not intend to give one hon. member on this side of the House a public building in his riding. I am satisfied that the minister has not taken into consideration the granting of any public buildings to the constituencies represented by members of the opposition.


George William Fowler: I do not agree with that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He may have taken it into consideration, but he does not propose to do anything.


William Pugsley: My kon. friend is doing me a wrong in that respect. Two or three days ago, when the hon. member for Kings and Albert rose and spoke of a public building at Hillsborough, I. while expressing my regret that the hon. gentleman had not approached me on the subject, told him that others had urged it very strongly and that X had the matter under favourable consideration. I may say to my hon. friend that there are quite a number of counties which are represented by our friends opposite in regard to which I recognize the claims which the people have for consideration in the way of public buildings, and I intend, If I remain Minister of Public Works, to take these claims into favourable consideration.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am very glad to hear the minister make the remark he has. I think from the manner in which he says it that he means what he says. If he takes it into consideration a town such as Camp-bellford and the one represented by my hon. friend from Haldimand with several thousand of a population and large revenues. I am sure that he cannot consistently refuse to consider their claims, although, when I remember that in some of the Quebec constituencies, towns and villages of 500 and 600 people are receiving $20,000 buildings I cannot help thinking that there is not likely to be a very great deal of expenditure in some of the Ontario towns.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I see that $262.78 was expended for advertising for tenders for this building at St. Mary's. Would the minister bring down the list of the papers and the amount paid to each?


William Pugsley: Certainly.
Sarnia public building-alterations and additions, $5,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. This is to make provision for the completion of the construction of a brick addition 53 by 25 feet to the Sarnia public building alterations. The total estimated cost is $14,999.22.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What amount of money was expended previously?


William Pugsley: The amount to the 24th of December, was $5,426.22.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What has been the total cost of the building?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I have not that. I suppose the original building was constructed quite a number of years ago.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: No. just two years ago.


David Henderson: Is this the Sarnia post office?


William Pugsley: Yes.


David Henderson: It is purely a post office.


William Pugsley: No, because the addition involves alterations to the roof of the examining warehouse.


David Henderson: When originally constructed it was not intended for any other purpose than that of a post office.


William Pugsley: It is used as an examining warehouse. The cost to the 30th June, 1906, was $73,915.78.


David Henderson: I remember being m that building once and I thought it was a miserable small place, altogether insufficient for the requirements of Sarnia.


William Pugsley: It is used for post office, custom house, inland revenue, examining warehouse and the Indian agent. It is 99 feet on one street and 73 feet on another.


David Henderson: Then it must be altogether a different building from that I have in mind. I remember when Sir Wm. Mulock was Postmaster General discussing the matter and my remarks were endorsed by Dr. Johnston who then represented the constituency.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What will this extension to the building be used for.


William Pugsley: It will be used in connection with some of the various services accommodated there.
Simooe public buildings, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is in the county of Norfolk. Now, here is a constituency represented by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite, which illustrates the fact that we are endeavouring to meet the wants of the public irrespective of the views of the representative.


David Henderson: Carried.


Richard Blain: Let those Toronto items stand, until the members for the city are present.


William Pugsley: I am quite willing to do so if the hon. gentleman desires. I move that the vote for the Toronto custom house be dropped.


Richard Blain: Why?


William Pugsley: It is all paid for in the past year; the work is completed.
>
Welland public building, $20,000.


William Pugsley: The lot here is known as the market site and has a frontage of 58 feet on one street and 150 feet on another street.


George William Fowler: What did you pay for the lot?


William Pugsley: It was owned by the corporation of the town of Welland and the

price was $6,000. The town reserves at the rear of the town hall a strip of land for a driveway to be held In common with the town.


George William Fowler: What was the total cost of the building?


William Pugsley: The plans have not yet been completed, but it is supposed it will cost about $30,000.


George William Fowler: Why don't you keep it within $20,000?


William Pugsley: This is the estimate of the chief architect. I will try to keep it down to $20,000 exclusive of the site, but it will be pretty difficult to do that. This is to be for customs as well.
Mr. FOW'LER. Why don't you keep it down to $20,000?


William Pugsley: 1 don't like to set up my judgment against that of the chief architect. Welland has a population of about 4,500 and within last year it has increased by between 1,500 and 2,000. It is moving ahead very rapidly. Last year the Plymouth Cordage Company which will employ 400 hands spent $300,000 there.


George William Fowler: Do you allow the chief architect to say what shall be the cost of a public building?


William Pugsley: No; but I respect his judgment.


George William Fowler: The chief architect may have judgment with respect to drawing plans, but with respect to the requirements of the different towns throughout the country I would not consider the chief architect's opinion was worth a cent. It is the minister who is responsible for that.


William Pugsley: The chief architect gets information as to what accommodation is required for the present and for the future.


David Henderson: No doubt we will be told that the chief architect will take the $8,000 salary and the minister will take the chief arcnitect's salary. I was astounded to hear the minister say that he had to give attention to the chief architect as to what amount of money should be spent by the government in any particular place. Surely the minister spoke these words without consideration.


William Pugsley: No, that was said deliberately.


David Henderson: Then I regret it* very much. The minister should be responsible for the expenditure.


William Pugsley: So he is.


David Henderson: Not if he allows his chief architect to overrule him. The minister should be in a position to say to the chief architect: I want you to draw plans for a building costing so many thousand Mr. PUGSLEY.
dollars, and all the architect should have to say about it is to draw the plans. If he did that, the chief architect would have obeyed his order, and the minister would be surprised, when the building was erected, what a beautiful building he would get for that amount of money. The country wTill be surprised when they read that the minister has acceded to the officers of his department the right to say how much the expenditure of this country is to be.


William Pugsley: It is delightful to see the serious countenance of my hon. friend when he knows that he is only joking.


David Henderson: No, I am absolutely serious.'


William Pugsley: I think it would be absurd for me to say to the chief architect, they want a post office in Montreal and I want you to spend $50,(100 ou it, or they want a post office at Ottawa and I want you to spend $25,000 on it. What we do is this. The chief architect finds out what the requirements of a town are, considers what its present population is and whether it is a growing town or not, and is then able to judge what accommodation is required, and he makes his estimate accordingly. When it comes to my hands, I cut it down as much as possible. At the same time I want him to erect a building which will be a credit to the government and not a discredit to the town. I am quite ready to admit that I. am advised by the chief architect and the chief engineer and the deputy, for whose judgments I have great respect.


Mr LALOR.: The town of Welland I know very well ; the county of Welland adjoins my county, and I quite agree with the minister when he says that Welland is a growing and prosperous town. I do not know any town that is growing as fast. I think the expenditure of $20,000 in Welland is a necessary and very wise expenditure, very much more so than an expenditure of $40,000 in St. Mary's or $90,000 in Owen Sound.


George William Fowler: We are not objecting to an expenditure of $20,000 in Welland ; but the point was that the building was to cost $30,000 instead of $20,000. I cannot agree with the views expressed by the minister in regard to how far he should be guided by his officers. Along certain lines that is correct. As he is not a draughtsman, he must be guided by the chief architect in the drawing of the plans ; but in regard to the requirements of a town the minister ought to know a great deal more than the chief architect. But according to the statement of the minister, the chief architect is the only one in the department who assumes any" responsibility in regard to the erection of buildings. He makes inquiries as to the requirements of a town and its prospects of growth ; he makes his plans accordingly ;

and estimates the cost after he draws the plans. That seems to be a very strange way of proceeding. The country will be surprised to learn that the chief architect is the master of the situation in the Department of Public Works. He may be a man of great ability along his particular l'ne [DOT] but the exhibition we have had in the last week or two in the estimates of the Department of Public Works that have been under discussion, have convinced me at any rate that the chief architect is a man upon whose judgment it is not safe to rely.
Mr. PUGSLEY I am afraid you are hard to convince.


George William Fowler: Not at all. We have found that the chief architect has a staff of twelve architects besides himself,- and that in addition over $100,000 was spent last year for architects.


William Pugsley: Oh. no.


George William Fowler: I say, oh, yes. This is the man who decides whether a public building shall be built in a certain town or not and what money shall be spent on it, and the minister meekly bows his head and confirms whatever statement he makes.


William Pugsley: That is not exactly what I said.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister left us to infer that, and knowing what a mild man he is, I am sure he bows his head with grace and meekness. I venture to say that even in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the subordinates have not quite so great control over the minister.


William Pugsley: It strikes me that my hon. friend's remarks are not founded on reason. Surely if a wharf is to be constructed, it would be absurd for me to say to the chief engineer, I want you to see that a wharf is built that will cost $10,000. What I ask him to do is to examine the site, find out the depth of water, the size of the steamers which will use the wharf, what frontage is required and how far the wharf should extend into the water and then give an estimate of the cost. And if he should estimate that a wharf suitable to the requirements will cost $10,000, it would be absurd for me to limit the expenditure to $5,000. In the same way, when a public building is required, I have to get the chief architect to examine into the details and make his estimates according to the requirements. And if a public building requires a certain number of offices, it would be absurd for me to order one with insufficient accommodation. I have to be guided by the report of my chief architect.
Whitby public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: The lot is 150 feet by 05. The estimated cost is something over $20,000. The building will accommodate
both Whitby east and Whitby west. The total population is 4,060.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Pugsley, House adjourned at 1.30 a.m. Tuesday.

Tuesday, May 5, 1908.