1908-04-21

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grev).: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to read the following newspaper item :-
Washington, D.C., April 13.-President Roosevelt to-day transmitted to the Senate Mr. A. LAVERGNE.
treaties with Great Britain in relation to the fisheries on the great lakes as between the United States and Canada.
And I would ask, in view of these treaties having been presented to the United States whether the Prime Minister is prepared to bring down information to the parliament of Canada the representatives of the other side interested, which. I should think, would be the natural and constitutional course.


Mr.  G. H.@: We have not yet received the ratification. As soon as we receive them, they will be communicated to the House. I should think that, as they have been communicated to the United States Senate, we ought to have them here.



ENGLISH AND FRENCH ORDER PAPERS.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to direct your attention to something that I have noticed several times of late and that, it seems to me, ought to be made right. Comparing the English version of the orders of the day with the French version, I find that the items are not the same on the two papers. For instance, take the items under the headings * Public Bills, and Orders ' in the Order Paper of to-day, I find, in the English version,' item 21 as follows :-
No. 21.
February 12-House again in Committee on Bill No. 2, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.-Mr. Lancaster.
But, in the French version, item 21 is Bill (No. 18). But Bill (No. 18) is item No. 22 in the English Order Paper, being the second item under the heading ' Public Bills and Orders.' Then in the French version, I find that the fourth order under ' Public Bills and Orders,' being item No. 24. is Bill (No. 43). But. in the English version, this is the third order under this head or item 23. I find that Item No. 30 of the English orders appears as item No. 22 in the French orders. It seems to me, as well as I can judge, that the French version is correct. Rule 28 provides :-
Rills reported after second reading from any standing or select committee, shall be placed on the orders of the day following the reception of the report, for reference to a Committee of the Whole House, in their proper order next after Bills reported from Committees of the Whole House.
According to that the second order under ' Public Bills and Orders ' in the English Order Pancr ought to he the first, for it is ' House in committee on Bill (No. 18) to amend the Railway Act (reported as amended).' As I understand it. Bills reported from committee as amended must

come first on tlie Order Paper and the Bills reported without amendment second. But they are reversed here. I have noticed these differences several times and have wondered how they arise. It seems to me that both versions ought to be the same, for, in that way, you avoid any danger of doing injustice.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The matter will be looked into.



DREDGING CONTRACTS.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) was to lay two documents on the table today. Might I ask if they are ready ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I thought it better to have copies made. Of course, I will produce the originals if the hon. gentleman desires it, but if copies are presented they can be used-


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, may I have one now ?


William Pugsley: I have given directions to have the copies made. But there are quite a number of dredging contracts in the order in council and a separate report of the chief engineer as to each one. They are being copied, but P cannot promise them before to-morrow. I would ask 1he hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) if it would not be convenient for him to discuss the matter in committee, as each item will be in the estimates. I will have the copies desired by to-morrow.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I move for leave to discuss a question of urgent importance, the question of dredging contracts at Midland, Tiffin and Victoria harbour.
Leave being granted.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) stated yesterday, in answer to a question from myself that he was proceeding, during the coming season, to expend moneys for dredging at Midland. Tiffin-which is a point adjoining Midland -and Victoria harbour, without asking for tenders for the work for which the money is to be expended; but proceeding upon the prices that prevailed last year. Therefore I know, having seen the tenders of last year, what prices are to be paid for that work, without the report of the minister being brought down, which I expected to see .to-day. Now, Mr. Speaker, in that somewhat well known document called the report of the Civil Service Commission, upon page 42, will be found a very pertinent and *very strong reference to the millions upon millions of dollars that are being expended in different parts of the Dominion on dredging ; and I will call the attention of the House to the reference in that respect.
In certain cases there may be over-payments of wages such as the notorious instance which was brought to light about a year ago, when a clerk of works appointed hy political influence was found to have sublet his work to another person at a much lower rate. Your commissioners consider that some steps should be taken to organize the large army of employees in connection with this department, many of whom have served their entire lifetime in its employ, and bring them under definite regulations so that their employment mav be considered fixed and stable.
And furthermore, in volume II of the evidence of the Civil Service Commission, the following appears upon page 1100 :


The Chairman:: Q. You have a chief superintendent at St. John?-A. Yes, for the maritime provinces.
Q. And you have also dredging done by contract?-A. Yes.	_
Q. In connection with the dredging done by contract you have inspectors?-A. Yes.
Q. There was a statement made in the House of Commons during the last session, I think, by Mr. Bennett, that one of these inspectors of dredging to whom you paid so much a day, farmed it out to another man at half price?- A. Less than half. He was getting $3 a day, and he paid out $1.25.
Q. How are these inspectors of dredging appointed?-A. This year, when we ask for a recommendation for local men we state that they must be men of good standing and reputation, and furthermore they are invited to>
make a declaration to the effect that they are not in any way connected with companies or individuals who are performing dredging. We are trying to avoid the fact of relatives of contractors being employed to superintend them, and we are going to exercise the closest possible supervision so as to see that every inspector is on his work all the time that the work lasts.
By Mr. Fyshe :
Q. Why not hold the local government engineers responsible for that?-A. The local government engineer has perhaps forty works to look after. He cannot be at one work the whole time.	_
Q. He can get one of his subordinates to be there?-A. He cannot do it for all the works; he would require an immense staff. One man has to have charge of half a dozen works. The Toronto engineer, for instance, runs as far as Manitoulin islands, and he has to go around the shores of Lake Ontario, and he has perforce to trust somebody for some of the works.
Q. Could not the government so manage that a government official connected with the department could exercise an oversight?-A. We do. Our engineer or the superintendent of dredging visits the places at times, but they are not there all the time, and while they are not there, it is like when the cat is away.
By the Chairman:
Q. It would be in the interest of the contractor to connive at irregularities in inspection?-A. Very few would do anything of that kind, according to my experience, but it

could be done. The remedy I have always favoured for a state of things of that kind is a permanent staff of inspectors, appointed by the government as the engineers are appointed. I would have the inspectors entirely under the control of the department and with no local interests. They would act without fear or favour, while the local man who owes his position to local influence, is more or less influenced by that local power.
Now, Mr. Speaker, consider that within the past few years the firm of Bowman & Company have been paid the enormous sum of $2,000,000 in round figures for dredging -$2,000,000, let there he no mistake in the figures, because they are according to the returns brought down in this House ; and that the firm known as the Great Lakes Dredging Company, which is composed of Mr. .Tames Bowman, member of provincial parliament for North Bruce in the Ontario Legislature, A. F. Bowman, his brother, and Mr. James Whelan, of Port Arthur, son-inlaw of the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), have been paid $1,350,000 within a few years ; that a concern known as the Owen Sound Dredging Company, which is composed of the Hon. A. G. Mac-kay, leader of the Liberal opposition in the Ontario legislature, who is half owner of the whole concern, the other half being owned by a Mrs. E. H. Horsey, have been paid upwards of $350,000 to $400,000. Now I will confine my remarks to these three firms, because these three particular firms have had their dealings exposed before the Public Accounts Committee of this Dominion-and there will be more of that in the future. Now what is the position of affairs with regard to these dredging companies ? We are blandly told to-day by the Minister of Public Works that despite the fact that there are appropriations which will run, I assume, over half a million dollars, that the Minister of Public Works has gone to his colleagues and his colleagues have said : There is no necessity for calling for tenders for this large amount of work, whatever it may amount to ; and I think the figures will show that at the points indicated by the hon. gentleman, the dredging will cost half a million dollars. The hon. gentleman told the House yesterday that with the consent and concurrence of his colleagues he had obtained an order in council by which no tenders are to be called for this year for the expenditure of that vast sum of money, that very considerable sum of money, at all events. Now we have to-day lying in this House, in the custody of the proper officer in that behalf, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the original tenders which the hon. gentleman is going to accept, the figures that have not been discussed yet before the Public Accounts Committee, but will be discussed in the next few months. And what do those figures show ? I would ask, and I think it is with-Mr. BENNETT.
in the rights of this House, that these contracts should now be laid on the table, because they particularly refer to this work where the large amount of from $100,000 to $150,000 will be spent the coming season. Those are tenders for the work to be done at Midland and at Tiffin, and the production of those documents will show this fact, , that there are, or supposed to be, two rival companies competing for the work. Two tenders have been put in, one by what is known as the Midland Dredging Company, of which Mr. If. W. Grant is the secretary treasurer, and the other by what is known as tne Penetanguishene Company, of which Dr. Spohn is the secretary treasurer. Now, both these tenders are in the handwriting of F. W. Grant; and I challenge the Minister of Public Works now to send to the office of the clerk of the Public Accounts Committee and produce those tenders and lay them on the table, because they will prove to the hilt, what X have stated. Is not this an odd state of affairs ? The criminal law of this country says that yon can send to the penitentiary a man who interferes and causes the withdrawal of a tender ; yet though I brought this matter specially to the notice of the Prime Minister ten days ago in the House, and made the same allegation, I have never yet heard the matter mooted by the department. On the contrary, I have heard the Minister of Public Works stand up here yesterday and say that an order in council has been passed (o give these very people who have been tendering and have defrauded the people of Canada, a contract without a tender being called for. Now I think it is high time that these tenders should be brought down, and I will ask the Premier if he will have a messenger sent for those tenders so that they may be laid on the table and may be inspected by members. I do not think I am asking any thing beyond what is in the interest of the government of this country, when exposure has been made along those lines. Now, what did these tenders show ? These tenders showed that the Midland Company, called the Great Lakes Construction Company-that is the corporate name-tendered on the Midland work at 53 cents a yard and that the Penetanguishene Company tendered on the Midland work at 57 cents a yard, that on another work at Waubaushene, the Midland Company tendered at 18 cents a yard and the Spohn Company, or the Penetanguishene Company, tendered at 16 cents a yard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind of material?


William Humphrey Bennett: All kinds of material except rock which is especially provided for. tinder these figures the Penetanguishene Company would have received the Waubaushene work and the Midland company would have received the Midland work. But, these gentlemen evidently were not
6745	APRIL 14, 1908	6740
aware of the fact that a third party was going to tender and although the tender of the Midland company, or the Grant Company, was 53 cents a yard for the work at Midland and the tender of the Penetangui-sliene company was 57 cents a yard a third tender came in from the Stewart Company of Ottawa and the Stewart Company tendered at 30 cents a yard.


William Pugsley: For which work was that ?


William Humphrey Bennett: For the work at Midland. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) was acting at that time as Minister of Public Works. I would ask the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley) to direct that these tenders be brought down from the committee room. It only requires a direction on the part of any Minister to have them brought here so that lion, gentlemen may pass them from hand to hand to see them in all their nakedness and their fraud because there is fraud on the face of them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, there is fraud on the face of them.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: On whose face ?


William Humphrey Bennett: If I said on the face of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) I think every one would assent to it. I say it is a serious matter and, what is more, these tenders have been seen by many hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. There has never been any attempt to keep them secret at all They were produced openly before the Committee on Public Accounts.


William Humphrey Bennett: However, they are there now and if they were to be removed a number of gentlemen have seen them as a matter of proof and if it were not so it would be a most unfortunate thing perhaps for all parties concerned. But, they are there now and I challenge any minister to lay these papers on the table because they will prove that the tenders of the two companies are written in one and the same handwriting, that of F. W. Grant.


Mr. BERGERON.: Who is Mr. Grant ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Brother of the hon. member for North Ontario. What next happened ? There were tenders called for at a number of different points and this so-called Dominion Dredging Company of which Mr. Gordon Stewart is the secretary treasurer, put in a tender for a number of works. Some hon. gentleman asks : Who is Mr. Stewart 1 He is the son of the hon. the senior member for Ottawa. The Stewart Company tendered for a large number of works and the Stewart Company, not having the plant to nerform the work did. as I am informed and believe, go to other dredging concerns and offer to sublet. But, there was so much clamour made over the matter that the Minister of Justice, then acting as Minister of Public Works, did what ?-did not, as I am informed, call for public tenders and ask publicly for competition, but permitted these tenderers to put in new tenders among themselves. If there was no fraud in the case of these two companies that I have mentioned there is proof positive and conclusive that the so-called Grant Company tendered on the Midland work, that their tender was 53 cents per yard for all material outside of rock and that when the second arrangement was made, they only got 26 cents a yard for that work.


William Pugsley: Do you blame the department for that ? Do you find fault with the minister for letting it at 26 cents ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, but what I do find fault with the minister for is dealing with people who are attempting to put up a fraud on the government. That is the reason that my complaint is made now. I say that the minister should go into the open market and ask for tenders. When the Spohn Company and the Grant Company thought there were no other parties who would intervene their tenders were respectively : Grant, 53 cents, and the Penetan-guishene Company, 57 cents, but when the Stewart Company could not undertake the work by reason of the insufficiency of their plant, the acting minister made a new arrangement, not by calling for public tenders. I regret that the Minister of Justice cannot hear what I am saying in this respect so that he might be in a position to acquiesce in my statement or deny it. When the matter came up again the Grant Company got the contract at 26 cents a yard. There was some work to be done at a point called Tiffin below Midland and that work, without any competition at all, as I am informed, was handed over to the McKay Company at 27 cents a yard. Now, I am going to ask the hon. gentleman what can be thought of this transaction in the face of the statement that one of these supposedly rival companies, through its secretary, writes out the tenders of both companies ?


William Pugsley: AVould the hon. gentleman excuse me for a moment ? Did I understand him to say that there were no tenders called for the work at Tiffin and that the work was let without any call for public tenders ?


William Humphrey Bennett: That is what I am informed.


William Pugsley: By whom ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I have private information on that score. In support of that I will prove something by the records which lie up in the office of the Public Ac-

counts Committee and which the minister, so far, has not brought down. I am surprised that the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) does not ask that these records should be brought down here in the face of an accusation of this kind. It can be rebutted if it is not true.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I understand that these records are in the hands of the Public Accounts Committee ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no control over them.


William Humphrey Bennett: They are lying in the closet of the Public Accounts Committee, and, as was done with the timber leases, they can be brought down here, handed to the clerk of the House and the clerk of the House can hand them back to the committee,


Wilfrid Laurier: The timber leases were brought from the Department of the Interior. If these records are in the possession of the Public Accounts Committee the Public Accounts Committee has control over them and not the members of the government.


William Humphrey Bennett: They are in the custody of the clerk of the committee and surely parliament is big enough and strong enough to direct the clerk of the committee to come to the door of parliament, hand them to the clerk of the House and order that they shall be laid on the table so that they may be inspected and returned.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Any member of the committee can go up and examine them.


William Humphrey Bennett: Any member of the committee can go up and see them and if any member of the committee caD see them there surely parliament can order that they be brought down.
ill-. PUGSLEY. Any member of this House would have just as much authority to order them from the custody of the Public Accounts Committee as I would have or as the Prime Minister would have.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the Prime Minister wishes it. I will ask if I have the concurrence of the House in sending a page to the clerk of the committee to bring them down and lay them on the table and if there will be any objection to that being done.


William Pugsley: It is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee entirely.


William Humphrey Bennett: What position' is this matter in? There was a tenderer bold enough to write not only the tender of his own company but the tender of a supposedly rival company. There is no question about it. The handwriting is as a like as two peas, and to showr there was connivance and fraud between these two tenderers w7hen the so-


William Humphrey Bennett: called Grant Company tendered In supposed competition their figure on the work is 53 cents a yard, but when the government found that Stewart could not take the work at 30 cents they were afraid to give the contract to the Grant Company at 53 cents, and for some reason or other the work is allotted to them at 20 cents a yard. The Minister of Public Works asked me where I got my information and I will tell him where I got part of my information. Attached to these tenders and in the committee room at this moment is to be found a schedule showing the names of the different contractors with the figures at which they had tendered opposite their names and a circle is placed around the name of the lowest tenderer. Underwritten on that schedule is, the McKay Company for the work at Tiffin, and no tenders are asked for the work at Tiffin at ail, and the minister cannot find in all that file a single tender for the work at Tiffin, and there under the signature of Mr. Aylesworth, the acting minister, not in his handwriting but in the writing of some person, on that file appears ' Tiffin, OwTen Sound Dredging Company, at 27 cents a yard.' Will the Minister of Public Works say there were tenders called ?


William Pugsley: I would say to the hon. gentleman that the report of the chief engineer in my department is, that in respect to ail the works with regard to which he has recommended the fixing of the time during the present season for the completion of the work, in every one of these he reports to me that public tenders were called by public advertisement. And I may say further that I would not think of extending the time except in cases where tenders have been publicly called for.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let the general public understand what this dredging operation is. Everything hinges on the one question whether or not these scows are filled, and I say that the country is paying for scows which are presumably filled and which are never filled. I say that the country is paying inspectors to inspect the work who are never there. The evidence of Mr. Gobeil which I have quoted proves conclusively that the inspector on the Spohn dredge was not there at all. Has that man been prosecuted for the fraud he practised on the government ? Not at all. Has the other inspector who connived at the theft been prosecuted ? Not at all. What do these dredging operations [DOT]mean to the people of this country ? Let me take the case of the Grant Company. You can see from the papers before the Public Accounts Committee that in one mouth alone that dredge was paid over $11,000, and when it is considered that these dredges work over eight months in the year that means that the dredges would aggregate about $90,000 in the season. And it was sworn in the committee the other day by the owner and the representative of the McKay dredge that

tlie Inspector was not there to inspect the work.


William Pugsley: I thought you were speaking of the Grant Company. You go from one to the other. Which are you speaking of: the Grant Company or the McKay Company ?


William Humphrey Bennett: ' I should have said that the McKay Company had the Grant dredge under lease last year.


William Pugsley: It is certainly very inconvenient, and if I know anything about the rules of parliament it is very objectionable for a member from his place in the House to refer to what is occurring before a committee of the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is no inquiry at all about it.


William Pugsley: The House cannot know what is taking place before a committee until that committee reports to the House. This matter is still under investigation before the Public Accounts Committee, and I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) wTill see that it would be very much better that these matters should be threshed out in the Public Accounts Committee, and then when the committee reports to the House it will be properly before the House for discussion. I take that point, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You cannot get a report from this committee.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Minister of Public Works is mistaken. The inquiry in the Public Accounts Committee is about dredging at Fesserton in connection with the Spohn Company, and there is no question at all about the McKay Company, at Midland. The papers have been moved for and brought down and in due course it will be investigated, but so far I am simply speaking from documents that have been laid on the table.


Mr. PARDEE.: Is it not a fact that Mr. Wilkinson was here but a very little while ago in connection with the McKay Company dredging and that the matter was gone into by the Public Accounts Committee ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Since my bon. friend does not recollect the circumstances I do not want to detail them all.


William Pugsley: I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the matter is before the committee under investigation and has not been reported upon to the House, the rule is explicit and plain that no reference to it can be made in the House until the report is received by the House.


Mr. HAGGART.: But there is a denial that the matter is before the committee.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is another point.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is the question of the Fesserton, dredging which is before the committee.


Mr. EMMERSON.: What are the papers before the committee for?


William Humphrey Bennett: To be dealt with in due course of time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then it is before the committee.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The question is: Has this matter been before the Public Accounts Committee under investigation and has a report been made to the House ? If it has been before the committee for investigation and if no report has yet been made the rule is plain that no reference can be made to it in the House until there is a report from the committee.


William Pugsley: My information is that the matter is before the committee. All these documents are still before the committee, the tenders, the contracts and all the papers, and no report has yet been made to the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have in my desk a copy of the evidence as printed so far, and that document states that the inquiry before the committee is in reference to the dredging at Matchedash bay. There is no reference in the printed evidence to the dredging at Midland and there is no inquiry into it.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman deny that at the request of the Public Accounts Committee these papers have been produced from my department and submitted to the committee and are now in the custody of the committee and have been there for weeks, and that the matter has not yet been disposed of ?


William Humphrey Bennett: It is quite right to say that the papers have been brought to the committee and they will be dealt with in due course, but there has as yet been no inquiry at all into the Midland business.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Of course, that is a point to be cleared up. I have not been in the committee and I have not had an opportunity of ascertaining what the committee has been doing. The whole question is: Has this matter been before the committee under investigation, and if so, and if it has not been reported upon of course it is improper to discuss it in the House. I would like to be clear on that point before making a definite ruling.


Mr. LENNOX.: Your ruling is quite clear, Sir, that if there is an inquiry in the committee, until the report is made a discussion cannot take place in this House. But, I presume, that the information which an hon. gentleman gets otherwise than from what has taken place in the committee he can use. What I understand the hon. mem-br to state is that he has obtained this information from the examination of docu-

merits which lie in the Public Accounts Committee, but that no investigation has been had as to the matter to which he refers. Surely .Mr. Speaker, in that case any hon. member can use the recoi'ds of parliament or the records of the department for the purpose of obtaining information and can bring that information before this House. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that there has been some discussion as to what the facts are on which this matter is based, but in that regard we have the statement of the hon. member, who is the only person who actually knows the facts in that regard, and surely we may take his statement that he is not stating what has been elicited by any examination before the Public Accounts Committee, but what he has obtained from records which are accessible not only to the members of the Public Accounts Committee, but to every hon. member of this House who likes to go and examine them. If the investigation had commenced, then I think it would be clear that the hon. member could not discuss it; but no investigation, as the hon. member has said, has taken place, and, therefore, he having ascertained the facts which he proposes to deal with by an investigation of his own and from public documents which are of record, I submit that he has a right to discuss them.


William Humphrey Bennett: In confirmation, let me give what is stated in the printed proof which I hold in my hand. After stating that the committee met on February 28, it says ' further consideration of the payment to the Penetanguishene Dredging Company. That is a matter that is not under discussion.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There seems to be a difference of opinion as to what has taken place before the committee. I think I must assume that the documents which are before the Public Accounts Committee have been taken there for some purpose. They are now in the possession of the committee, and the proper and usual course if an investigation as to same is pending would be to have them transferred here for the purposes of discussion otherwise as they have not been reported to the House. I shall have to rule that the discussion is out of order.


George Taylor: I moved for some papers early in the session. The papers were brought down ; I got the information I required from those papers and sent them back to the Auditor General's Department. Do you rule that I cannot make use of the information I got from those papers because they are before the Public Accounts Committee?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Not at all. In that case the documents were sent back to the department, and no further action would be taken on those documents until thev were Mr. LENNOX.
returned to the Public Accounts Committee.
I assume that if the documents are in the possession of the Public Accounts Committee they are there for some purpose of the committee. Where an investigation allowed them is pending until the committee disposes of them by returning them to the place from which they came or by reporting them to the House, I do not see how I can rule otherwise than I have ruled, that the discussion upon them is out of order.


Mr. LAKE.: Mr. Speaker, I would ask whether your ruling means that no member can discuss any payment made bv the Auditor General because the papers regarding it are before the Public Accounts Committee, because in that case all inquiry on any subject could be blocked by members on the government side of the House having the papers brought before that committee.


William Humphrey Bennett: Weil, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to avoid any matter of a controversial nature by simply referring to what is to be seen in the papers and not at all to the question of what the evidence lias been. The very certificates that give this company this colossal sum in one month, or thousands and thousands of dollars in a season


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think I should do the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) the courtesy of answering his question. I would not at all press the ruling so far as the hon. member suggests. This matter comes before the House in this shape. An hon. member rises to discuss it and states that the documents show that so-and-so has occurred. After some discussion another hon. member rises and takes the point that this matter is still before the Committee on Public Accounts under investigation and that the documents are still before that commute. On that state of facts I am bound to assume, and I do assume, that the committee is still seized of the documents, and until the committee reports either in the shape of forwarding the documents or reporting to the House with reference to the investigation that has been made, discussion is out of order. That is as far as I go as to the proceedings before the committee.


John Graham Haggart: The reference to the Public Accounts Committee is the reference of all the public accounts of the year and of the Auditor General's Report. Do you rule, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot discuss any account that is in the public accounts or in the Auditor General's Report because they have been referred to the Public Accounts Committee? Our argument is that an order from the Public Accounts Committee to produce the documents before that committee or a reference to the House does not in the slightest degree preclude any hon. member of this House from discussing any I paper on any item that has been discussed

before the committee. The Public Accounts Committee is not a special committee to which this House has referred any particular item on which to report. It is one of the ordinary committees of the House, and the fact that it takes cognizance of a matter does not remove it from the jurisdiction of the House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am in this position, that on the one side reference is made to documents which are before the Public Accounts Committee, and on the other side the point is taken that the matter is still pending before the committee. It is quite impossible for the Speaker to decide as between two adverse views based upon two different statements of the facts, and under these circumstances the only position and the proper position for the Speaker to take, it seems to me, is the well known one, both in England and here, that ' until a committee report it is irregular to refer to its proceedings in debate in the House.' In view of the assertion that these documents are still before the Public Accounts Committee and under investigation, I cannot decide otherwise than I am doing.


John Graham Haggart: Do you hold, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Accounts Committee is a special committee, or a committee of the House that comes under the rule to which a matter has been referred for the purpose of reporting?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The statement is made that the Public Accounts Committee is seized of the documents for investigation, and that the investigation is pending. Then the term ' proceeding ' which is laid down in the practice applies, and until a report upon the matter has been made to the House or the documents have been ordered to be laid before the House, it will be impossible to have a discussion upon them here.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think on the question of order


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am quite prepared now to allow discussion on that question and after that discussion I shall rule one way or the other ; but I cannot make a ruling and have discussion later on about it. The point of order is now open for discussion and after it has been discussed I shall rule finally on the question.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Would not a consideration of the actual practice in the Public Accounts Committee enable us to determine whether or not certain documents are under consideration in that committee ? At the beginning of the session and throughout the session the members of the opposition find in the Auditor General'^ Report items such as in their opinion call for inquiry. Very seldom does the opposition member when moving for papers, know that the papers will produce tangible result; but from information that he may
have received from private sources he moves for papers that he may investigate them and, as a matter of fact, no one but himself investigates them. In fact the papers are not laid before the committee ; they are brought over from the department to the clerk of the committee and are by him put in the proper pigeon holes and are never seen, in all probability, except by the member who moved for them. When papers are brought down there are probably a hundred different matters on which the papers are before the committee.


William Pugsley: Are not the papers brought before the committee by order of the committee ?


William Barton Northrup: The papers are brought from the department by the order of the committee, there is no question of that ; but as a matter of fact they are not laid before the committee until some one moves to examine witnesses and when he examines the witnesses the papers are brought before the committee. Let me show to my hon. friend the absurdity of his position. Of the papers brought before the committee probably not one-twentieth are investigated by the hearing of evidence. If the rule is to be that the moment papers are brought down before the Public Accounts Committee, then the subjects with which they are concerned are excluded from discussion in this House until the committee reports, there will be on an average eighty cases each session that never come before the committee, and the committee cannot make a report because there is no subject before them.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think it is quite unnecessary to discuss a ruling which has not been made or suggested, that is that every paper before the committee is to be ruled out of discussion here.


William Barton Northrup: The Minister of Public Works takes that view.


William Pugsley: I beg your pardon, I said nothing of the kind.


William Barton Northrup: Then what does it come to ? It has been contended that the moment papers are brought down to the Public Accounts Committee the House is debarred from discussion upon them until the committee reports. I point out that there cannot be a report until something further has been done in the committee than the mere examination of papers by a member. The hon. member for Simcoe says that this matter was never before the committee. His word must be sufficient for the committee in that respect.


William Humphrey Bennett: The printed records show that.


William Barton Northrup: Apart from the proof lie brings, the hon. member's wmrd is sufficient for this House, but when he brings the

record and shows that it is another dredging matter altogether, it practically comes to (his that the Minister of Public Works wishes to prevent discussion on dredging contract ' A ' because dredging contract ' B ' is being investigated before the committee.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: In so far as the dredging goes, the question of dredging stands by itself. Ever since the Public Accounts Committee commenced the hon. member for Simcoe has been examining witnesses in regard to dredging. His first motion was in regard to one certain payment and several times, whilst the committee lias been in session, he has branched oft from that payment altogether and gone on to other matters not pertinent to it at all. His attention was called to it


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That will be entering upon a discussion of what occurred before the committee, which I could not permit.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: This has gone on and I wish to say further that I asked the hon. gentleman only on Friday last, to close the inquiry and bring a report to the House regarding dredging. He refused saying that he had other witnesses to examine.


William Humphrey Bennett: Certainly, and I am going to examine witnesses about this matter. Do not go away with the idea that this will not be' further investigated before the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the *ruling just given is correct it is a rule that has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance, because every session there are questions before the Public Accounts Committee, some of which will be investigated and some will not; during the time these papers are before the Public Accounts Committee, we go into a Committee of Supply here and we proceed to vote money for similar items, we take up the Auditor General's Report with these items that are before the Public Accounts Committee for consideration and we ask all kinds of questions about them. I think, if my memory is correct, we have sometimes brought down the original papers from that committee for the convenience of the House when we were inquiring into the expenditure of public money in connection with some of these items. At the present time there are several items regarding timber limits that are before the committee. I moved for some papers there as well in reference to some timber limits. I looked into those papers, I got all the information I required, and therefore it was unnecessary either to call witnesses or to bring the departmental officers before the committee. I obtained the information and I left the papers there. Would it be said that I had no right to use the information or to discuss those items in this House because the papers were before the Public Accounts Commit-Mr. NOETHRUP.
tee, when the Public Accounts Committee will not deal with them during the whole session, will make no report whatever ? If I understand, it is only questions with which the Puplic Accounts Committee deal and upon which they report, according to the terms of the order of reference, ' their findings, suggestions or observations,' that we may not discuss. Take the case with which the hon. member has dealt. It is true that one item of dredging that lias been before the Public Accounts Committee has been inquired into.


William Pugsley: What is that ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The Fesserton case.


William Pugsley: That cannot be so because the hon. member said that the Pene-tanguishene matter is before the committee.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is the Fesserton case of the Penetanguishene Dredging Company.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. And Owen Sound ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Nothing about Owen Sound.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister confuses the two names, the dredging company in Penetanguishene and the dredging company at Fesserton. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) is discussing an item that the Public Accounts Committee have not considered at all and that item may not be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. Would it be held that because these papers are before the committee for examination by any private member of this House, but have never been brought up and examined and investigated by calling ns witnesses under oath, we had no right to speak of them in this House ? We have always dealt with these questions when in Committee of Supply, we would discuss items belonging to the same locality or to the same public work, for which we were voting money. We discussed them ad libitum, and there is no objection notwithstanding that they are before the Public Accounts Committee. I hold, if I understand the rule, that we have a perfect right to discuss any matter unless it is a question being examined by the Public Accounts Committee as a Public Accounts Committee and not by a private member, a matter on which evidence is being taken either from the departmental officers or some one interested in the contract or some one who can give additional information that the committee desires to have before making its report, with its observations, conclusions or suggestions to this House. It is only with regard to these things, I think, that we are debarred from speaking in this House, and not the others.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The ruling which the Chair makes in the matter is this : If the

matter is really before the Public Accounts Committee, after the papers have been sent from one of the departments, and has not been dealt with by the committee, reference can be made to it in this House. The question comes down to one of fact-whether there are proceedings in connection with this matter pending befoye the committee or not. The statement is made on one side that there are such proceedings; the statement is made on the other side that there are no such proceedings. The hon. member (Mr. Bennett) who initiated the discussion was certainly quoting from proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee which had not been reported to the House, and so was clearly out of order. Of course, I did not wish to interfere unnecessarily. but when the jioint was taken, it was clear to my mind that the hon. gentleman was quoting proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee not yet reported to the House. So, my ruling would be, if there are proceedings pending before the Public Accounts Committee on this matter, until the matter is reported to the House, it would be out of order to discuss those here. If the hon. member will conduct his discussion on the line of not referring to or quoting proceedings that are still before the committee, he will have a perfect right to proceed.


William Humphrey Bennett: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling is that I must not make a reference to any evidence that has been given before the committee.
iMr. SPEAKER. Or to any documents which are the subject of a pending reference.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not wish to transgress your ruling. Then, I understand that, having moved for certain documents


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the documents are there and are not being investigated, you have a perfect right to discuss them.


William Humphrey Bennett: Very well. Now, early in the session I moved that certain documents should be laid before the Public Accounts Committee referring to the dredging at Midland. I have seen those documents, together with the tenders for the work, and I will quote from these. I repeat that the tenders for the work at Midland are of the Penetanguishene Company and the Grant Coni)>any and both are written in the handwriting of Mr. F. W. Grant, the brother of the hon. member for North Ontario-there is not the slightest doubt about that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member says he is referring to documents before the committee. The whole point is, have these documents been before the committee for investigation.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes, certainly.


Alexander Johnston: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No evidence was taken.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am astounded that


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) has announced within the last twenty minutes that lie intends to do so and so before the committee proceeds ' further ' with the investigation : and he says that he intends to call ' other ' witnesses.


William Humphrey Bennett: I intend to bring these matters up before the committee at some future day. Surely no hon. gentleman on the other side who is a member of the committee will make the statement that the authenticity of these two tenders has been brought up or evidence adduced. Mr. Grant has not been a witness before the committee. Hon. gentlemen opposite are mistaken. Now, in the first instance, the Grant tender for the work at Midland was for 53 cents a yard. I believe I am right in the assertion that tenders were not publicly advertised for, but the work was subsequently given to that company at 26 cents a yard. That is surely an astounding thing-that a company, within a short space of time, probably a few weeks, would offer to do work at 26 cents which so short a time before they had asked 53 cents for. But that is on the record. I said there were no tenders for the work at Tiffin. There can be no question that, in the original asking for tenders, none were asked for the work at that point, -or, if they were, they are not filed on record in the department.


William Pugsley: Of course, I will look into it. Tiffin is part of Midland, is it not?


William Humphrey Bennett: It adjoins.


William Pugsley: Are not they the same ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes.
Sir. PUGSLEY'. It may be there were no separate tenders for Tiffin as distinguished from Midland.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) cannot understand this matter thoroughly because he was not in (.'barge of the department at the time, and, as he has not recently looked at the schedule, it will not be fresh in his memory. There is a schedule prepared by the department showing where all these different works have been performed, with figures placed opposite the name of the respective tenderers, and by the acting Minister of Public Works-the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth)-a circle around the name of the contractor who has secured the job. There is also a lead pencil memo, which shows that the Tiffin work goes to the Owen Sound Dredging Company at 27 cents a yard.
Now, let us take these records and see what they mean to the country. In one mouth tills company draws $11,089. It must be remembered that this work is certified to in these returns as paid for at the rate of $2 a yard. The scows are large scows carrying perhaps not 200 yards at a load

but certainly over 100 yards. Therefore, if this material is not rock but clay, though paid for at the rate of rock, it means that they receive at least $200 for a load instead of $34, the amount they ought to receive. Another question that presents itself is whether or not the inspector inspects in this case. There are certificates lying there- more than one and more than several- on which this company has been paid large amounts which bear no signature to show that the inspector had anything to do with it. That is a serious statement, but the minister can verify it by bringing down the documents from the Public Accounts Committee.
Now, let us follow these figures a little, This company is paid $11,089 for one month. Working eight months, they would receive about $90,000 for the season. Now, these dredges are not expensive concerns to work; -probably $25 to $40 would pay for the wages of the men and the coal. That being so, you can see that there is colossal profit. It is no wonder that the stockholders in these dredging companies-there are scores of such stockholders-make their boast in the streets of Midland that they are receiving from 75 per cent to 100 per cent dividend. Why, it is the easiest thing in the world to do this when you have an inspector who cheerfully certifies that these dredges are working fifteen hours a day even on into the month of December when it is utterly impossible for them to work for that length of time, and when you have a manager of a dredge, who, with equal cheerfulness, will certify to the same thing.
Let us take another case, the case of the MacKay Company, the owners of dredge No. 9. I asked a question as to the amount per day this dredge was making and I find that it is earning $210 a day, if she is working twelve hours a day. Now, contrast that with the figure at which this same dredge was previously hired by the department, which was $S0 per day. Is that not enough to put the government and the Minister of Public Works on his guard with the people he is dealing with? Look at the Auditor General's Report of a few years ago, and you will find this dredge of MacKay, Horsey & Company, working at $8 an hour, and there are figures that prove conclusively that she is earning $200 a day-not earning it but she is paid that much.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman know whether the company that got paid for the dredging, paid for the coal and all that?


William Humphrey Bennett: In both cases the company paid for operating.


William Pugsley: Paid the coal bills themselves ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No question about that. There are facilities afforded for fraud in Mr. BENNETT
these matters, owing to the fact pointed out by the commissioners, the appointment of these local inspectors. Take the case dealt with a year or two ago in the committee. A man named Eastwood was appointed, and he cherfully tells the committee that he drew $3 a day and never went, near the work ; as Mr. Gobeil says, he retained $1.75 a day out of the season's wages, and gave the other man $1.25. But the dishonesty of that man was nothing compared to the dishonesty of other government inspectors, because the other government inspectors had been in the employ of the country for some years. Now the figures prove what I have stated, that these dredges which cost about $100,000, or are given out to cost that much, are paid $80,000 to $100,000 in a season, less the wages, which are not a large item. Is it not a suspicious circumstance that the secretary treasurer of one company is actually writing out tenders for both companies ? And yet the minister says that these are the people to deal with. How ? By not allowing them to be subjected to competition. Why ? Because he thinks the prices are fair and reasonable. The minister in that respect is going directly contrary to law. What right has the government to spend an amount running in all probability -I cannot tell the amount, because the minister promised to bring down that schedule to show where the work is to be done. May I ask the minister now : Is the large work at Port Arthur to be done under a similar arrangement, and that at Fort William ?


William Pugsley: No, that does not come under this, that is a different contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that a contract that lias been let by tender this year ?


William Pugsley: No. The hon. gentleman must be aware that the contract for the work at Port Arthur, upon the Mission and Kamanistiqua rivers, was let some time ago, and this work, extending over several years, was provided for in the original contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then may I ask the minister this question : Will the Collingwood work come under this order in council ?


William Pugsley: I am not sure whether the Collingwood work is included in this order.


William Humphrey Bennett: And Little Current ?


William Pugsley: No, Little Current is not in this order.


William Humphrey Bennett: ' Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I have shown the government that this is a case where they should be on suspicion.


William Pugsley: I may say that we are always on suspicion, and always watchful.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I compliment the Minister of Public Works on this fact, that he has done for the first time during the past ten or twelve years, what must be done for the future, and what the public will insist upon, namely, that every one of these inspectors shall make himself amenable to the criminal law by making sworn declarations as to the returns. These matters attract public attention, as they must necessarily do. Take the case of MacKay & Company. It is only a few years ago since Dr. Walsh and Mr. MacKay started in this dredging business, with an old dredge named No. 9 that they were anxious to rent to the government at $8 an hour. To-day they are owners of two dredges that are openly discussed by people who know their cost, and are stated by these gentlemen themselves, to have cost with their scows, over 8100,000 each. Talk about where the money comes from !


William Pugsley: Dredges cost $100,000 to $200,000. Dredging plants are very expensive.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have been informed by the manager of this concern that these dredges cost over $100,000 a piece, with the scows. These gentlemen had no extrinsic business.


William Pugsley: You can hardly be sure of that. I know many a dredge that is not paid for yet.


William Humphrey Bennett: These gentlemen had no extrinsic business out of which they could make money to become the owners of these dredges. I say now that as these facts are disclosed in the Public Accounts Committee by documents that are lying there, the fraud perpetrated by the Grant and Spohn companies, or by Spohn's company, in the face of the fact that their original tender was for 53 cents a yard, and that afterwards they accepted the work at 26 cents a yard, in the face of the fact that the certificates of the inspector up there show that he has not in certain cases certified to them


William Pugsley: In how many cases ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not charge my memory with them, but I think, in looking them over, I say more than three. In face of the evidence, which the hon. gentleman can read when it is printed, given by the man representing these dredges, as to whether or not the inspector was there when the work was done, and having regard to the enormous amount of money that is being expended


William Pugsley: If it would be right to refer to the evidence, I might ask the hon. gentleman if the inspector was not dismissed the moment it came to the knowledge of the department ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman is confounding this case with another. This is a case where a huge expenditure is to be made. The minister cannot tell me what works will come under the purview of this order in council, but the Victoria harbour work, the Tiffin work, the Midland work, and perhaps the Collingwood work will come within it, and I assume the expenditure will be upwards of half a million dollars. The government knows all this, the government knows what this dredging is costing. I say the public will not be satisfied, and is not satisfied. Irrespective of politics, the public do not believe, from Owen Sound to Collingwood and Midland, that the government has ever got value for the money that is being disbursed. I submit that instead of allowing this order in council to be acted on, tenders should be called forthwith for this work. Let it be put up to public competition, and let there be no more of these suspicious circumtauces allowed to exist.


William Pugsley: I am not at all sorry that the hon. gentleman has brought this question before the House. I recognize that the matter of dredging, and the question of having the work honestly, efficiently and satisfactorily done, is one of great importance. It is becoming yearly of more importance, because there is a rapidly increasing demand in all sections of the country, both upon the Atlantic and the Pacific, upon the rivers and the great lakes, for dredging to be performed for the purpose of giving accommodation to steamships which are every year becoming larger, therefore, the cost of dredging must increase year after year. I am sorry to have to say that the Dominion is not properly equipped, in my judgment, with dredging plant. We have no adequate dredging plant upon the great lakes. We have, in the maritime provinces, for use there and in the Baie des Chaleurs, only a comparatively few dredges-I think some nine or ten altogether. The dredging plant owned by the government is not at all in my judgment, what it ought to be for a maritime country such as Canada is. There is an enormous demand for dredging on the Pacific coast, on the Atlantic coast, on the St. Lawrence, and other rivers, the Baie des Chaleurs and the great lakes. Therefore, the department has felt obliged to ask for tenders for a great deal of the dredging work in the past and has necessarily done that work by contract.
Now, I quite agree that one of the most important things to be attended to is tlie matter of inspection. Of course, there are some cases where the engineers of the department can measure up the work in situ and determine with a considerable degree of accuracy the quality of material to be dredged, but in. a great many cases-I think 11 am safe in saying in the majority of cases

-this work cannot be accurately performed without very great expense, without having a large staff of engineers going to an expense which probably the department would not be justified in incurring. Therefore, it has been found in most cases that the department Were only able to let contracts and to pay for the dredging work on the basis of scow measurement. In order that the government may be properly protected it is necesary to have inspectors examine each scow load as it is taken away from the dredge with the view of making a proper report to the department. Therefore, a great deal depends upon the honesty of the inspectors and upon the faithfulness with which they do the work. I recognize that. The Minister of Public Works, the chief engineer of the department and even the resident engineer, who has a considerable territory to look after, cannot guard the public with respect to the quanity of material which is taken out of the scows and therefore, as I have already said, we must depend to a very large degree upon the honesty and upon the faithfulness of the inspectors who are appointed for that purpose.


William Humphrey Bennett: But the department has imposed the further check that the owner or manager of the dredge also certifies as to the number of yards in these scows.


William Pugsley: Yes. that is true. There have been some cases that have come to the notice of the department in which inspectors have not done their duty. There has been one case which probably was the case that the hon. gentleman bad in mind where a man who was entrusted with the duty of inspecting scow loads had farmed the work out to another party. He was getting. I think, $3 a day and he employed another person at $1.50 a day to do his work. That was a most improper thing to do. The department did not engage or rely upon the man whom he appointed, but the department relied upon himself and the department had a right to expect him to perform his duty.


William Humphrey Bennett: But both of those men were appointees of the government.


William Pugsley: That may be, but still the man who was appointed as inspector was the man to whom the department had a right to look, and he was the man that the department appointed to perform this duty. When the matter came to the notice of the department that officer was dismissed. There was another case that occurred upon the great lakes.


Mr. FOWLER.: Did you make him pay back the money ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. There was no evidence that there was any intention to commit a Mr. PUGSLEY.
a fraud. It was simply, on the part of this man# a misconception as to his duty.


William Humphrey Bennett: That man actually got $30 for the use of the boat under his wifes maiden name, which boat was never used.


William Pugsley: I am not aware of that case.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is the same case.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: He charged and was paid overtime.


William Pugsley: There was another case that occurred in connection with dredging at one of the ports of the great lakes, where a man who was appointed inspector was employing another party who was ins)) ector upon a dredge which was working in the same locality to do bis work. That was an improper thing to do, and when this matter came to the notice of the department the services of both of them were dispensed with.
I have a good deal of faith in human honesty, and I believe that the great majority of the people who are appointed to-attend to these public duties do endeavour to perform their duties honestly, and I have no reason to suppose but what the great majority, if not all of the inspectors who are in the employ of the department, are men who can be relied upon. The minister and his officials are not accustomed to take the recommendation of local people as the hon. gentlemen suggests, but they make inquiry in regard to a man's character, in regard to his antecedents, in regard to his efficiency as an inspector of dredging and they appoint him after all these inquiries are made, believing that he will do his duty faithfully. I thought it desirable-perhaps I am taking undue precautions-to avoid in so far as could possibly be done any opportunity for fraud occurring as far ns the inspectors are concerned. I have adopted a rule which has met with the hearty approval of the officers of the department, that the inspector must, with his returns, send in a statutory declaration to the effect not onlv that the quantity as certified by him is correct but, that he has personally seen and has had an opportunity of determining as to the measurement of every scow load of material to which lie certifies. That is, I think, a pretty good check put upon the inspectors, because, when an inspectors knows that he has to make a statutory declaration which has all the force of an oath as to his personal supervision of the work and as to his personal knowledge of every scow load. I do not think that he will neglect his duties or certify with respect to scow loads he has not seen and as to which he has no personal knowledge. I have also caused a circular to be sent out to all the inspectors in the employ of the department calling

their attention to this important duty which rests upon them, and informing them that any omission to perform their duty will be a ground for instant dismissal. No excuse will be taken for failure to perform their duty in this regard. Therefore, it seems to me that in so far as the department or the minister could reasonably do so we have taken every precaution to guard against any difficulties of this kind as far as future work is concerned. I may say to my hon. friend who is not disposed to be over-warm in his praise, either of the Department of Public Works or any other department and who, I am almost inclined to think, may fairly be subject to the criticism of being unduly harsh in his judgments and making statements very often which have no foundation in fact but which really rest very largely upon his own imagination and upon his desire to make a point against the government


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman allow me ?


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman will pardon me I am going to pay him a compliment.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister cannot mention one statement I have made for which I have not given the proof.


William Pugsley: I am glad that my hon. friend has shown that spirit which only can animate the members of this House in that he has given me, as the present minister, credit for having framed regulations which are of a most reasonable character and which are well calculated to protect the public in so far as dredging is concerned. The hon. gentleman has attempted to convince the House that it is wrong to fix the time during the present season for the completion of the work of Tiffin, Midland and Victoria harbours, and he says-if I understand his criticism, that is the only ground upon which he bases it-that the two companies who tendered for this work put in tenders which were written by the same person and which were for a larger amount than the contract was ultimately let for. I think I am stating the matter as the hon. gentleman put it to the House. Now, I am not aware that it is a ground for charging two men with fraud that they should be aware of the tenders which each respectively put in for a public work. If as a private individual I were to invite tenders for a dwelling house and there were a dozen tenders put in, and the tenderers got together and Mr. Brown said to Mr. Jones :	You
tender at $20,000 and I will tender at $25,000 knowing that a good many other tenders would be put in. I am not quite prepared to say that these two men could be charged with fraud or conspiracy because they did that.
215	1


William Humphrey Bennett: The case is very different where there are two different works one of which would fall to each of the different tenderers.


William Pugsley: Until the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) spoke in the House I never heard the point raised that tenderers could be charged with fraud simply because they had done what I have described. It would be a very different matter if there were any collusion between them and the minister or an official of the department with regard to these tenders. If the hon. gentleman had been able to show that one of these tenderers had information from the minister or the chief engineer or the deputy minister so that the lowest tenderer might have been allowed to withdraw his tender, then he would have made an exceedingly strong point against the department because that would show collusion and conspiracy. But that is not the case at all here. Tenders were put in for different works and I suppose they were hoping that among them all both companies might be awarded contracts for certain dredging, but I am not aware that that constituted any fraudulent act upon their part.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does the minister approve of that in connection with public works 1


William Pugsley: I am not called upon to express my approval or disapproval. As minister I would much prefer, even where a large number of tenders for different works are called for, that one tenderer should not know the figure which the other tenderer is putting in. But where tenders are called for half a dozen different buildings and the contractors arrange to put in different figures in the hope that Mr. A. may get the contract for two or three different buildings and that Mr. B. may get the contract for two or three more, I am not aware that it is a fradulent act on their part unless it can be shown that a trusted employee of the man who is giving the contracts was a party to some conspiracy or collusion with the contractors. However, nothing of that kind has been Suggested in this case. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) insinuates that there must be something wrong because the company which tendered to do a part of this work at 57 cents a yard ultimately took the contract at 27 cents. But if I were to express any opinion on that I would say that it shows that these tenderers found they could not get the work at a higher figure than the officers of the department said that work was reasonably worth, and that the Minister of Justice who was then acting Minister of Public Works insisted in the public interest that the work should be taken at the smaller figure which the chief engineer reported was reasonable. If that shows anything at all it shows that the acting minister was safeguarding the interests of the people.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it not fair to assume that the acting minister consulted the chief engineer on the matter ?


William Pugsley: I should think he did.


William Humphrey Bennett: When I tell the minister that dredging had been done in Midland previously at 15 cents and 16 cents a yard, it is no wonder he looked surprised when they asked 56 cents.


William Pugsley: There is a very great difference in the cost of dredging. It all depends upon the material to be dredged. In the city of St. John there are places where dredging can he done at 50 cents a yard at a profit, but there are other places where the contractors claim there is no profit in it at 90 cents a yard, and one of them insisted not long ago that he should be' paid $1.25 a yard. Everything depends upon the nature of the material to be dredged.


William Humphrey Bennett: What explanation can the minister give of their dropping from 57 cents to 27 cents ?


William Pugsley: It may very well be that upon further enquiry they found the work could be done for less ; or, that they found they could not get contracts in other directions where they might profitably employ their dredges, or; that on account of excessive competition they were willing to take the smaller profit and come down to the figure which the acting minister insisted on ; there may be very many reasons. Or, the work may have been of a different character, as my hon. friend behind me suggests.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister knows that the work was identically the same work and he cannot get away from the question in that manner.


William Pugsley: The other day the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) professed to have a knowledge of carpentry work beyond that which an ordinary man of his profession and mine enjoys, but let me tell him that it often happens that the most reputable and experienced builders differ to an extraordinary degree in the tenders which they put in for a particular work. Not long ago it came under my own observation that in respect to buildings to be erected in one of the western provinces there was over $100*000 difference between the various tenderers.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the size of the contract ?


William Pugsley: About $280,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: And there was a difference of $100,0Ov.


William Pugsley: Yes. That variation in tenders comes within my knowledge almost every day. It is remarkable how widely Mr. PUGSLEY.
contractors of experience and good judgment will differ as to the probable cost of a work. When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) was criticisms' the action of the government in allowing me to exercise my judgment in fixing the time during the present season for the completion of the work, he did not call attention to the fact that this same Owen Sound Company is only getting 8 cents per cubic yard for the dredging which it has at Victoria, so that although they are getting 27 cents per cubic yard at Tiffin they are only receiving 8 cents at Victoria.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the minister is fair he will explain to the House what the nature of the work at each place is.


William Pugsley: That just illustrates what I said a m'ornent ago, that everything depends upon the quality of the material to be dredged. When the Owen Sound Dredging Company proposed to do the work at Tiffin at the same price as was provided by the contract, which was awarded to them after public competition, for dredging work at Midland, of which Tiffin forms a part, I said that I would not extend the time for the dredging work at Tiffin unless they would also agree to do the work at Victoria Harbour at the rate of 8 cents per cubic yard, and it was only when the company agreed to do the work at 27 cents and 8 cents per cubic yard respectively that I agreed to recommend the extension of time to my colleagues. The hon. gentleman apparently could not forbear to make reference to the fact that Mr. Stewart happens to be a son of the member for Ottawa. Hs says that his company tendered at 30 cents per cubic yard. Well, there could not surely be any objection to that, as it was the lowest tender obtained, after public tenders were called for. See, Mr. Speaker, how careful the department was in regard to that contract. When the Dominion Dredging Company declined to go on with the work, while the acting minister might have been justified in letting the contract to another party at the same price, he declined to do so, but only gave it to them on their consenting to reduce the price to 26 cents per cubic yard. So we have the work at Midland at 26 cents per cubic yard, the work at Tiffin, which is a part of Midland, at 27 cents per cubic yard, and the work at Victoria Harbour at only 8 cents per cubic yard. The hon. gentleman has a further criticism: He says that this work being an important work, I ought not to extend the time for its completion without again asking for public tenders. Now, there are reasons which I think are cogent reasons, and which might very well operate upon the mind of the minister in inducing him to extend the time for the completion of this work. I may say that these are not the only dredging contracts in respect to which a recommendation was made to council. To begin with, I had to consider the

character of the work that was going on at Midland and at Victoria harbour. The Grand Trunk Pacific are creating a new port at Tiffin, and are laying out their plans upon a most comprehensive scale, with a view to conveying across the great lakes from Fort William the vast traffic which is to be developed in the Northwest in the next few years. They are immediately planning for elevator accommodation there to the extent of 2,000,000 bushels, and their plans include accommodation for 10,000,000 bushels of grain at Tiffin. They are working with all possible rapidity. They are pushing their road through the western country at such a rate that they expect by this fall to be hauling grain from Edmonton to the great lakes, and they expect by the 1st of October to have their elevator at Tiffin completed and to have their rail connections there, so as to be in a position this fall to handle the grain traffic which they expect from the lakes; and they have strongly urged me in the public interest, in the interest of transportation, to have this work so far completed by the 1st of October of the present year that large lake vessels will be able to steam up to their elevator and unload the grain into it and so they may transport it eastward.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the date of the order in council?


William Pugsley: A week or ten days ago. This company, it is reported to me, have performed their work in a most satisfactory manner. They have a thoroughly up-to-date dredging plant; they know the ground; they have been working there during the past season, and they are prepared to do this work in time for the Grand Trunk Pacific so that the dredging and the elevator will both be completed by the 1st of October. Now, Sir, I thought that it would be wise in the public interest to do everything that was reasonable to have this dredging work done by next fall, so that steamers might use the elevator of the Grand Trunk Pacific. My chief engineer reports that the price is fair and reasonable. I do not believe, if we asked for new tenders, that we would gel the work done for less than 26 cents per cubic yard in one case, and 27 cents in the other case, considering the nature of the material. So far as Victoria Harbour is concerned, the Canadian Pacific Railway are pressing the matter in the same way. They too are adopting a new policy of transportation. They have made up their minds that the wheat of the Northwest, instead of going to Buffalo and seeking an outlet by American ports on the Atlantic ocean should pass through Canadian channels, and they are spending an enormous sum of money improving their line of railway. They are building a new line to Victoria harbour, and are spending, I believe, about $60,000 a mile to obtain a grade of three-tenths of one per cent, practically a level line, over which their large locomotives will be able to haul a 215J
train of sixty cars at a time, thus greatly reducing the cost of transporting the grain. They too have urged me to push on this dredging work and have it completed if possible this season, so that they can bring the grain over the lakes to Victoria harbour, and then transport It eastward. Seeing that this company were equipped with a magnificent plant, one of the best in Canada, knowing the satisfactory work they performed during the past season, and having the certificate of my chief engineer that these prices were reasonable, and getting the work done at Victoria harbour at the ridiculously low price of 8 cents per yard-


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the minister say that the same company is doing the work at Tiffin and Victoria harbour?


William Pugsley: I think so-the Owen Sound Company.


William Humphrey Bennett: That 'is not my information.


William Pugsley: What is the hon. gentleman's information?


William Humphrey Bennett: The information I have from Midland is that the Owen Sound Company have the Tiffin work and the Grant Company, the Victoria harbour work.


William Pugsley: The Owen Sound Company, I am sure, have the dredging both at Tiffin and at Victoria harbour.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the Grand Trunk any work?


William Pugsley: Not to my knowledge.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is the company that is called the Canadian Construction Company.


William Pugsley: I do not know as to that. I may be wrong, but I am quite sure that the Owen Sound Dredging Company have the contract both at Tiffin and at Victoria harbour. Being able to get the work done at Victoria harbour at the ridiculously low price of 8 cents per cubic yard and at Tiffin at what my engineer informs me is a low price considering the nature of the material, 26 cents per cubic yard, was it unreasonable that I should say to this company : If you are willing to do both of these pieces of work at the figures of last year, I shall extend the time for you for the purpose of providing the necessary accommodation for these great railway companies, so that they may be able to handle the grain traffic during the coming season ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Section 36 of the Public Works Act says :
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases:

(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or
(b)	in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.


William Pugsley: That is exactly what I have done. We have complied with the law in every particular.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What item of the estimates is to pay for this when it is done ?


William Pugsley: In the main estimates of the current year there is an amount for improvements at Midland and also at Victoria harbour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Which are not voted yet ?


William Pugsley: Which are not voted yet. A sum was voted last year also but of course under the contract the department will not be obliged to pay if there is no appropriation or when the appropriation is exhausted and the contractor takes that risk.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At the end of the year the appropriation lapses ?


William Pugsley: Yes, and the moment the appropriation lapses the payments to the contractor must stop.


Mr. BLAIN.: Was there some dredging at Victoria last year ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: At the same place ?


William Pugsley: At the same place and the same price. Public tenders were called for both at Victoria harbour and at Midland. My hon. friend must not get into his head the idea as the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has, even although he lives at Midland, that Tiffin is a different place from Midland. Tiffin is a part of Midland harbour. Last year public tenders were invited for dredging at Victoria and Midland and after public competition-


Richard Blain: Is the minister sure tenders were called for in Victoria harbour 1


William Pugsley: There is no question about it. I told the chief engineer of my department I would not extend the, time except where public tenders were called for and the contract let to the lowest tenderer. The contract is for dredging works required at Victoria and at Midland and in it it is provided that the contractor shall finish the work at the close of the season of 1907 or at such further date as the minister may fix and determine. The contract therefore gives to the minister the power to fix a time later than the close of last season for Mr. SPROULE.
the completion of this work. Therefore I am not letting a contract without tender,
I am simply exercising the power with the approval of the Governor General in Council, given me by the contract, of fixing the close of the present season as the time when the work should be completed. As the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway required the work it could not be wholly completed last season. The hon. gentleman speaks of the money these dredging companies have made. He speaks of one dredge earning $200 a day. Let me tell him that not many years ago the.city of St. John had occasion to hire a dredge. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel), who I think was then mayor of the city, will remember that they hired a dredge from Portland, Maine, and paid a rental of either $350 or $400 per day for it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I made the statement that this same dredge that earns $210 a day had been hired by the department for $8 an hour.


William Pugsley: That might very well be, but does not the hon. gentleman know that in that case the government would have to pay for her whether she broke down or not ? If she broke down during dredging we would have to pay the $8 an hour.


William Humphrey Bennett: Nonsense.


William Pugsley: Clearly we would, because she was there at the disposal of the government.


William Humphrey Bennett: They were only paid when they worked.


William Pugsley: Some dredging companies make money and others do not. Not many years ago, a prominent contractor had some dredging work in St. John. I suppose he thought he was getting a fair price but he did not continue in the business, he sold out when he got through with the work, and went out of the dredging business. He is a man of large experience and I presume that if there was a certainty of earning great money in that business he would have continued in it. Dredging, as I understand, is a risky business. To begin with the plant is very expensive ; it soon wears out, after a very few years a dredging plant becomes old and worn out so that if the man continues in his business he has to renew his machinery. That matter would have to be taken into consideration by the contractor. Dredging machinery is very apt to break down. Not long ago in connection with one of the dredges working upon the Atlantic coast one of the spuds broke and they had to send to British Columbia to get a large spud to take its place. Very often dredges will be under repairs perhaps for weeks at a time. There are all these risks to be taken. I recognize that if a man is lucky to have skilled foremen in charge of his plant he



APE1L 14, 1908

[Stage Direction]
may make money ; if on tlie other hand he has not a proper man handling this expensive machinery he may very soon lose a vast deal of money and therefore I would advise my hon. friend not to take too much stock in those rumors which he hears from time to time of the enormous dividends which these dredging companies are making, because there are losses which have to be sustained also.
William Humphrey Bennett: We see the results. When gentlemen build $20,000 houses who formerly lived in tenements, it is pretty plain what is going on.


William Pugsley: I wish simply to refer to one matter to prevent any misapprehension on the part of the hon. gentleman as to the position in which I, as minister, stand witli reference to extending the time for the completion of this contract. I said that the matter was under consideration and also that an order in council had been passed authorizing me to extend the time That order of course necessarily would be passed upon my recommendation and ordinarily I would be supposed to follow it up and fix the time for the completion of the work.
I may say, however, that for some little time past I have been urged by quite large transportation interests and also by the Boards of Trade of Winnipeg and Port Arthur to consider the question of dredging the harbours upon the Great lakes to a greater depth than 22 feet. These contracts provide for 22 feet but my attention had been called to the fact that the new lock which is to be built by the American government at the Sault is to have a depth of water over the mitre sill of 24 feet and it has been urged upon me to dredge the harbours both on the western and eastern shores of the great lakes to 25 feet. During the last few days, since this order in council was passed, this view has been very strongly urged upon my consideration.
X am now making inquiries in the matter, consulting with the chief engineer. I am not sure whether or not I will recommend to my colleagues that authority be given me to make a change in the contract so as to go to a greater depth. Hon. gentlemen can see that the question is a very important one and one which will involve some considerable additional expense. At the same time, I realize that in dredging these great harbours, both upon the eastern shores of Georgian bay and Lake Huron and also at Port Arthur and Fort William, we ought to look to the future. The lake steamers are becoming larger and are requiring a greater depth of water, and we ought to do what we can to keep the grain traffic of the west in Canadian channels and prevent it going to American ports. The chief engineer of the department tells me that, even taking the depth of water which the new American lock will have, 24 feet, and comparing it with the data of our work both at Victoria
and Tiffin and at Port Arthur and Fort William, it is not unlikely that, owing to the difference between the two data, the 22 feet depth proposed under the contracts will be sufficient. The matter is under consideration, and that is why I have not acted on the order in council and actually given the extension. For, if it is decided to dredge to a depth of 25 feet, it will require some arrangement to be made with the contractors that the work may go on and that we may not be compelled, having dredged 22 feet, to dredge to a depth of 25 feet. I am a thorough believer in the idea that, if it can be avoided, we must not allow these big ships which now transport the grain to Buffalo and other American ports to have an advantage in going to those ports, but we must make our harbours of sufficient depth to accommodate the largest vessel which in the future will navigate the great lakes. And, of course, the depth of the harbours on the western shore of Lake Superior must be the measure of the depth of the harbours on the eastern shore of Lake Huron and Georgian bay. Because if the big ships can enter Port Arthur and Fort William drawing 24 feet of water and cannot enter the harbours on Georgian bay or Lake Huron, they must of necessity take the traffic down to Buffalo and other American ports. This, of course, is a very important question as connected with our transportation problem, and I am sure the House will say that I am only exercising reasonable prudence in not acting immediately upon the authority of the order in council, .and in taking a short time to consider the matter with the officers of my department, getting all the information possible before deciding what is the best course to pursue. I make this explanation because otherwise my hon. friend might feel that I had not been entirely frank in saying that the order in council was passed, but the matter was under consideration.


John Graham Haggart: Just a few words in reference to the question of how dredging contracts should be let. I think the first thing is to have a proper staff of engineers and to make a profile of the locality to be dredged. That, the hon. minister says, is rather difficult engineering work. It is no more difficult than any other engineering work on a railway or anything else. The proper plan is to have a profile, and to know the quantities and the material to be dredged before you put a dredge in at all. Then when you let the contract and the parties are at work it may be inconvenient to measure prism quantities and pay on prism quantities. It may be necessary to pay on monthly estimates, these, perhaps, to be founded on scow quantities or measurements of the material taken out. But in every case these estimates should be corrected at the end of two or three

months, or, at the very least, at the end of the season. In no case should the party dredging have any other payment than for the actual prism quantities he takes out. That is the practice in England and in most of the states of the American union and in practically every other country where the dredging is done. But what are the facts here? A couple of parties collude together to get a contract, and, according to the new morals brought up from St. John, N.B., that is all right. They have influence enough with this government to get their nominee appointed to measure the work. He even farms it out in some cases. And on this party's certificate the contractors are paid. And that is the only certificate-* no prism quantities, no profile, no correction of the work. In no other country in the world is such a thing permitted as is permitted by our Public Works Department. And why? It is no harm, according to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) where there are practically only two parties competing for a contract, for these parties to sit down and arrange prices for which they will bid. Why, that is nothing


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) pardon me ; I was speaking in reference to this particular work. In this case there were a large number of tenderers besides these companies.


William Humphrey Bennett: Only one other.


John Graham Haggart: I paid particular attention to the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) and that statement was that the two parties who colluded were two-thirds of those who tendered.


William Humphrey Bennett: No doubt about that.


John Graham Haggart: And there is nothing wrong in that according to the Minister of Public Works-nothing immoral, nothing illegal. Why, in my reading of the statutes lately I have fouud that if a couple of parties attending a sale collude together, one saying to the other : ' You bid only so much for this and I will bid only so much for that,' and if that transaction comes before the court it is set aside on the ground of fraud and collusion. Why, there can be no greater collusion than for two to get together to arrange for high prices for such a contract as this. But, according to the new code of morals, this is all right-and, at least we can say that it is comparatively venial when we consider some of the other things done by those now in power. The Minister of Public Works seems not to take into account at all the statute quoted by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) which provides that every work involving an expenditure of $5,000 or over must be let by contract. And the hon. gentleman ignores this statute notwithstanding the report of the Royal Commission to investigate the civil service and its recommedation on this subject.	1


John Graham Haggart: 


William Pugsley: How did I ignore it?


John Graham Haggart: By letting a contract, or extending a contract which already existed, without tender, for works which may amount to $150,000 or $200,000 during the current year. There are estimates of $75,000 for one of the works and $75,000 for the other. And the hon. minister recommends to the Governor in Council to give him power to extend a contract for these works which contract was obtained by collusion.


William Pugsley: But it was not obtained by collusion.


John Graham Haggart: It is a fraud, it is a violation of the law which the Royal Commission appointed by the hon. gentleman himself, has drawn attention to. There is a similar Act in England. How do they do there ? As I have stated before in this House, they do not buy even a paint brush or a pound of nails without tender and contract. They do not do any piece of work, unless in the government workshops or navy yards, except by contract. The attention of the minister was forcibly drawn to it by the commission. They say to him : Look to England, there was a case in England where it was thought that for the purpose of keeping secret the construction of a gun of a particular pattern, it was in the public interest that the work should be done in secret; but the Public Accounts Committee in England said: That is not a sufficient reason to set aside the statute, that is not a sufficient reason to set aside the well known principle which has been adopted in reference to public works in England. No, they say, let every foreign government in the world know what the secret is, rather than that we should set aside the well known principle of letting public works by tender. But these gentlemen here in Canada-laws do not bind them, morals do not bind them. We had a set of morals brought up here the other day in reference to collusion. No effect at all upon hon. gentlemen. Statutory enactments are not of the least use. Wherever they think it is in the interest of their friends to let them a contract without tender, no statute, no law binds them. One would think that with the report of the Royal Commission before them showing violations of the law and making a comparison with the British system, they would at least have a little care. But the minister gets up boldly in the House and justifies the course he is pursuing. He says he thinks it is rather to be commended. Commended for what ? Getting an order in council passed and not putting it into effect. For what reason? Because the amount to be excavated by the dredges may be largely in excess of the present estimate. He says that he has in contemplation the deepening of the harbour at Port Arthur and Victoria, and Midland to the depth of the new lock which is to be constructed at Sault Ste. Marie by

the Americans. It is true that the Americans contemplate a depth of 24 feet on the mitre sill of the new lock. But the new lake dredging will not be done, it will not be in use for seven or eight years more. It will take that time at least to complete the dredging, and they will have to build a new lock I suppose in order to give the same facilities as at present, and when they do that we will have to export by Midland and other harbours, because we must be able to use vessels of the largest draft that navigate Sault Ste. Marie.
I only rose for the purpose of showing how the chance of committing fraud with reference to dredging could be removed, if these gentlemen who have the administration of public affairs in charge adopted ordinary reasonable means for the purpose of doing it, and had a proper system of estimating the work that is to be done, and would follow the law in reference to the construction of public works. Never mind about morals, never mind about collusion; although the most damaging thing that could ever happen to a minister or a government is the exercise of nepotism, appointing their friends or relatives to public positions and helping them to secure contracts. No government can last long which does that. The strongest man that ever occupied the woolsack in England, on account of the appointment of a few relatives of his to positions under the government, was driven into private life. What has become of the public sentiment of this country if the statements of my hon. friend from East Simcoe are correct, that friends of members of the government, sons and relatives of members of parliament, are receiving large contracts from the government ? It would be better that the commerce of the country should be stopped than that such things should be allowed to occur. Honour and integrity among public men are far above any wealth that can be acquired by such means, and hon. gentlemen will find out that the people of this country are awakening at last to these methods. I only rose for the purpose of making a few remarks with reference to what I considered the proper way of letting these contracts. It is simple, it is legal, there is no collusion about it. Above all things, let us keep the government and the people's representatives free from suspicion. For goodness sake, let us adopt the practice that, even when you wish to buy a pound of nails or a box of matches, you do it by open and public tender, by competition, and thus remove entirely temptation from the government.


Richard Blain: I wish to express my disapproval of the policy laid down by the Minister of Public Works in respect to letting contracts without public competition. If any member of this House will take the trouble to look over the ' Hansard ' of the last three or four years and read the discussions that have taken place in connection
with tenders for dredging, they will arrive at the conclusion that something is wrong. For example here are two companies. My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has from time to time been pointing out that some men were shareholders in both, that relatives were in both of them, and that in some cases there was collusion, there was a joining of hands in order to deceive the government in the tenders they put in for dredging. For instance, when these two companies, the Great Lakes Dredging Company and Mr. A. F. Bowman, were tendering for work to be done in Port Arthur, one of them, the Great Lakes Dredging Company, put in a tender for 9 cents a yard and A. F. Bowman put in a tender for 18 cents a yard, and A. F. Bowman is a member of the Great Lakes. Dredging Company. If there had been uo other tenders between the two everybody knows what would have happened. The one for 9 cents would have been withdrawn, and the government would have been compelled to give the tender for 18 cents per yard.


William Pugsley: Can the hon. gentleman point out any case in which a Minister of Public Works has allowed such a thing to be done ?


Richard Blain: I do not propose to enter into a detailed discussion of all these matters.


William Pugsley: Then why does the hon. gentleman assume that it would have been done when it never has been done ?


Richard Blain: I am expressing my condemnation of the policy. I would like the minister to understand that when he comes forward, as he does this afternoon, and states that there shall be no public competition for the dredging that is to take place at these two points for the coming year, then I say the people of this country will not approve of such a policy. Speaking for myself, I wish to express my condemnation of the new policy laid down by the minister. Not only is the minister guilty himself but he has, in the order in council, received the endorsation of the cabinet and we have therefore every member of the government setting aside a statute of this country as read by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and as cited by my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart). In reference to this statute we have a government, whose duty it is to carry out the statutes, coming forward his afternoon, and, through one of its representatives, saying that they will set aside this statute and that during this season dredging work shall be done without public competition at the prices they paid last year whether those prices were just or unjust. I see that the Auditor General has expressed himself upon this subject. Here is a letter :
Several eases came up during the season of 1906, where no public competition was in-

vited, but where a price for 1906 dredging was agreed upon between some official of your department and the contractor who had been dredging at the same place in the season of 1905.
In each of these instances the application for payment was accompanied by a typewritten slip-form, stating that ' as the case was one of pressing emergency, in which delay would have been injurious to the public interest, the minister directed that the work should be executed without a call for tenders/
It would generally be feasible for the engineering staff of one season to calculate what work remains to be done for the next year; and for the department to arrange its future policy in the early part of the winter. There would then be ample time to allow for public advertisement and tender, before dredging becomes possible in April or May.
Whatever difficulties have been caused in the past, by the late dates at which the votes of parliament were determined, will disappear under the new arrangement by which the fiscal year begins on April 1.
The money will now be voted several weeks or months before the opening of navigation; and there will always be sufficient time to invite tenders and award contracts, with the deliberation which is essential to such an important subject.
Here, the Auditor General, over his own signature, in the last Auditor General's Report (V-300) points out to the minister that this policy is a very bad one and he says that it ought to be discontinued. May I direct for a moment the attention of the right lion. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) to a statement that he made some years ago with respect to the way in which public works should be carried on under his government when it came into power ?
It is an honest minister who makes a competent engineer. Sir, when we have a Liberal party administration at Ottawa, we shall not have such a system as that, we shall not have these errors which have been occurring, because the minister will then say to the engineer ;
' My government wants a plan of a bridge, or a plan of a block of buildings, prepare your plans, but mind, if the contract which is given is not filled exactly as it is wanted or one cent has to be paid, off goes your head at once/
From such men, to-day in the ranks of the Liberal party, can be produced such a Minister of Railways, Minister of Public Works, that there will he no disgrace upon the brow of any Canadian.
This was the policy laid down by the right hon. gentleman before he came into power in 1896. Now, we have ministers of the Crown setting aside the statutes. Now, after we have adopted a policy approved by the people of Canada which declares that there shall be public competition, we have that policy set aside and the right hon. gentleman and the members of his government adopt an order in council endorsing a brand new policy brought up from eastern Canada Mr. BLAIN.
by the Minister of Public Works. I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to something that took place at a meeting of the board of trade at Col-iingwood
The regular Board of Trade meeting was held in the court room on Tuesday night last, and it was largely attended.
The principal question was the harbour. The president wanted to get at the actual condition of affairs. It was generally understood that we had a depth of twenty feet of water in the channel at low water, but facts did not hear out this supposition. He wanted to know who was responsible for the incomplete and unsatisfactory condition of the channel.
Mr. Hughes, the inspector, produced a chart of the soundings showing bumps and lumps dotted all over the channel, which was explanation enough of the trouble.
The hoard will take energetic steps to have the channel cleared up as the contractors are evidently digging out the soft spots where it pays the best, and the engineer is either indifferent or ignorant of what is going on. Mr. Hughes only does as he is told, and has no discretionary powers on the work.
That is the condition up at Coilingwood, as presented to this House in 1907. Here was a contractor dredging, out the soft spots in order to make money. There are other instances if I were to take up the time of the House but I want to direct the minister's attention to the fact that if any department in this government requires to ask for public tenders surely it is the department of my hon. friend. The amounts involved are large. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether an item of $2,000 or $3,000 should be made the subject of competition and tender but there surely can be no question that the competitive system is advisable when such large amounts are involved as are expended for dredging. I read from the last report of the Minister of Public Works that at Port Arthur :
The total amount dredged from July 1 to end of the season of 1906, was 443,175 cubio yards, scow measurements, and the expenditure for the nine months ending March 31 last was $67,990.91.
My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has pointed out that the dredging companies that are under discussion have received more than $1,000,000


William Humphrey Bennett: Two million.
Mr. BLAIN-two. million during the last few years for dredging. The newspapers have been pointing out that there is something wrong. My hon. friend from East Simcoe, in particular, has been directing the attention of the House to this condition of things. Here are two dredging companies, one assisting the other and both making an effort, of course, to make ail the money possible. We find that tenders are ranging between these companies and other companies

from 57 cents to 27 cents, to 9 cents and to 18 cents. Surely that fact is sufficient to warn the hon. gentleman who is the controller of this department against allowing any man or any company to come to him and say : X wiil do this work at the same price as that which was paid last year. That is not the policy that the people of Canada want to pursue in the year 1908. That is a policy that was discarded years ago. That is a policy that no municipal council in any province of Canada would permit for a moment and yet my hon. friend who is supposed to lead in this respect, to point out how the public works of the country should he constructed and to see that every care is taken to protect the public interest, has assented to a proposal of this ikind and has introduced a brand new policy with regard to this dredging work. What will these dredging companies think about it ? They wiil say: We have a friendly minister. Two tenders may go in for the one work and the same two contractors may tender for another work and they can decide with the approval of the minister which of them shall take one contract and which shall take the other. That is the condition of things in the Department of Public Works now. Are we to understand from the minister that these contracts are let for a term of years and that the government has no power to cancel them ?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Which contracts ?	.


Mr.   BTAIN@: The contracts for dredging in different parts of Canada.


William Pugsley: I thought I had explained to my hon. friend that these contracts at Midland, Tiffin and Victoria harbours were let to the lowest tenderers after public competition of the widest character, and in the contract it is provided that they shall do this work during the season of 1907 or by such further later date as the Minister of Public Works may determine. Therefore, this is not letting work without competition at all. This is the case with regard to quite a number of contracts. This is nothing new with regard to contracts in tile Public Works Department, and it is not at all a new thing for the minister to have to fix a later date for the completion of a work. It has been done ever since confederation I suppose ; done by the late government as well as by this government. The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong in suggesting that I am letting this work be done without public competition. I am simply doing what the contract provides may be done. With regard to the dredging at Fort William and Port Arthur which the hon. gentleman included in his figures, in that case I am informed that in the call for tenders for the work at Fort William it whs expressly stated that the work was to extend over a number of years.


Richard Blain: May I ask whether the government lias the power to cancel a contract which extends over a number of years ?


William Pugsley: I have not the contract with me, but if the hon. gentleman moves for it it will be brought down.


Mr.   BTAIN@: The hon. gentleman corrects me when I say that this dredging is to be done without tender?


William Pugsley: Certainly.


Richard Blain: I made no such statement in the sense that the Blinister of Public Works seems to take out of it. I know full well that last year or the previous year tenders were invited, and I suppose the lowest tenderer was granted the work, but that is not the point under discussion. What I am calling attention to is the work to be done this year, and I state now in the presence of the minister that he has continued this work for 1908 without public competition. That is my statement. Is it correct or is it not?


William Pugsley: It does seem to me that it is entirely wrong, because the contract was let by public competition. The prices were obtained by public competition and the contract itself specifies that the work is to be completed either at the close of 1907 or at such later date as the minister may determine. Therefore, the hon. gentleman is entirely wrong in saying that the work is being let without competition. All I am doing is exercising the power which the contract confers upon me to fix a date for the termination of the work.


Richard Blain: What is the need of an order in council ?


William Pugsley: I felt that I could do it without an order in council, but I also felt that in important matters like this it is desirable that I should go to my colleagues for their approval.


Richard Blain: At page 5985 'Hansard/ 1907, there is a discussion on the question of dredging which I quote :


William Humphrey Bennett: Bo I understand that contracts have been entered into with Weddell at one place and the Great Lakes Company at another that will run for six years or about $190,000 a year for the two?
Blr. 11SHER (Acting Blinister). The contract is terminable at any time at the wish of the government. The plan was made for the whole work and the contracts were let for the whole, expecting to occupy about seven years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The contract was let on estimated quantities?


Blr. FISHER.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How could the government let a contract covering work for six or seven years when the money has not been voted?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The contract can he terminated at any time. .


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if the contract is let 1 and the money is not voted I take it the con-

tractor would have reasonable ground for claiming damages._


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The contract is let subject to the voting of the money in parliament.


Richard Blain: In the session of 1904 a Bill was introduced by the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) relating to these two harbours, and I desired information on that subject and the minister at that time is reported in ' Hansard ' as follows:
We are therefore to understand from this citation that the government has power to cancel this contract at any time and the very fact that the minister now asks for an order in council to continue the work for next year is the proof. I say it is wrong for the minister to do any such thing. I believe it will not receive the endorsation of the hon. gentleman's own supporters in the House. The people of Canada will not approve of it, and particularly where the dredging in this department is surrounded by suspicion on every hand. Suspicion is created, for instance, by the fact stated by my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) that one of the inspectors on one of these dredges never went near the dredge at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: He swore to that himself.


Richard Blain: The inspector swore to that himself in the Public Accounts Committee ; he swore that he had let the work to another and that he stood in the position of a middleman and took the profits and put them in his pockets. Then we have other suspicious things about the dredging, and I therefore repeat that the policy the minister has adopted in allowing the dredging at these points to go on for the summer of 1908 without public competition is a policy that the people of Canada will not endorse. In the face of all these scandals in connection with the expenditure of public money, the people of Canada will be surprised that the Minister of Public Works should say that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work should be done without public competition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say a few words on this question, because I think we have embarked on a very dangerous principle. I remember some years ago bringing up the question in this House in connection with the expenditure of public money under the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I drew attention to what I regarded as an innovation that would lead to very great abuses and probably great dishonesty if it were continued. The answer I received was that we had a new minister who was adopting a new and up-to-date method. I will ask any one who has given attention to the history of that department and to the report of the commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the civil service if I was not justified in the position I then took. For many years abuses were constantly creeping in, in connection with Mr. BLAIN.
the expenditure of public money, and parliament in its wisdom thought well to embody what it regarded as the correct principle in a statute, with the view of controlling every minister in the expenditure of public moneys. What does that statute say?
Whenever any works are to,_be executed under the direction of any department of the government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works.
That was the correct principle. That was crystallized in a statute for the purpose of controlling ministers of the Crown as well as their subordinates. There were some exceptions provided for ; what were they ? The first was : ' pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest. Has the minister shown us that in these particular cases there was any presing emergency ? Why, the very order in council was passed before navigation was opened. Had he not time to call for tenders for these works ? What kind of cases were intended to be provided for by that exception ? Perhaps the breaking of a lock of a canal or the breaking down of some bridge, when there was not time to call for public tenders, and when it would be justifiable to do the work otherwise. Does the minister pretend that there was any pressing emergency in these cases ? He tells us what the Grand Trunk is going to do in hauling grain, and what the boats are prepared to do when the locks at Sault Ste. Marie will be deepened. But the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) tells us that these locks could not be deepened for six or seven years. Then what is the great emergency for dredging at Tiffin or Midland or Victoria harbour for the purpose of allowing large vessels drawing 24 or 25 feet of water to come down through the canal ? Is there any necessity ? Not at all.


William Pugsley: If you build your wharfs and your revetment walls upon land which is dredged to a depth of 22 feet, how can you afterwards dredge to a depth of 25 feet without undermining your works ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is not so young or so innocent as to think he can put that theory before this House. He knows that he does not require to do that. He presumes on the gullibility of this House to an extent for which I would not give him credit.


Mr. CONMEE.: Not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now one of the dredgers is to the fore.


James Conmee: The very thing the minister mentions occurred at the wharf of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Fort William, and they had to rip-rap it to strengthen it according to the increased depth of the

channel. The same thing has to be done to the elevator at Victoria harbour constructed only two years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is confounding two things-dredging and the building of wharfs.


James Conmee: Not at all. The wharfs at Fort William were built some years ago, the river was afterwards deepened to twenty-two feet, and on account of the extra depth the reinforcement had to take place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The work was done before it was contemplated that they would require a greater depth. Dredging is not to build a foundation for a wharf or an elevator.


Mr. PUGS LEY.: Must you not dredge for your foundation ?	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has the knowledge in his possession, and if he has to dredge the channel deeper he will have to put the public work to that depth, but in doing that he does not require to do the dredging this year. There is no urgency in that, so that this work does not come under that first exception. What is the next ? ' A work which, from the nature of the work, can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.' In this case, are the officers and servants of the department doing the work ? Not at all. So it does not come under that. What is the last exception ?	' When the established cost of the
work is less than $5,000.' These are the three exceptions, and I draw attention to them, because this case does not come under any one of the three. The minister chooses to ignore that statement. He is a new minister, and he is adopting new methods like the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and if he continues them, we shall find in a short time that they will lead to abuses which will be among the greatest scandals ever brought to light, and I am satisfied that the hon. minister knows it. He is not doing this innocently ; he is too old at the business. His history in the province which he has left is the strongest reason we have for reaching the conclusion that he knows what he is doing, and what it is likely to lead to. When the hon. minister is asked, what do you depend on for the faithfulness of your inspectors, he says, we depend on the government making inquiry in regard to their character and capability. But it was said in the House last session that when the government were told by one of their own supporters that a certain individual was satisfactory with regard to character, capability or anything else the minister is bound to accept it. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) shakes his head, I will show him from 1 Hansard ' that that was the reply. What did that lead to ? The inspector is appointed and
we are told that he goes to the works about eight or nine o'clock in the morning. But the dredge commences work at five o'clock and the inspector, according to the sworn testimony, reported so many cubic yards of stuff dredged out of the harbour, and that i3 all the government had to depend on. He said that the engineer of the dredge told him the quantity. I drew attention to the fact that they had an inspector going around the hotels, puffing away at twenty-five cent cigars, hour after hour, while the dredge was working, but the certificates came in and the dredge was paid on the strength of this man's certificates. The money of the government has been dishonestly spent in that way without the department having any proper or intelligent knowledge of the work done.


William Pugsley: Who told the hon. gentleman that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have it from a man living right in the locality. Some one raises an ironical laugh.


Alexander Johnston: You do not blame them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This man is just as honest and just as truthful, and I think a little more so, than the man who raised that laugh. He stands as well in the locality where he has resided for thirty years as the hon. member does in his locality.


Alexander Johnston: Is he dead ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: More than that it can be verified by not one but many people. I brought it to the notice of the government some years ago and they paid no attention to it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When you left the chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with a phase of this question which I had about concluded. I have a question to ask the minister, how many contracts that were let last year or the year before are to be extended under the principle that he has explained ?


William Pugsley: I am sorry that I have not a copy of the order ready to-night. As I said to the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) I will lay it on the table tomorrow. But I should say, speaking from memory, some ten or twelve, possibly more.


William Humphrey Bennett: All in Ontario ?
* Mr. PUGSLEY. No. They are all cases in which public tenders were called for and the prices fixed by competition.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Last year ?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If each of these represents any considerable sum, the aggregate must be a large amount of money. In view of the facts brought out with regard to these tenders-presents to' my mind perfectly conclusive-that there was collusion between the tenderers, the attitude which the minister


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) permit me ? I do not admit that there was collusion between all the tenderers or any of them. There is no evidence of anything of this kind. It is not contended that there was any collusion with the Dominion Dredging Company which was the lowest tenderer at 30 cents. Another fact which I should mention, but which was not brought out this afternoon is that when the Dominion Dredging Company informed the minister that they could not take the contract at the price of 30 cents the tenderers were invited again to tender on the work and it was reduced to 27 cents.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were there public calls for tenders in the newspapers ?


William Pugsley: No, the tenderers were invited to tender again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did it look as if there was something wrong when one tenderer put in a bid at 56 cents and another at 27 cents and then would not take the contract?


William Pugsley: It was one tendering at 30 cents who could not take it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose, in the meantime he had been interviewed by the others and he had come to the conclusion that they could get a good thing if they had an understanding.


William Pugsley: I think that is a very unworthy suspicion.


William Humphrey Bennett: No tenders were called for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Unworthy of what ? Of a public man ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did not the circumstances justify suspicion ?


William Pugsley: There was not a fact to justify suspicion. There is not a tittle of evidence on which any suggestion could be based that the Dominion Dredging Company did not make their tender bona fide. But, in consequence of having other work they could not take this contract. It has not even been suggested that they were in collusion with the others.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did they make their deposit when putting in their tender ?


William Pugsley: I cannot say at the moment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister knows that that is one of the conditions of tendering, Mr. PUGSLEY,
that with a tender there must go the deposit. The minister, therefore, had them under his control and could have compelled them to carry out the contract. But he allows them to throw it up for some reason best known to himself, and divide it up with


William Pugsley: And we get it done at 3 cents a yard less.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to tell the minister that I have been too long in this House not to know something about how contracts are given in many lines. I remember a case, some years ago, when three corporations tendered for something in connection with the work of the Department of Justice. The tenders were collusive, but they were all different, and each was accompanied with the required deposit. But when the tender was to be awarded, the lowest tenderer, to whom the contract was to be given, represented that he had made a mistake in his calculations and that he stood to lose a great deal of money if he were compelled to carry out the contract. That is one of the common ways of getting out of these things. The result was that when they came to sign the contract the successful tenderer was in London and the unsuccessful tenderer in Ottawa. When the man in London was notified to sign the contract, he wired back to let so and so sign it-his supposed competitor-that all three were in it together and it did not matter who got it. I had this statement of the facts from the Minister of Justice of that time. He was confronted with this evidence of collusion. And I believe that this had been carried on for two or three times in succession in the same way. It has been shown over and over again in this House that there is collusion amongst tenderers in connection withjpublic works. In the face of that fact I think there is not only suspicion but more than suspicion in this case. It is not enough to say that, because the contract was given at 3 cents a yard less than the original lowest tender, that we are justified in running on that line for several years.


William Pugsley: Before the hon. gentleman passes away from that point, will he allow me to ask:	Does he suggest that
these prices are not as the chief engineer certifies, fair and reasonable ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a question that the minister could not reasonably expect me to answer. But I may tell him, from what I know about the business that it would depend upon the material to be taken out. If' it were ordinary sand, gravel or clay, the prices are very big prices. I speak from the knowledge of a man in the business for years, who told me over and over again that in any moderately well-sheltered place, he could take out clay, gravel or sand at 10 cents a yard and make big profits. And the price in this case is 26 cents. I know of offers over and over again to do

this work for less than ten cents, for less than 9 cents, even as low as 8 cents, if the government would give the work.


William Pugsley: They always have a chance to tender.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the stuff is ordinary clay, gravel or sand, as I assume it to "be, these parties have a cinch in a contract at 26 cents a yard. It is not enough to say that the engineer certified the price as fair and just. We who have been in the House for any length of time have found, over and over again, that prices which were really two or three prices were certified as fair and just. For instance, we know that teacups were bought for the icebreaker ' Montcalm ' at $1.94 apiece, and this price was certified as just and reasonable. Then in the case of the contract of M. P. Davis, on the Cornwall canal, the same certificate was given concerning prices. The Auditor General refused to pay and held up the accounts for over six months. And they took off the difference between $52,000 and $29,000 for the work of that year, and with this reduction the contractor was satisfied to accept payment. The government's own engineer was satisfied that $52,000 for what was done that year was a fair and just price, when the contractor himself accepted $29,000 and was satisfied. So it is not enough to say that because a price is recommended as fair and just, you ought to be satisfied with it. There are other ways of ascertaining what is fair and just. The minister says the contract is a continuous one, and they have a right to expect it to continue. How does he make that out ? Let him bring down the contract.


William Pugsley: The copy will be down at the next sitting of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: After this debate is over ?


William Pugsley: I regret I could not get the copy in time for this afternoons debate. I will say to my hon. friend that the items in regard to this very work will all appear, in fact are already in the main estimates, and the matter can be discussed in Committee of Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not make any difference, it is a question of fact. Is it or is it not a continuous contract?


William Pugsley: I will tell the hon. gentleman what the words of the contract are, as near as I can remember. They are that the contractor shall do the dredging work required at such a place, say at Victoria harbour, and shall complete the work by the close of the season of 1907, or at such later date as. may be fixed by the minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Which is at the end of the fiscal year ?


William Pugsley: No, at the close of the season of 1907, or at such later date as may be fixed by the minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it lies with the minister to decide whether the contract ends at the end of the fiscal year or not. Does the minister contend that the contract would not end with the end of the fiscal year ?


William Pugsley: You have to take it as it is


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say that the contract closes with the end of the fiscal year. When the fiscal year expires and the money voted has lapsed, that contract closes.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman does not seem to understand me. I did not say that the contract closed with the fiscal year, it is the close of the season of 1907 or at such later date as may be fixed by the minister. Those are the words.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Practically it means the close of the fiscal year, because after winter sets in they cannot do any dredging. Is the minister aware of this fact ?


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman say is meant by the words ' or at such later date as may be fixed by the minister ' ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a sliding clause the minister has put in, I do not think it binds any one. But I will tell him that I have an indistinct remembrance of some such contract let years ago, and because the government saw fit to take that work from the party and put it up for tender again, the contractor held that he had a right to collect damages because the government refused to continue the contract. The contractor asked permission to go into the Exchequer Court to establish the fact that he had a right to have his contract renewed. The government granted him permission, and the Exchequer Court decided that he had not the right, that the contract closed with the close of the fiscal year, and when the money that was voted for the year had lapsed, he had no right to a continuance of that contract. What does Abe minister say about that ?


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what were the words of the contract upon which the contractor relied as entitling him to a continuance ? Those words would be extremely important.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My remembrance is that it was a contract on schedule prices until the work was done. Now they could ndf do the work all in one year, and he claimed they could not do it in two years, I think he claimed it would take two years to do it, and he was entitled to continue that work until it was done. Therefore I hold his case

was quite as strong as the case under consideration at the present time.


William Pugsley: Any lawyer knows that everything depends, as to the rights of the contractor, upon the words of the contract; and if the contract was just as the hon. gentleman seems to put it, that the contractor was to do the whole of this work at schedule prices, then I would say as a lawyer without hesitation that he would have a right to do the whole work and be paid for it. But there must have been something in the contract which has escaped the attention of my hon. friend. Perhaps it was provided in the contract that if the appropriation became exhausted the contract might be put an end to. But that would be a very different ease from the one we are now discussing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I claim that when the appropriation is exhausted this contract ends. Parliament might change its mind, parliament might take up some other work, parliament might change the -work altogether, and parliament has a right to end the contracts at the end of the fiscal year, whether the contractor likes it or dislikes it. Therefore the case is on all fours with this one. Now let me draw attention to another feature. Some think we are on the verge of hard times. The price of labour may go down, the price of everything may go down. Suppose that this contract continues. I saw a statement in one of the papers that it would take about six years to finish the work at Port Arthur and the work is being done there on schedule prices. If I understand the Minister of Public Works correctly, it was to the effect that this work -would continue under the same contractors from year to year until it was done, at the prices at which they have taken the contract for the last year.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman entirely misunderstood me. I cannot see how I could have been so unintelligible. I stated this afternoon that in so far as this work at Fort William is concerned it is not a contract from year to year, but it is a contract for the whole work extending over a number of years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For the whole work extending over a number of years ?


William Pugsley: Yes, expressly mentioned in the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there any time mentioned during which it was supposed the work was to continue ?


William Pugsley: Yes, it was supposed that it would continue for six years and that was the statement made by the acting Minister of Public Works, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what year was that statement made?


William Pugsley: I think it was the year before last; it was either last year or the year before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose the hon. gentleman does not know the price at which the contract was let.


William Pugsley: Yes, the price is quite low.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much?


William Pugsley: The price at Fort William is 9 cents per cubic yard with an additional allowance of 2 cents per cubic yard based upon the distance at which the mud is carried out beyond a certain limit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That contract was made at 9 cents per cubic yard and this one is 26 cents per cubic yard.


William Pugsley: That is very low.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is reasonable.


William Pugsley: The one at Victoria harbour i's 8 cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Victoria harbour is 8 cents and the other is 26 cents for the same kind of work.


William Pugsley: Not for the same kind of work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take the Port Arthur contract to be on all fours with the case in which it was held by the Exchequer Court that a contract ended at the end of the fiscal year and that the contract could be abandoned by the government at that time. Let us look at the unwisdom and improvidence of entering into such a contract as this one. This contract is taken at 26 cents a yard. The minister was asked if there was any estimate made as to how much work was to be done there and his reply was that he thought not. Therefore, we do not know how long this work is likely to last. But, suppose it lasts for four, five, six or seven years


William Pugsley: It will not last that long.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, it will last a few years. Suppose that it was taken at a time when wages were very high, suppose that we were right on the verge of hard times when wages would drop 15, 20 or 30 per cent when the cost of supplies and everything else would drop and when work of this kind could be done for perhaps 75 or 80 per cent less than the price which would yield a good profit when the contract was made, in what position would the government find themselves with a contract of this kind on their hands? I will wait until I can get the minister's attention. I want to ask him whether, if I treated him in that way, he would regard it as an act of courtesy? I say that if he had the instincts of a gentleman he would not treat me in this way.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman must withdraw that remark.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, I will withdraw those words but I wish that I had some other words that would convey my meaning.


William Pugsley: I trust that the hon. gentleman will not again make an exhibition of himself in the manner that he has done this evening.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will make such an exhibition as in my judgment seems proper until the hon. gentleman sees fit to treat me with that courtesy which is due from a minister of the Crown to any member of this House who is exercising the right which he has of dealing with these public accounts of a minister.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I would like your ruling upon the question as to whether, if a member does not choose all the time to look at the hon. gentleman who is addressing the House, he may be characterized as wanting in courtesy. I heard what the hon. gentleman said although for a moment I turned to speak to my hon. friend on my right (Mr. Carvell). But, that should not justify the hon. gentleman in saying what he did say to me.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think it is hardly a point of order. It is a question of taste, I suppose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was saying that provided prices and wages fell the government would find themselves with a contract on their hands that represented hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars, whereas, had they an opportunity of calling for tenders, they could save a lot of money to the country. I say it is an improvident and unwise contract, and that it will just as surely as we are here to-night lead to improper conduct on the part of somebody. This is one of the devices that the minister has in his own hands which enable him to improperly use public money, and to pay it out to his own favourites in such a way that the government does not get full return for it. The minister is a new man, he has adopted this new system, and I predict that we will live to remind him of what it has led to. The system, in my judgment, is a very bad one. The money which has been spent in a few years with three of these firms reaches the total of $3,700,000. That is a large amount of money.


William Pugsley: What is this new system that the hon. gentleman speaks about as having been inaugurated by me? It is not a new system. This has been done before in the case of contracts like the present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not knowledge of it being done since the Act was passed to compel the government to do these works by tender and contract.


William Pugsley: Yes, this was put up for tender.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This was a departure from the statutory law. This sum of $3,-
700,000	has been paid out to these three firms one of which is doing dredging at 8 cents a yard.


William Humphrey Bennett: They are now being paid 9 cents and the contract has been varied from 20, 30 and 40 cents a cubic yard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, they were getting 30 and 40 cents for the same work that they are doing now for 9 cents. On account of the constant attention that has been given to this question in this House, especially by my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) for sheer shame they were obliged to put this work up to public competition and the contract was given and they are now doing the work for 9 cents a yard for which thef were previously getting 23 cents. I will say that the work for which they are getting 26 cents a yard would have been done this year, if tenders had been invited, for 8 cents a yard the same as they are doing it for Victoria harbour.


William Pugsley: It is not the same kind of work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And yet the government have denied themselves the opportunity of saving the money of the country. They have paid $3,700,000 in a few years for one class of work and they would go on and pay out that money. Noth withstanding the fact that many of these contracts may be let at a price three times as great as they should be let at they will allow them to go on from year to year and pay the price regardless of whether the country is getting any return for the outlay or not so long as it happens to suit their convenience. It is wrong, it is improper, it should not be continued and if the minister continues it, just as sure as he is here to-night, we will have an opportunity of reminding him in the future of the abuses that have developed under his administration, we will bring to light transactions similar to those which have been disclosed to-day, we will meet the minister with the argument that is presented to him to-night, and we will show him how improper and illegal is his conduct in making contracts and carrying on public work in this manner.


George Taylor: I want to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) to take a few notes as he has promised us that when his estimates come down he will be able to give us all the information that we want in respect to these contracts. I am informed that last year the department called for tenders for dredging in the province of Quebec. Tenders were invited for dredging at Blanche Shoals and the Stewart Company were the lowest, but they were full of work and could not take the job and it was handed over to Messrs.

T. F. Moore and Company of Montreal, who are a sort of manufacturers agents, something like Merwin and are dealing very largely with the government. The contract was awarded to Moore and Company.


William Pugsley: At what price ?


George Taylor: It is for you to get me that information when the estimates are up.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Were they the lowest tenderers ?


George Taylor: Stewart and Company were the lowest but they did not take the job and it was given to Moore and Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What became of their deposits.	,


George Taylor: The Stewart Company were the lowest tenderers for the dredging at Dorion but they had to throw up the job and it was given to L. Cohen & Sons. L. Cohen & Sons are a firm of Jews in Montreal who run the jew vote in the interest of the friends of the government.


William Pugsley: I am not aware that that is any disgrace.


George Taylor: It is not, but they are not dredging men.
Mr. PUGSLEY7. Were they the lowest tenderers ?


George Taylor: Stewart and Company were the lowest in every case but they were so full of other jobs that they could not take these.


William Pugsley: What price did Cohen get.


George Taylor: It will be for the minister to get that information. At Maskiuonge Stewart and Company were the lowest but they were unable to carry out the contract and it was handed over to L. Cohen & Son.


William Pugsley: Was it at the same price?


George Taylor: I know nothing about the price, I want the minister to get that information.


William Pugsley: I will be very glad to.


George Taylor: At Point Cavagnole the Stewart Company was the lowest but it was handed over to Cohen & Sons. At Racquette river the Stewart Company was the lowest tenderer but having, their hands full of other jobs the work was handed over to Cohen & Sons.


William Pugsley: If there was so much money in it one would suppose they would try to carry out the contract.


George Taylor: I think there was something in it for somebody but we will deal with that later.


William Pugsley: Who got that contract ?


George Taylor: 


George Taylor: Cohen & Sons, this Arm of Jews at Montreal.


William Pugsley: Why do you call them a firm of Jews. Can't Jews do dredging work ?


George Taylor: Certainly they can, but they are in a mercantile business and they are not the kind of men that should be given dredging contracts.


William Pugsley: I am told they have done the dredging work very satisfactorily indeed.


George Taylor: At St. Placide, Stewart and Company tendered lowest but the work was handed over to Cohen & Sons. I want to know from the minister what he did with all these deposits of Stewart and Company and why the contracts were allowed to be handed over to other parties. Another j)iece of information I want from the minister is : Has the contract for the Quebec harbour improvements to Messrs. Dus-sault & Lemieux been renewed for this year. Has a new contract been entered into with this firm at the same prices as last year's work ?


William Pugsley: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would put that in the form of a question and I will get the answer in the ordinary way.


George Taylor: I thought you could answer that now.


William Pugsley: I cannot keep all these things in my head.


George Taylor: If the minister has not extended the contract this year I ask him in the interest of the country not to do so and for this reason. Some of his predecessors in office entered into a contract with Hussault & Lemieux in 1903 or 1904 for harbour improvements at Quebec. The contract given them was number 4163. They did that year $183,000 worth of work. That is what they charged for it, and I want to refer the minister for a moment to some of the charges that were made and will be made this year if this contract is extended. That contract was extended by order in council for 1904-1905 and no new tenders were called for and the government paid that year $224,000. The next contract was 5011 and that was extended by order in council for another year and at the same prices and they earned that year $107,609. Another contract was entered into with them, for the next year (1906-1907) by order in council, and they earned $98,937.40.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am somewhat unfamiliar with the rules of this House, but I would ask you, whether, when a gentleman asks permission to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a particular matter, is it

open to another hon. member to discuss something entirely foreign to the question. The permission to move the adjournment was given simply to discuss the question of dredging.


George Taylor: This is dredging.


William Pugsley: Pardon me it is not. This is wharf building. I addressed myself to the question raised by the hon. member (Sir. Bennett) as to the dredging contracts at Victoria and at Tiffin and now the hon. member (Sir. Taylor) is dealing with wharf building at Quebec.


George Taylor: I wish to say, Sir. Speaker, that the motion of my hon. friend (Sir. Bennett) was as to renewing contracts without tender. Because the minister had informed him yesterday that several contracts were to be renewed. I see in the Dussault contract an item of 18,000 yards of dredging at 75 cents a yard. That contract has been renewed year after year at 75 cents a yard and the person that the contract was given to had no dredge, and he farmed it out at 15 cents a yard and this government is paying year after year 75 cents a yard for it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I see by the terms of the notice given, that it is to discuss tenders for dredging at Midland, Tiffin, Victoria harbour and other points ; so that under this notice I can hardly restrict the hon. member.
}Ir. PUGSLEY. I do not object to the hon. gentleman speaking of dredging any where but what he has been speaking of is wharf building at Quebec.


George Taylor: I do not wonder at the minister wanting to knock me out because this is a delicate question.


William Pugsley: Not at all. I am prepared to discuss the question at any proper time, but I have no notice of this and cannot answer my hon. friend to-night.


George Taylor: You will have an opportunity when the estimates come down and I want all this information then. These people were paid on a contract that was continued from 1903-1904 and since then they have been paid $614,000.


William Pugsley: For dredging ?


George Taylor: For dredging and works in connection with dredging.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman knows that the great bulk of that was for wharf building.


George Taylor: Harbour improvements include dredging. They were paid 75 cents a yard for dredging, and they used the materials dredged for wharf filling, for which they got 32 cents a yard, that is $1.07 a yard for work which they got done for 15 216
cents a yard. In connection with that work there were 105,000 pounds of iron drift-bolts at 7 cents per pound.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That obviously does not refer to tenders for dredging. I think the discussion is drifting away from the motion.


George Taylor: Well, I notify the government that if this tender has not been renewed, and if there is more work to be done there, they should immediately call for public tenders. On that dredging they have been paying 75 cents a yard for the last four years, when they could have got it done for 15 cents, because the party is now doing it for the contractors for that price.


William Pugsley: Who is the sub-contractor who is doing it for 15 cents?


George Taylor: I want the hon. gentleman to give that information when I ask the question. He knows who it is, or his department knows.


William Pugsley: I am not aware of it, and I presume the department is not.


George Taylor: The hon. minister is paying 75 cents a yard for mud dredging at Quebec when he is getting it done at other places for 15 cents. The thing on its face shows that there is something wrong.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend know that there is a vast difference between dredging in the St. Lawrence, where the tides rise and fall, and dredging on the lakes?


George Taylor: Yes, there is some difference, but as the motion for adjournment is made simply to discuss dredging, I will take another opportunity to discuss the prices the government have been paying for supplies. Every time they renewed this contract they might have saved from 50 to 100 per cent on the prices.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Oarleton, N. B.).: Mr. Speaker, when this matter came up I was somewhat at a loss to understand the object the hon. member for East Simcoe had, and I am not entirely clear about it yet. I may say that there have been a number of dredging contracts discussed in the Public Accounts Committee and evidence has been given in some of these cases, but, as I am not allowed under the rules of the House to discuss them, I will not transgress by attempting to state what the evidence shows. Suffice it to say, that in my humble opinion the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has gained very little satisfaction from the evidence that has been adduced in that committee, and it seems to me that he is now attempting to get before the country certain matters before they are brought out under oath in the Public Accounts Committee. If we can believe the statements we have heard this afternoon on both sides



of the House, we must come to the conclusion that had the hon. member for East Simcoe had his way, and stated everything he wanted to state, his story would have been very different from what the story actually is. We were led this afternoon to believe that a new contract had been entered into by the Minister of Public Works for dredging at Midland, Tiffin and Victoria harbour. Now, the facts are, that something like a year ago tenders were called by the then acting Minister of Public Works for dredging at these three places. The hon. member for East Simcoe has attempted to show that a great wrong has been done to the country because two of the tenders put in by presumably rival firms where in the handwriting of a gentleman who has the misfortune to be a relative of a member of parliament on this side of the House, and the hon. member for East Simcoe, with characteristic audacity, draws the inference that there must be something crooked in the transaction, but my hon. friend did not tell the House what he might have known from an examination of the documents-what he did know. My hon. friend, in the first place, went through a lot of cheap g5rmnastics in daring the government to bring down the papers and lay them on the table of the House in order that the members might have a chance to examine them. Does he not know that he and every member of the Public Accounts Committee and every member of this House has had a chance to examine those papers during the last two months? I think I am not trespassing on the rules of debate when I say that the hon. gentleman made that statement with the deliberate intention of making the people of this country believe that this government were trying to conceal from the public something which they had a right to see, although he knew that there was no attempt to conceal anything. He was asking the government to do something which they could not do. He knows that these papers are in the custody of the Public Accounts Committee. This House, which places those papers in the custody of the Public Accounts Committee, has the power to take them from the custody of that committee, if a motion is made to that effect, but what right has the Minister of Public Works any more than the hon. member for East Simcoe to say to the clerk of the committee, you will bring these papers down herg and hand them over to a messenger and have them laid on the table of this House? It is simply a cheap way of insinuating that the government has been trying to keep from the House and the country certain papers which they were entitled to have. If those papers had been examined by the Public Accounts Committee and evidence had been adduced, then I am forced to the conclusion from what I have learned here this afternoon that the hon. member for East Simcoe himself knows Mr. CARVELL.
that he would not have got from them anything like the evidence that he has attempted to place on the records of the House this afternoon. What would those papers show? I gather, from the statements made by the minister, who has not had an opportunity of examining the papers, and from the admissions of the hon. member for East Simcoe and other members on the other side of the House, that they would show that about a year ago tenders were called for this work; and I hope hon. members of this House and the people of this country will not forget that those tenders were open to the whole world. They were not confined to two or three dredging firms that happened to be in Owen Sound, and I have a very shrewd suspicion that perhaps one of the objects of the hon. member for East Simcoe is to get a rap at a gentleman who lives in Owen Sound and is a member of one of those dredging companies. There is an election coming an in the province of Ontario before very long, and a certain gentleman who lives near Owen Sound may play a prominent part in those elections, and I think the hon. member for East Simcoe had that fact in mind. However, tenders were put in by two rival companies at 53 cents and 57 cents respectively, and my hon. friend wants the people of this country to believe that because those tenders were in the same handwriting there was collusion. He says, what greater evidence of fraud do you want than that? Now, I am willing to admit that if those tenders were not open to the public, and those two firms alone had been invited to tender and had put their heads together to keep up the price, that would be evidence of fraud. But when the work is open to the whole world. I fail to see evidence of an offence against either moral law or the legal rights of any one in the fact that those two firms put their heads together to get as good a price as possible. The best proof of that statement is what took place in this very case. These two companies put in their tenders, and they were pretty high tenders, I should imagine. At the same time a third man came in and tendered at a little more than one half the price, 30 cents. The very fact that the third man came in and cut the price down shows that there is no harm in the action of the other two, because they were liable to have another tenderer come in. The Dominion Dredging Company received the contract at 30 cents, but found that they were not able to do the work. It was hinted this afternoon by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that there must have been a nigger in the wood pile somewhere. Why these hon. gentlemen can see graft in everything that takes place.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear, that is about right.
(Mr. CARVELL. I sometimes wonder if they are going back in their minds to what

took place-when they were in power. I cannot imagine people seeing something crooked in everything that takes place unless they were of a crooked mind. They must have been used to crooked transactions when they were running the government and therefore think that every one else does the same. I am afraid that this will be the case if ever this country should be so unfortunate as to again have them in control of the government. The hon. member for Bast Grey (Mr. gproule) says : I have been at this business so long that I know how these things are being done. Yes, he does, there is not a man on the front bench of the opposition who does not know how such things are done, they can go back in their minds to the old Connolly and MCGreevy transactions. They are postmasters in the art of manipulating tenders and contracts. There is nothing they cannot tell about in that line, and they have an idea that no matter what takes place on a government contract, whether by private contract or by public tender, there must be something crooked about it. The insinuation was thrown out this afternoon that because the Dominion Dredging Company were unable to carry out their contract at 30 cents and tkrew_it up, there was graft in that somewhere and a scheme put up between these people by which the country was to lose money. What are tl;e facts? The government did not go to the next lowest tenderer and offer the work at 53 cents but according to the statement of the minister this afternoon they sent out telegrams to every one who had tendered: these people came in and the country gets the work done at 27 cents instead of 30 cents. Is there anything wrong in that ?


George Taylor: It is worth 9 cents.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says it is worth 9 cents. That is why I say it is absolutely unfair, worse than unfair to bring up a discussion of this kind under the present circumstances. The hon. member from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) brings this up before we have had a chance to examine witnesses or to ascertain the character of the work, whether it is worth 8 cents as the work at Victoria Harbour, or 26 cents or 27 cents here. In view of that I am forced to the conclusion that the hon. member for East Simcoe brought this matter up in order to spread these statements broadcast over the country before witnesses could be examined on the case, and I believe if my hon. friend had been allowed to have these statements go to the country unanswered, you would never have heard of a witness being called before the Public Accounts Committee to get at the exact facts of the case. Now I presume they will have to go on with it.
These contracts were let at 26 and 27 cents instead of 30 cents, and in every move of the Public Works Department in this case the public interests were safeguarded and the price has been constantly lowered.
216J
My hon. friend, in the next place, raised the cry that the Minister of Public Works has let this contract without tender and that it is a new contract. The member for East Simcoe had no hesitation in saying that this is a new contract. The member for Peel (Mr. Blain) this afternoon would not take the word of the Minister of Public Works when he told him over and over again that it was not a new contract. I do not think the member for Peel (Mr. Blain) is so obtuse that he could not understand the Minister of Public Works. I give him credit for having ordinary abilities, his hearing is good so far as I know, and I am satisfied he must have understood the Minister of Public Works. Yet he would not take his statement and went on declaring it was a new contract. The member for Grey (Mr. [DOT]Sproule) this afternoon took the same course and when driven into a corner he dragged up from his memory some old contract when he and his friends were in power and tried to argue that it was a parallel case. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has told this House repeatedly this afternoon that contracts were let last year for the work at Victoria harbour, at Midland and at Tiffin, and that there was a clause in these contracts providing that they were to be completed before the end of navigation in 1907 or at such later date as the minister should decide. All the minister has done in this case is to carry out the terms of this contract. All he has done is by an order in council to provide another date when this work shall be completed, and, Sir, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman who brought up this matter if they can see any reasons why the government should hope to get a lower tender for this particular class of work if they had put it up this year than they were able to secure last year.
There is another thing. When this work is well under way and the firm have their dredges and scows and plant at the location, surely they can go on and do the work cheaper than it could have been done if they were driven out, new tenders called for, and a new contract given to a new firm. I submit that under these conditions you would not get a new firm to go in there and do the work as cheaply as it is being done at the present time, certainly not cheaper. For these reasons it seems to me that the Minister of Public Works is amply justified in taking the course he has taken. I am satisfied the House and the country will justify the ministers in that course, and that the member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) will not be able to make the people of Canada believe that a new contract has been let by the Minister of Public Works without tender; they will realize that it was simply a continuation of the contract let last year and simply carrying out the terms of that contract, that under the conditions of the contract the public are getting this work done as cheaply as it could possibly be done

and that not only the terms but the letter of the law and the contract have been carried out to the full.


James Conmee: It will, I think, be generally admitted that it is quite the proper thing for the opposition to criticise public expenditures. I for one have never any objection to anything like a fair criticism, but I submit that such criticism as has been offered this afternoon, is entirely unfair and unjustified and I do not think that any good purpose can be served by gross misrepresentations-if I may use the word slander. I believe that a great deal of the discussion this afternoon is largely composed of misrepresentations and slander. As I understand the situation it is not a question of new contract, it is a question of properly dealing with a contract that had been let under special conditions. What were the conditions ? That a certain class of work should be done within a certain time and that it might be done within this time or at such later time as the minister would fix for the completion. I submit that any contractor taking the work would base his tender upon that clause of the contract and say: If it is not possible for me to do it with all reasonable effort within the time specified in the contract. I am in the hands of the minister of the Crown, and I expect such treatment as a subject ought to expect from the Crown, no undue advantage will be taken of me but I will be given a reasonable opportunity to carry that work to completion.
The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) this afternoon stated that this work was done on a very different basis from dredging anywhere else in America, that scow measurement was something that ought not to be tolerated, and this work was being done without proper measurement and on the mere certificate of the inspector who watched the loading of the scow where the dredge was operated. I am surprised at the hon. member making that statement because he has been Minister of Railways. He made the further statement that the measurement of dredging excavation was a matter that could be measured just as a railway contract could be measured and that it was always measured in place in every other country but Canada. The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. I venture to say that, generally speaking, dredging in the United States is done by scow measurement, and done in that way after the government of that country had had experience in place measurement. And why ? Because a greater amount of mismeasurement-or, if you like a stronger word, of fraud,-existed under that system than under the present system. And that is why they adopted the scow measurement. All the dredging done in this country, so far as I know, is done upon plans and cross sections showing the Mr. CARVELL	.
depth of water, the area to be dredged, and the class of material, so far as the engineers can test it by borings and otherwise. And what does the contractor tender for ? He tenders to do a certain amount of dredging for a certain price within a limited time within the area shown by the plans. And usually, it is by scow measurement. Why ? A good deal of work can be done by place measurement, solid rock for instance, or excavation that is above or near the surface can be done by place measurement. But the case is altogether different if the work is at the bottom of a harbour. To get the measurements you have to send down divers, and the contractor has to send down divers to see that he gets fair play. And you cannot leave the work for more than two weeks or a month because there is a constant washing in of material. Prices would be one-half or one-third higher if the measurements were not taken as the excavation is made. I do not suppose there is a harbour being dredged in this country where there is not material of a more or less silty nature. In many places it partakes of the nature of quicksand or clay that will fill in in twenty-four hours and take away one quarter of the measurement that the contractor might fairly claim. I do not say that that appertains generally but it does appertain in some cases. Therefore, it is easy to see the enormous difficulty that surrounds this question of fair measurement and why frequent measurements would be necessary if full measurement is to be given for the actual quantity taken out. If you are measuring in place, everything depends on who holds the tape. And it is the diver who holds it. You cannot estimate the amount of dredging in any other way. That is the reason for favouring scow measurement both from the point of view of the government and from the point of view of the contractor. The best evidence of this is that if you take the work done by railway companies and harbour companies, where they pay not out of government funds but out of their own funds, they usually do it in that way. It is not a practical thing to do it otherwise. I need not dwell upon that feature of the case, because any one who will consider the difficulties of the case will see the reasonableness of scow measurement. Is there any great chance for fraud in scow measurement ? I am bound to say that there are cases where work is done by place measurement. I know of a case on the American side near the Soo, where a large quantity of dredging had to be done. But why was place measurement adopted ? Because it was a new channel, and nearly the whole area was through where the water was to run for the first time and the work was practically in plain sight. There is no contractor who would not prefer place measurement in excavating if he could get it. A contractor

never gets better fair play than when he has the work where he has an opportunity to see by his own assistants that he gets paid for what he does actually move. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says this is a new policy which comes to us from the east. Well, the wise men are said to have come from the east. But I must say, at the same time, this is not a new policy. The same criticism was levelled by the hon. member for East Simcoe and some other hon. members on that side in 1904 against the Minister of Public Works of that time and on pretty much the same ground, concerning work at Port Arthur and Fort William what they alleged was let without tender upon much the same ground as in this case. The minister of that time decided that as the work had been let under terms of competition in the first instance, and as the work was in part for bringing the harbour down to a certain depth and making slips in new places to the harbour line where elevators and other constructions had gone up in the meantime, this was a class of work for which he could not well get a tender. The work was done, not at the price of 33 cents, as the hon. member said, nor at 23 cents. But the basis of the contract as a whole was 15 cents, not 33 cents. The hon. member for East Grey must have a very short memory, because within the last year I went over this whole matter in detail. I had before me the return brought down to this House and I gave the facts in the case, and they were these : that fully 75 per cent of the entire yardage was on the basis of the contract price, 15 cents, and that the only case in which higher prices were paid was in the case I referred to-where there was the removing of an old structure such as a dock, and the making of certain slips into the harbour line, in order to facilitate the transportation of grain from that particular harbour. Now it is not fair to revive these statements which are without foundation in fact, which have been over and over again contradicted. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) made these statements this afternoon. He has no facts, he never did have facts, and cannot produce a single fact to warrant that statement. I think perhaps the hon. gentleman should not have made that statement.
Now, let me say a word with regard to the question that has been raised this afternoon, that of deepening the harbour. The hon. member for Grey says that there is no emergency, no hurry, no occasion for the government to move to deepen the harbour. I would recommend the hon. member to inform himself. Eet him inquire from his own friends, I will give him the name of one of his own friends in the town of Port Arthur, a good Conservative, Mr. J. J. O'Connor. He is shipping agent for the elevators at that point, and he told me only
a short time ago that for many years they have been under a great disability in the harbours of Port Hope, Port Arthur and Fort William, for the reason that they could not get the same charter prices that the shipper from Duluth got, and that even last year they were at a disadvantage of from one-eighth to one-quarter of a cent per bushel ; they had to pay that much more than the man at Duluth would have to pay for shipping his grain to Buffalo or New York.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member entirely misunderstood me. X did not speak of Port Arthur at all, I was speaking of Victoria or Midland, and showing that there was no great urgency to give a contract now to provide for ships that would draw a mueh greater draught of water than they do now, because they could not get through the Sault Ste. Marie canal until it was deepened there, and that would take some years.


James Conmee: He did say that, and he said more. I.et me inform the hon. gentleman that I am advised on good authority that the Sault Ste. Marie canal will have a depth of 24) feet and will be completed inside of two years. It is only a few months ago that I was discussing that question with an engineer employed on that canal, and he told me that he had prepared plans and submitted them, to deepen the water to 25 feet, and he felt quite confident that the canal when it was completed would have a depth of 25 feet. But I am pointing out what our difficulty has been for the last four or five years. I am sure lie will find that all our Canadian shippers of grain find that all our Canadian shippers of grain through Canadian channels have been placed at a disadvantage of a quarter of a a cent a bushel up to last year. There was some slight decrease within the last few years because of the further improvement of the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William. But we are still at a great disadvantage. You cannot charter a vessel and get the same prices as the American shipper. There is another disadvantage which militates against the Canadian shipper of grain which is mostly as bad, and it is this : If he wires for a charter for a cargo his offer will not be taken if the vessel owner can get a cargo from either Superior or Duluth. The American boat will go to the port where they have 25 feet of water today, and where they have had it for some time. The Americans have spent $5,000,000 on the harbour at Duluth. The minister has told us here to-day, and I am glad to hear it, that if Canadian shippers of grain are to be put upon equal footing with the American shippers of grain or other products they should have the same facilities, the same advantages in our harbour that the Americans have on their side of the line. Now I submit that we cannot have all these

things at once. Even if the hon. member's statement was true that the American canal would not be completed for four or five years, that would not diminish the urgency or change the responsibility of the government to relieve the Canadian shipper of the disadvantages under which he is placed today. There is a little more than the question of the depth of water in the new American lock. On our side to-day we have 21 feet of water on the mitre sill. Our harbours ought to be put in a state to enable us to enjoy the advantages of our own canal at the Soo, but they are not. Now. hon. gentleman will find when they discuss the subject with captains or gentlemen acquainted with navigation, that they cannot navigate a vessel drawing 21 feet of water in either one of those harbours. They can get her through with a tug, and that is a consideration. But she cannot go under her own steam into those harbours if she is drawing 21 feet of water, because that class of vessel must have more than one foot of water under her keel in order to steer her own machinery. She could not lay at anchor in our harbours, even if she did get into them as she would pound on the bottom. She cannot take part of her cargo at one elevator and the rest at another, as is often done, to take a certain grade of wheat. It has to be taken from a certain class of grain and from more than one elevator. They have frequently to go to more elevators to finish their load. Now in the harbour of Superior or Duluth they can go drawing two feet, perhaps more, of water, and they do not need to trim, and that makes a great difference in the cost. So all these things militate against the Canadian shipper and place him at a disadvantage from which this government should relieve him at the very earliest possible moment. It is important that the government should take the ground that all work from this date should be done on the new basis. The hon. gentleman knows that to cut out two or three feet from the bottom will be a very costly undertaking. The prices will be very much higher, and if we are to be ready within two, or three, or four years to meet the traffic up and down on the same footing as the American shipper, why. Sir, we ought to get to work at the earliest possible moment. There ought to be no hesitation in undertaking a work so meritorious m the public interest.
I am not going to discuss the resolution itself, that has been done by others. But I will point out that there are cases where it is in the public interest that contracts of this nature should be treated just as this contract has been treated. Let me say here that it is a mistaken policy to undertake to ask tenders for this class of work every year. It is a policy that entails largely increased cost. Let me give a case in point.


James Conmee: In 1904, the Minister of Railway and Canals asked for tenders, to be closed on April 15. The hon. member for East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) raised some objection. He thought that it was going to be an advantage to some dredging company on account of navigation being closed and he asked that the time be extended. I have heard the statement and I have seen it in the Conservative press that the minister resisted the request for an extension of time. It is not true. The minister did not resist an extension of time. He said very plainly that no objection had been made, he consented at once to make a change and he did make the change. The hon. member for East Simeoe and, I think, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) this evening said that the price of dredging had been brought down by reason of this action. I took occasion last year to make some remarks on this subject and these will be found in ' Hansard.' I went into the matter fully in detail and explained how this reduction in the cost of dredging occurred. Hon. gentlemen opposite have claimed that it was due to the extension of the time from April 15 to first of May. I want to ask if any hon. gentleman thinks than any condition of ice in the harbour of Fort William or Port Arthur between these dates would make any difference to a contractor. The contractor does not tender because there is ice in the horbour or because there is no ice in the harbour. He tenders upon the estimates, plans and representations as to the character of the work and specifications of the engineer, which he submitted to him in that regard. The hon. member for East Simeoe in a speech last year stated that the opposition kept hammering away at the minister and that the result was that the new companies came to the front and that the Weddell Dredging Company brought down the price. I heard the hon. gentleman make the assertion that he had never made a statement in connection with dredging that -was not founded on fact. That assertion is absolutely wrong. There was not a word of truth in his statement as to the cause that had brought down the price of dredging. The Weddell Dredging Company did not tender in that year in which the extension of time was asked for.
I could go on and show that of the statements which this hon. gentleman made 90 or 95 per cent were absolutely without any foundation whatever. To use the words of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) they were reeking with falsehood. But, I am not going to dwell upon this subject. If you strip it of the misrepresentation and slander which has been levelled at the government in connection with these contracts there will be nothing to find fault with. The work which was done in 1904 was open to public competition. The prices in 1904 were actually higher on the average than in 1903. What did bring down the

price? I have made that matter plain. I will make a statement again because I think it might very well be impressed upon the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite and I hope they will retain it in their memory this time. The work that was being done in 1903-4 was redredging, in a very large measure, a portion of the harbour that had been dredged years before, bringing it down to a uniform level, including some widening, which, of course, would be fairly good excavating. It involved a haul of over twelve miles in some cases and would any reasonable man say that class of work could be done for the same figure that you could do work in a heavy cutting where there was a face twenty or more feet or even twelve feet in extent and where there was not half the distance to haul ? That was the condition at Fort William. The work that is being done there now is being done altogether in another harbour, you may say. The river divides itself iuto three branches about two miles from the point where it empties into the bay. On the west branch is the Canadian Pacific Railway terminal, on the mission or southern branch is the Grand Trunk Pacific terminal. This is the harbour in which the work is being done for 9 cents a yard and it is a different class of work altogether. That is one of the cases that brought down the price. It is dredging largely in sand, silt, boulders and clay. I will give hon. gentlemen some further reasons for the reduction in the price.


William Pugsley: Nine cents does not include boulders.


James Conmee: I think there is a higher price for boulders and solid rock. The contract provides that solid rock shall be paid for by measurement in situ. There is some solid rock in the harbour I do not know that any of it has been excavated. I will just refer for a moment to what really brought down this price, or influenced it very greatly. In 1904, tenders were asked for and the hon. member for East Simcoe claims that his objection and action caused the extension of time that resulted in bringing down the price and I am going to give a stronger reason. In discussing this question in 1904, the then Minister of Public Works said that :
The tenders that are invited are simply for the present season's work.
I (recognize that there is a very large amount of work to be done at Port Arthur. I hope that the officers of the department will be able to make a thorough survey of the whole work there, allowing time to advertise for tenders for work extending over two or three years, in which case there is no doubt that the cost of the work could be materially decreased for the reason that proper and up to date plant could then be supplied. At the present time the plants that are being used are not of the latest type of dredging plants. The dredging that has been called for is for the present season's work, but I understand that before we reach another season the department will ask for tenders for a more extensive work and giving sufficient length of time to enable those tendering for the work to provide plant to do it at the least possible cost.
That is the measure that brought down the price. Let me point out that to successfully compete for work of this kind involving many millions would necessitate the securing of a plant of very large dimensions costing in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars. Is it reasonable to suppose that auy contractor would undertake to make that expenditure for a single season's work of five and a half months and run the risk of being cut out at the end of the season. The present method of letting a contract for a period of years covering a certain area within this harbour is the reason that the price has been brought down, and the reason is not that which hon. gentlemen opposite have undertaken to assign to it. When I was listening this afternoon to the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) telling us that there should be no nepotism and no favouritism, and that public matters should be transacted above suspicion, I must say that I quite agree with him, but what surprised me was that such professions should come from a member of the late Conservative government which was not only corrupt speaking generally, and which not only had a number of grafters around it, but was rotten 'at the very head. We have the word of one of its own members that it was a nest of traitors, and the hon. member (Mr. Haggart) was one of the nest. He was one of the gentlemen who condoned all the wrong-doing of the late government previous to 1896, when the people of Canada turned them from power. And yet he gets up this afternoon and administers to this side of the House a lecture on political morality. Well, we are justified in taking that kind of criticism with a regard to the source whence it comes. Now, Sir, we have the member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) who very frequently brings up this subject and I see he is not in his seat just now. But let me remind the House that last year when he thought he was attacked he retorted on those who accused him that they should remember that he had those who were near and dear to him. Does the member extend this principle to others, does he regard the feelings of others ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Mr. Speaker, is this matter germane to the question under discussion ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am inclined to think it is not. I do not think this is pertinent to the question before the House.


James Conmee: What is the point of
order ?	.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The point of order is that the remarks the hon. gentleman is making are not relevant to the question before the House.


James Conmee: The hon. gentlemen opposite have been all the afternoon violating the rules of this House, and I don't propose to violate any rule of the House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member is making a statement that is hardly a fact, when he says that hon. members have been violating the rules of the House all this afternoon.


James Conmee: Well I will put it this way : In my judgment these hon. gentle-ment have been violating the rules of the House in a much greater measure than will any words that shall fall from me. I wish to express my wonder that this hon. gentleman above all others should deal with subjects of this kind. If there is an hon. member of this House who should be silent when there is a question of integrity or a question of the general character of the administration of public affairs to be considered it is that hon. member. Why, Sir, that hon. member comes here stamped by the courts of this country as a slanderer. ' I think his measure has been fairly well taken here but I think the people of this country have a right to know what is the character of the man who made the charge this afternoon. He has accused the minister of using the public funds for his friends. That is not a statement which should be made by any member of this House without any evidence whatever. Not only has this gentleman been stamped by the courts of this country as a slanderer of his fellow man, but, Sir, he is a self-confessed briber; here are his words: I know you Wilson, I bought your vote before and I can do it again.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, is this to the point ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. member is using this as an illustration as to why the statements of the member for Simcoe are to be considered by the House in a particular way I suppose I can hardly interfere. In the first instance when the point of order was taken against the hon. member he was not directing his remarks in that way, but more recently he has been doing so. I do not think I can interfere in that.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is ' slanderer ' a parliamentary expression ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is not. The term ' slanderer ' is not a term that can be used in parliament towards an hon. member.


James Conmee: The people of the country will realize the character of the man who brings up these charges, and so far as I know he has never been able to adduce a solitary piece of evidence in support of them. All he has to rely on is the mere fact that one officer misunderstood his duties and did absolutely wrong in employing somebody else to take up his work for him. Then the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain)


Robert Franklin Sutherland: who is usually fairer and from whom I would expect something better, both he and the hon. member for Grey characterized the transaction in language which they should not have used. The minister told us this afternoon that that one individual was dismissed as soon as his offence was discovered, and why should the minister and why should a public department, and why should all the inspectors from one end of the Dominion to the other be placed under suspicion because of that one man's failure. That is not fair criticism. It is surprising to me that hon. members with the record of those gentlemen opposite should be quite so flippant with these charges. I know that two wrongs don't make a right. I know that if the Conservative government did things wrong we are not justified in following their example. But I do say that the gentlemen who composed that government and who surrounded it with their support and who endorsed its wrongdoing and maladministration are not the men to lecture us on political morality. There was a provision in these contracts that the minister should have power to extend the time for their completion if in his judgment that should be done, and that is all the Minister of Public Works has done in this case. It is perfectly legitimate and perfectly fair for the minister to do that. But what did these gentlemen opposite do^ in connection with section 16, the Whitehead contract, or in connection with the goo contract. I think the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was then a member of the government, or if not he was very close to them, and what did they do. The records of the House show that to hold his contract Whitehead had to give Mr. Mackintosh then a supporter of the Conservative government some $28,000. That was boodling, and hon. gentlemen opposite have not got over it yet. They know they were wrong and they know they did that sort of thing. I have heard them ask what punishment was meted out to the dredge inspector. Well what punishment was meted out to Mr. Mackintosh. Why, he was honoured, he was made lieutenant governor of the Northwest Territorities by our Conservative friends. And what did they do at Sault 8te. Marie. Well, they did a great deal more than to extend the contract by order in council, they gave the contract at a price $150,000 more than the second tender ; and they increased the price by half a million dollars by order in council on the grounds of emergency. They wanted it done quick, and their friends got an enhanced price for doing it, as it was claimed, within shorter period. If I wanted to take up the time of the House I could show that there was more than half a million dollars graft or whatever you like to call it.
I do not call it so, but if gentlemen on the opposite side of the House call that sort of

thing graft, then more than half a million dollars went to the contractors more than ought to have gone to them in that particular case. Aud these are the gentlemen who are criticising the government in a most extreme way this afternoon aud such language is used as: Favourites here and favourites there, and public money used for friends of the government ; and without any evidence at all to back it up. I know that these gentlemen opposite may say that they. are not responsible for what the previous government did, but I would like to know if they imagine that the people of this country believe that their honesty during the past ten years is because of their repentance. Not a bit of it. It is because they did not have the opportunity. They lost the key in 1896 and they have had no opportunity since. I don't think the people of this country are going to put back into power gentlemen with the record of the front benchers of the opposition. I do not refer to ail the front benchers but to certain of them. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the people of this country are too intelligent, and I' believe when they come to understand the misrepresentations that have been made and the gentlemen from whom they have come, the party now in power need not fear the issue whenever it comes.


Mr. ROBERT STEWART (Ottawa).: I desire to say a word or two before this debate closes because of some statements which were made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and in the course of which I am sorry to say he endeavoured wilfully to mislead the House. The hon. gentleman held in his hand a statement from which he purported to read a list of tenders for dredging contracts during the last year and he repeatedly called out the name of the Stewart Company. There is no such company as the Stewart Company and nobody knows that better than the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and the member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) who also used the expression. But, it would appear that these hon. gentlemen wished to endeavour by insinuation or by any other means to cause it to be believed that supporters of the government are endeavouring to make money wrongfully. As the hon. member for East Simcoe has been good enough to use my name repeatedly in this connection, I want to say to the members of this House that I have no interest whatever in the Dominion Dredging Company, that I never had any interest in the Dominion Dredging Company to the extent of one farthing, that my influence as a member of parliament has never been used on behalf of the Dominion Dredging Company, that I have never spoken to the Minister of Public Works or to any other minister or to an official of the Public Works Department, or to any official of any other department regarding the business or the tenders of the Dominion Dredging Company. I want to make that statement clear so that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House may have no wrong impression about the matter. I am afraid that some members on the opposite side are too apt to measure others by what they would likely do themselves if they were placed in similar circumstances, when no doubt their influence would be exercised on behalf of those in whom they might be interested. I do not know that I need say any more on this question. I do not know that it is any crime that the Dominion Dredging Company should tender in competition with other firms for work under this government or any other government. I happen to have a son who is a member of that company, and I do not know that that is any crime either. My son in that firm is only one of a number of honourable men in connection with it ; men just as honourable, if not more so than those gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who have thought fit to refer to this matter on several occasions. Further I have nothing to say.
But I would like to ask while on my feet why it is that when a number of companies containing some very active friends of the opposition in this House are tendering every year for similar work, only those composed of men who are suspected of being supporters of this government are singled out for. attack in this way. There are other dredging contractors, one of them a Conservative candidate for this House. Why is it that we never hear these men accused of doing anything dishonest in securing contracts, or attempting to secure them at higher prices than they should get ? It seems strange to me, sitting in this House and listening to the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, that two or three companies should be singled out and referred to as if they were dishonest. I want to ask these hon. gentlemen who have mentioned the name of the Dominion Dredging Company, to state where that company ever got a contract from this government or from any other government that was not put up to public competition. I know very little about the business of that company. I happened to be in England last year when they received their contract, so that it cannot be said that I used my influence in that case on their behalf. It cannot be said truthfully that I ever used my influence on behalf of that company. Is it fair for hon. gentlemen opposite to be continually attacking a company because a son of a member of this House happens to be a member of It ? I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to point to any dishonest act ever committed by that company, or to any contract they ever received for which their price was not the lowest. That company have never received any favour at the hands of the Minister of

Public Works. I make this statement to show how little ground there is for the assertions continually made by hon. gentlemen opposite in this regard. Perhaps I should not be surprised at the statements of the hon. member for East Simcoe, because we all know his record ; but I remember several years ago, when I was a young member of this House, and questions of this kind were being discussed, the hon. member for East Simcoe contended very strongly that the policy of the Minister of Public Works in asking for tenders was wrong. That policy was that Canadians should do work for Canadians, and that no tender would be received from any tenderer who had not a dredge registered in this country previous to the calling for tenders. The idea expressed by the hon. member for East Simcoe at that time was that in order that there should be the fullest competition tenders should be invited from our neighbours to the south. I can imagine what an outcry would be made by the hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for East Simcoe if any hon. gentleman on this side of the House made such a suggestion as that. If the hon. member for East Simcoe was correct on that occasion, it ill becomes him, in this House and on public platforms in this city, to make attacks upon myself and upon members of the Dominion Dredging Company. I iiave nothing further to say. I desired simply to put myself right before the members of this House. I have been slow to speak on this question. I am anxious to retain the good will and the good feeling of members of both sides of the House, but when I hear hon. gentlemen speaking as the hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for East Simcoe both spoke this afternoon repeatedly about the Stewart Company when they knew perfectly well that there was no such company as the Stewart Company, I felt it my duty to make this explanation.


William Pugsley: Might I have the permission of hon. gentleman leading the opposition and of the House to refer very briefly to the question of the cost of dredging ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It can be brought up in Supply.


William Pugsley: I shall be very brief.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It can only be with the permission of the House.


William Pugsley: Only with the permission of the House. The hon. gentleman who is leading the opposition will remember that when I asked him whether 8 cents at Victoria harbour, 26 cents at Tiffin and 27 cents at Midland were not reasonable prices, he stated that in his judgment 26 cents was very excessive. I want to point to the figures given on pages 194 and 195 of the report of the Minister of Public Works for Mr. STEWART.
the year 1907, of the actual cost of operation of dredges which are owned by the government, and which figures do not include anything for interest upon the cost of the dredges or any allowance for depreciation, but represents simply the cost of operation, wages, fuel and the ordinary cost of repairs. Taking the whole period from 1872 down to 1906, the lowest figure is 18-31 cents per cubic yard and the highest is 35 cents per cubic yard. The average is 25-41 cents per cubic yard,' and that, as I have said, does not include any allowance for interest or depreciation or renewals. Prom 1895 the prices of dredging by the government owned dredges were as follows :
Dredge.	Per cubic yard.
'St. Lawrence*	 25 35
' Canada *	 31-34
'New Dominion'	 17-.47
' Prince Edward '	 26-53
' (Old) Cape Breton	 25-99
'Geo. McKenzie'	   41-66
'Cape Breton'	  16-58
' New Brunswick '	 21-82
' W. S. Fielding'	  19-12
' Montague'	
Mr. iSPROULE. I was speaking of clay, gravel and sand. This covers a great many other materials as well.


William Pugsley: That is true, but in a great many of these cases it is material such as this. I have here a statement of work done in my own province, on the St. John river, where there is very little rise and fall of the tide and where the material is, I should suppose, very similar to that in these harbours on the Georgian bay. The cost there ran up to something like 40 cents and at Evendale it ran up to 51-72 cents. That shows that I was quite justified in taking the opinions of the chief engineer of my department that these prices of 26 cents, 27 cents and 8 cents per cubic yard were fair and reasonable prices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We will have an opportunity again of going into that.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) to adjourn, negatived.



SUPPLY-IMMIGRATION.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding : ' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of -Supply,' and the proposed amendment of (Mr. Monk thereto.
['Read the last portion of section 9. It says that the government shall apply the balance first in repayment of the advances made under the next preceding section and secondly in payment of accrued interest on bonds. But the working expenses must be the first charge. In order to have the cow give milk, the cow must live. You must have working expenses in the first place and anything over and above that is applied to two things, first, to the payment of government advances and. next, to the payment of interest on bonds, if there are any outstanding.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve).: Mr. -Speaker, .1 expected to commence the discussion of this question at the opening of the sitting this afternoon and it seems to me that when a member intends to bring up any other matter than the subject before the House, as has been done to-day, common courtesy towards the other members would prompt him to notify those who

expect to participate in the discussion of the subject set down for debate. This was not done this afternoon, and after the hot air we have heard to-day I shall try to talk business. I wish to deal with this question of immigration not as a party question but as a business proposition and to show why I and those whom I represent are opposed to the bonus system. I do not blame the government for having granted bonuses at the outset, as it may have been necessary at the time the law came into force to induce immigrants of the farming class to go to the Northwest. I admit that something had to be done to encourage this class of immigration. But the bonuses have been diverted to other classes and I am sorry to say that the system has opened the door to speculation. It would seem that there is ground enough for speculating without speculating in human flesh as has been done in in any instances. During a previous discussion it was shown that misrepresentations have been made for the purpose of securing the bonuses on immigrants. The bonus system has opened the door and permitted the Canadian Manufacturers Association to flood the labour market. It has been the means of furnishing to unscrupulous agents the opportunity to take advantage of the laws and has brought to our cities more sufferers and more beggars. It has also enabled land speculators to realize large profits. It has even induced charitable institutions, church societies and the Salvation Army to step in and organize on a solid basis, all for one sole aim and object, the making of money no matter how. I am willing to grant the right to any one to make all he can but I do not grant the right to speculate on the good will of the poorer classes of people who are ready at the slightest suggestion to go anywhere in order to better their position, but who do not desire to replace their fellow workmen, so as to force them to starve or become undesirable citizens.
It would seem that the time has arrived when the flow of population to Canada is so numerous and Canada is so well known that bonuses are no longer necessary. While by that system we have induced a large number of farm hands to come to the western provinces, we have also succeeded in overflowing the labour market in all large cities of Canada. Has any one derived any benefit from this overflow? Some one will say yes, the merchants have, the industries as a whole. The manufacturers may have added for a time to their output and their profits, believing as usual that the temporary increase will be permanent and believing also that such an influx of population would be the means of crushing down labour as I have heard some eminent men say. Such men declare that they are friends of labour and of society. Are those who through the bonus system have thus brought these people to Canada ready to support the whole
or part of the army of men who are crying for bread throughout the country ? Of course not. Why ? Because it is' a business proposition for them, it is a money making affair and why should we any longer pay to induce men to come to our country? We may have to pay as much as we have paid in bonuses to return certain classes to the countries from which they came.
But it may be said, we have amended the law with respect to immigration. So we have, we have spread literature throughout England and the old country calculated to lirevent skilled labour and mechanics from coming to Canada. I acknowledge that the government have done this but other powerful bodies have taken upon themselves to do the unjustified work that some of the government agents were doing some time ago. It may be said that we have good booking agents and their instructions are to be very severe so as to prevent others than those specified in the law as being subjects for bonuses from coming to Canada. Under our present system it is impossible to prevent any one who chooses to bring out undesirable immigrants from doing so. We may have to pay $5 a head on classes of people whom we do not desire. Is it possible to prevent any one from saying : I am going to Canada to work on a farm or in such other work as would bring me under the bonus system ? It has been done, and is done every day, but it is wrong. They know that some men living on the other side-and we heard this last night- have only to say: I am going to Canada to work on a farm. I also asked some of these men who came there what they had to respond and they told me that they had been advised, that, if asked, all they had to do wras to reply that they were coming to work on a farm in Canada. Are we to believe the booking agents on the other side are not up to date ? Are we to believe that they are not looking for a dollar ? Do we not know that the institutions I have mentioned are open for business the same as anybody else ?
But we are asked : What about the construction of our great railways which must be built and for which we must have hands? I acknowledge that we must have men for these railways. But the work on railway construction generally lasts about seven to seven and a half months, as the work is paralyzed by the weather during the rest of the year. Well, are these men supposed to earn enough during the summer to keep them all winter ? Will any hon. gentleman who happens to be a railway contractor say that that is the case? Of course, there is always the same answer-they can find work in the cities. Well, have they found any this winter? Have not we seen in the newspapers that in all the large cities hundreds and thousands of men are walking the streets or waiting at the doors of the city halls begging for bread? Would it not be

lions of Britain's overflowing population.
It says :
Land settlement and cultivation is the way to prosperity in Canada. As the land is cultivated, so the demand for mechanics and skilled tradesmen of an active -and enterprising turn of mind will increase.
They are advising people to come and they are holding out inducements to mechanics and skilled tradesmen. It has been said that that is not the class of people that we are trying to induce to immigrate. I will acknowledge that the effort of the government is not directed to bringing about the immigration of skilled mechanics but still this organization holds out inducements to skilled mechanics in literature of this kind. I also have a little booklet entitled * Canada in a Nutshell.' This has been circulated all over Great Britain and on the back of it is pasted a little piece of paper on which is printed:
The Salvation Army emigration office in London is specially recognized by the government of the Dominion of Canada.
On the lower part of the title page it is stated that it is ' Issued by the authority of the Minister of the Interior, Ottawa, Canada.' That is a sample of the literature that is being circulated to induce people to come to Canada. It is impossible, whether it be the Salvation Army or anybody else, when it is made a matter of business, to entirely disassociate this movement from the monetary consideration. If I were in England and if I were placed in the same position I have not doubt that I would do the same thing. I would look upon every man who left for Canada in the light of the $5 that would go into my pocket and the Salvation Army and every other organization of this kind are doing the same thing.
There is also another feature of this question which I desire to bring before the House and which may have come to the notice of some hon. members. It will be remembered that there was a strike in the coal mines in the province of Nova Scotia. That has nothing to do with what I have just mentioned, but it emphasizes the claim which I make that misrepresentation is resorted to by people in Great Britain for the sake of the bonus. Here is a letter that was sent to Mr. W. Stanlake, 39 Russell street, Exeter, England :
181 Bellefair avenue, Toronto,
February 10, 1908.


Mr.   W.@: 

[Stage Direction]
(Sgd.) H. Oswald Ellis, Manager.
That shows that while the coal mines in Nova Scotia were far from wanting men, representations of this kind were made in order to obtain the bonus, and it also shows that the government, while paying this bonus, has no control over the class of immigrants which are induced to come to Canada through agencies of this kind. We may say, as it was said yesterday, that the policy of the government is not to grant aid to immigration, but if it does not do it directly it does it in an indirect way. It gives the money to one to give to another which is exactly the same thing in the end as far as I can see. It goes to a third party instead of going direct to the immigrant himself.' The immigrant does not get it but he is induced to come here by the money granted by way of bonus. I have some documents here that have a special bearing on the subject and which are of late date, but at this hour I shall not trouble the House by reading them all. I should like, however, while discussing this question of misrepresentation to direct the attention of the House to a resolution passed by the Montreal District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. It is as follows:
Montreal, January 27, 1908. Resolution presented by Messrs. J. Hibbins and J. Gauthier, and adopted:
Whereas, the present condition of the labour market is most deplorable, owing to its being continually augmented by unscrupulous builders' exchanges, manufacturers' associations, private companies and individuals, or their agents, who take every means in their power to -obtain the country's money, and therewith negotiate with church homes, self-help societies, and more especially with the members of the Salvation Army to bring to- this country at so much per head, anybody without regard to their fitness or the country's good, the main object being of course, for the prow tit obtained, which quite often results in adding to the ranks of the incompetents, and also to the criminal classes, thereby lowering the standard of both living and the active population.	.	,
We note particularly that which is carried on under assumed religious auspices as being the most pernicious and misleading. And, furthermore, that not wdthin the writer's knowledge has there ever been a real scarcity of labour, but many depressions, especially during the winter months, which make the present conditions most reprehensible. And, while we do not propose to discuss who is the
[Stage Direction]
most to blame, as the guilty parties everywhere are now doing, the results which must fall so heavy on all labour, make us resolve that we immediately withdraw both our support and influence from any and every member, of the federal or provincial parliament, or member of any municipal body, who does not immediately seek every means to stop one cent more of the country's money being subscribed in any form or manner for assisted immigration purposes, the whole of which is unnecessary and unwarranted.
Therefore, be it resolved, that the vote of this District Council of Carpenters be sent to our labour member, and also to the Minis-* ter of Labour, without delay, in order that a repetition of such a state of affairs will not be.
I will conclude by stating that instead of paying bonuses, instead of opening the door to speculation and encouraging the operations of unscrupulous agents, it would be of greater benefit to the country if we simply allowed our successful settlers in the west to act as our immigration agents. I claim that as long as we continue to pay these bonuses we will not achieve satisfactory results and we will not get the class of people in this country that we desire. I do not wish it to be understood that I am opposed to immigration, but I am opposed to the government offering inducements to bring to Canada an undesirable class. The country is well known, it is the promised land, everybody is looking to Canada and everybody will come. The 75,000, or 2,000,000 people who are walking the streets in England will be only too glad to come over to Canada without the payment of this $5 bonus. This is my position, and I may say that this is the expression of the views of organized labour not only in the city of Montreal but throughout Canada from Victoria to Halifax. I speak here to-night not merely as the member for my own riding, but I speak as representing the organized labour of Canada from ocean to ocean.
Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: The hon. member (Mr. Monk) by whom this resolution was presented to the House, made many comparisons as between the present immigration policy of Canada and the present immigration policy of the United States. Lord Strathcona in a letter of date November 15, 1900. written to the Hon. Clifford Sifton, then Minister of the Interior, gave an illustration of the differences that exist between the conditions in the United States and the conditions in Canada, and he set forth many important reasons why it is necessary for us in Canada to make more strenuous efforts to obtain immigration than is the case with regard to the United States. Lord Strathcona wrote :
On the other hand the United States have been working for many years on the continent and had the advantage of direct steamship communication which we did not and do not now enjoy to any great extent, and in consequence they were able to attract a larger
population which yearly drew more and more people to it. There is no immigration agent so potent as the successful emigrant; besides they secured the great bulk of their people before we were in a position to offer prairie land to any extent to immigrants to Canada and in times that were less prosperous than those of recent years.
It seems to me that with hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile land in our Canadian west that are to-day unoccupied, untilled and unproductive, we do require a large number of immigrants. We require immigrants to till that soil and to make it produce so as to add to the wealth of this Canada of ours. And not only to add to the wealth of our country directly by making that fertile soil produce crops that will give us wealth, but indirectly that it may give to the manufacturers of eastern Canada, as immigration to the west has done in recent years, added markets for the output of their factories. I think, Sir, that in connection with our immigration we may direct our energy with great profit to bringing to this country desirable immigrants for the cultivation of that western land, and we cannot bring desirable immigrants for that purpose in any too great numbers. On the other hand I think we may direct our energy to keeping out of this country any immigrants who would not make good Canadian citizens. I do not think it is desirable to bring to Canada, at least at present, immigrants who shall enter into competition with the labouring men and mechanics of our cities and towns, and I am pleased to say that it has not been the policy of the present government to induce to come to this country such immigrants as will compete with Canadian workingmen and artisans. I quite realize too that in bringing to this country an immigrant who is physically diseased or who is mentally unsound or who is a moral pervert, we may do more harm than the good we will do by bringing here a dozen men who are physically, mentally and morally sound. I have risen tonight, however, not so much to dicuss the question of immigration in a general way as to direct the attention of the House and of the people of this country to the important part that has been played and is being played to-day in the development of Canada by the German-Canadian settler.
If I occupy a few7 moments of the time of the House in discussing the importance to Canada of the German-Canadian, I think I shall be occupying the time of parliament in a manner in which it has not been occupied before in the history of Canada. When I speak of the German settler in Canada, I speak of him as I have met him and known Jiim in my own province of Ontario. I know7 that the German settler in Canada has not played the very important part in the discovery of the country and in the laying of the foundations of the country that has been played by our French Cana-

dian friends ; yet I do contend that the German settler in Canada has taken, is taking and is likely to take a much greater part in the development and progress of Canada than most of our Canadian people who have not come into immediate contact with our German Canadian citizens have any idea of. The earliest settlement of German people in the province of Ontario was, I think, in the Niagara peninsula, and there are to-day considerable settlements of German people in the counties of Norfolk, Lincoln and Essex. But the German settlements that have thrived most and that seem to have taken the deepest root in Ontario are the settlements originally formed in the county of Waterloo ancl that have extended into the neighbouring counties. In the year 1800 two Germans named Joseph Sherk and Samuel Betzner, came to the present county of Waterloo and settled near the present village of Doon on the Grand river. They were the first German settlers, and the first prominent white settlers in the county of Waterloo. In the following year, 1801, they were followed by a number of other German families-Bechtels, Kinseys, Ros-enburgers, Biehns and other families of German names and German nationality. These people came from the State of Pennsylvania to what is now the township of Waterloo. The distance from that part of the State of Pennsylvania in which they had their homes to the county of Waterloo was about five hundred miles, which they travelled, not by railway train, for in those days there were no railways, but by horses and wagons, coming over the Alleghany mountains, through swamps and forests, over roads that were bad, and through much country where there were no roads at all. The ingenuity of the German, the manner in which he adapts himself to his circumstances, may be shown by one little instance, that of Joseph Sherk, to whom I have already referred. The first table used in tne county of Waterloo was in the house of Joseph Sherk. It consisted of a pine stump some five feet in diameter, around which this German pioneer built his first rude settler's cabin. The township of Wil-mot in the county cf Waterloo was settled by a society of non-conformists under the leadership of one Christian Naffsiger, who was a Hollander. He left his home in Amsterdam and went to New' Orleans. From New Orleans he journeyed northward to Lancaster County in the State of Pennsylvania. Acting on information and advice given by German friends in Pennsylvania he made his way northwestwardly to the township of Waterloo, to the little German settlement there. Looking about for a tract of land on which to settle German friends he intended to bring to the country, he arranged with the then local government to obtain on easy terms what is now the township of Wilmot. Having concluded his bar-Mr. MILLER.
gain with the local government, he proceeded to Britain where he interviewed George IV, and by the British government the bargain he made with the local government was confirmed. That was in 1822. The township of Woolwich, in the county of Waterloo, was settled in the first place by German people about the year 1810, and German pioneers settled in the township of Wellesley in Waterloo county in 1832. These fertile tracts in Waterloo county, in those early days settled by German people, are occupied by German people to-day, and there is no tract of agricultural land more productive, no matter where it is, within the bounds of Canada, than those German townships of Waterloo county, an no people engaged in agricultural pursuits in Canada that man for man are possessed of greater wealth or have met with greater success than the German people who occupy and cultivate them. The German settlements in Waterloo county extended in later years to the adjoining counties, so that we now have very considerable German settlements in thfe counties of Perth, Wellington, Huron, Oxford, Bruce and Grey, and there are no men in the Dominion of Canada who have made better settlers than these German people, whose names are rarely found on the lists of our courts and are seldom or never seen in any of our police records. The German as we find him in Canada is naturally a religious man, and the German citizens of Canada are probably the most faithful church attendants of any of our Canadian citizens. In Germany the people were for the most part members of either the Roman Catholic or the Lutheran Church ; but in Canada we have German people belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Association, whose people are commonly known as German Methodists, the Baptist Church, the Mennonite Church aud some to the Presbyterian Church. The German is a man of domestic habits, fond of his home and of his home life ; and while the German families are not usually so large as those of our French Canadian friends, yet the head of a German household usually rules over a nest in which there are many younglings to be clothed and fed. The German people whatever may be their position in life, whatever may be their possessions or their financial standing, teach their children that honest toil, whether of muscle or brain, is no disgrace. The German people are brought up to work, and they all work, and are characteristically industrious. It is supposed by a great many people who do not know them so well as i do that the German, as we have him in Canada, is addicted to the excessive use of strong drink. This is an erroneous idea ; in fact, the very reverse is the case. He is usually a sober man. Perhaps a very small percentage nf the German population would be in favour of a prohibitory liquor

law ; not a very large percentage of them may be classed as total abstainers ; many of them drink moderately of their liquors of lighter brew ; yet they are a sober people, and the German communities in Canada will be found to contain a much smaller number of men who are addicted to the the immoderate use of strong drink than will be found in a community of Irish Canadians or Scotch Canadians, or English Canadians.
I will not say that the German farmer is the best farmer we have in Canada. If I should say that my friend behind me (Mr. McKenzie) the chairman of the Agricultural Committee would perhaps call my attention to the Scotch farmers in this country and there are other members who would point out the excellencies of the English farmer and the Irish Canadian farmer. While it would not be correct to say that the German in Canada is the best farmer we have, I may correctly and truthfully say that we have no better farmers in Canada than the Germans. One characteristic of the German farmer is that he will not settle upon poor soil. He may settle upon a farm that is out of order, that will require a great deal of labour to make it a comfortable home, but he will see to it that he will settle on a soil that by his own hard work he can convert into a good, productive farm. The German will prefer to settle on a piece of good land and struggle to pay off a large mortgage to taking a piece of poor and unproductive land without the debt. As I have said, the German, whether upon a farm or wherever else he may be found, is industrious, thrifty and economical and usually succeeds.
But if our German Canadian succeeds as a farmer he succeeds in no less degree as a manufacturer. It seems to me that the German is naturally a man of mechanical ingenuity, that he is naturally a mechanic and, therefore, in that tract of Ontario through which more than a century ago the German pioneers either followed or created a blazed trail to guide them in their way through the Canadian foi'est, they now' have large busy, thriving, manufacturing centres. The chief of these German manufacturing centre; in Ontario is the busy town of Berlin in the county of Waterloo. A directory published in 1846 described Berlin as being a village of 400 people, principally Germans. Now' the town of Berlin, in place of a population of 400, has a population of 12,000 people ; but as they were in 1846 so they are in 1908. principally Germans. In that busy German town that to day prefers to be the largest town rather than the smallest and youngest city in Canada, you will find a greater variety of manufacturing industries than in any other tow'n of similar size in Canada. They manufacture every thing from a button to a piano, a traction engine or a threshing machine. A peculiar 217
thing about these German manufacturing industries is that they were not established by the aid or assistance of large municipal grants. They were not established by men who went into these German manufacturing towns w'ith large capital, but are rather the outgrowth of the business of men who began in a very small way. As an instance of that, I may say that there is to-day in Berlin a large and successful boot and shoe factory, and the man who to-day controls that successful boot and shoe manufacturing business began his career as a boot and shoe manufacturer in Berlin by making slippers by hand, aud the market for his slippers was found by his good wife who sold them on the streets of the town from a basket w'hich she carried on her arm. Very close to Berlin is the other German manufacturing town of Waterloo, with a population about half that of Berlin. As an evidence of the success of the manufacturing industries of the town of Waterloo, I may say that I do not think there is any other tow'n of its size in Ontario that pays such a large annual revenue into the treasury of Canada by its excise and customs duties. In the county of Waterloo there are also the thriving manufacturing towns of Preston, Hespeler and Elmira. In my own county of Grey, we have the busy, live German manufacturing towns of Hanover, N'eustadt and Ayton. In Hanover we have the German names of Knechtel, Peppier and Messinger among our manufacturers. Our town is supported almost entirely by manufactories and they are almost altogether in the control of German citizens or men who have learned their trade and acquired their business knoweldge in the offices and factories of German Canadians. As another instance of the manner in which German manufacturing industries are built up, let me say that there stands to-day in Hanover an inconspicuous frame dwelling, one and a half storeys high, of small size, that in the beginning of his manufacturing career, was the combined residence and manufacturing establishment of Mr. Daniel Knechtel, who is now the president and chief shareholder of the Knechtel Furniture Company, one of the largest furniture manufacturing companies in Canada having a very large factory in Hanover, another in Wal-kerton and another in Southampton.
In the adjoining county of Bruce, there are the busy manufacturing towns of Ches-ley, Walkerton and Southampton. These towns have all been for years towns of more or less importance, but they have never been busy and progressive towns until in recent years German people have gone into them and established manufacturing industries. I may particularly point out the case of the town of Southampton on Lake Huron, that only a few years ago was a sleepy, quiet fishing village and summer resort; but now by manufacturing in-



dustries in the hands entirely of German people, has become a busy thriving progressive town. In connection with these comparatively small manufacturing German towns let me say they are principally engaged in the manufacture of furniture, and that the furniture manufacturing business of Canada to-day is very largely in the hands of our German people.
One reason why our German manufacturers are so successful is because of their mechanical skill, their enterprise, their economy, their thrift, and their general business ability. But there is another reason why the German manufacturer succeeds as lie does and that is because of the high character of the German workmen whom he employs. There is no better workman engaged, anywhere, than we have in our factories, where the workmen are principally Germans. Amongst them we have no trouble from unions, strikes, or lockouts, and this is largely because the German employee of to-day feels that he is likely to be the employer of to-morrow ; or if he is himself not in the immediate future an employer of la'll our, that at least his sons will be employers, rather than on the payrolls of other taskmasters. Another peculiarity of the German workmen is that the majority of them live in attractive homes of which they are themselves the owners. In connection with these attractive homes of the German workmen, you will almost always find a very neat, well cultivated, carefully tilled fruit and vegetable garden. The German in Canada does not hold quite so tenaciously, it may be, to the use of the language of his fathers as do our French Canadian friends, and yet our German people are fond of the language that is spoken in the Fatherland.
They keep up the use of their language by holding their church services in the tongue of the .old land, oftentimes when it would be quite as convenient to hold those services in English. They also perpetuate the use of the German tongue by forming local associations for the study of that language and also by establishing in various parts of Ontario and the Canadian west newspapers printed in German. Let me say that the various German settlements in Canada are being constantly added to by new arrivals from Germany. And it is astonishing, and very much to the credit of the German people, the readiness with which they acquire at least a speaking knowledge of the English language. The German, too, is fond of music and shilled in it. As an evidence of that musical talent and skill let me say, there are no church choirs anywhere in Canada that are, perhaps, equal to the rtioirs of the German churches whatever their denomination. Their bands and orchestras, too. are the best we have in the country. Any one desiring to enjoy a great musical treat cannot do better than Mr. M11,1.MIt.
attend at Berlin one of the many Sanger-fests that are held in that town. As an evidence of the musical skill of the German, let me read a short extract from the April number of the 1 Busy Man's Magazine,' published in Toronto. This is an article upon Dr. Augustus Stefan Vogt, the now famous leader of the Mendelssohn Choir of Toronto, who was born in the village of Elmira, in the county of Waterloo, and is the son of a German organ builder :
Will Dr. Augustus Stefan Vogt, the brillant leader of the famous Mendelssohn Choir, have the honour of knighthood conferred upon him when birthday honours are distributed by His Majesty on Victoria Day next? Dr. Vogt richly deserves such distinction. He has accomplished more than many a Canadian who has been decorated with a K.C.M.G., and it will not surprise his thousands of friends and admirers if he is soon known as Sir Augustus Vogt. A Canadian who realizes the value of an ideal, he is prepared to make any sacrifices for its accomplishment. All fellow countrymen are proud of him. He has done more in perfecting choral art than apy other person, and has made Canada in this respect envied of all nations.
As financiers, our German Canadian friends excel, and, as an evidence of this, I may say that the towns of Berlin and Waterloo, in the province of Ontario, are the homes of very progressive, popular and successful life insurance and fire insurance companies, the shareholders, directors and managers of which are almost exclusively German people. Let me call the attention of the House also to the fact that the German Canadian excels also as a sport and athlete. We have all heard in recent weeks of Tommy Burns, the world's champion heavy-weight pugilist, who has been chumming with Lord Alverstone in England. Tommy Burns' real name is Noah Brusso. He was born and brought up in my own riding of South Grey and in my own town of Hanover, and is the son of Frederic Brusso, who was a workman in the factory of the Kneehtel Furniture Company of that town.
Leaving the field of sport and going to the higher ground of science, the German in Canada is noted as a scientist, as is the German in his own land. And in evidence of this, it is only necessary for me to call attention to one man, Dr. Otto Klotz, who has been for many years in the employ of this government and is now at the head of its astronomical work. Our German Canadian friends, too, are adapted to public life and have taken an interest in public affairs in Canada. One of the best wardens that my own county ever had was the late Victor Lang, a German Canadian. In the provincial legislature to-day. we have Dr. Lack-mer, member for one of the ridings of Waterloo, Mr. C. M. Bowman, the popular member for North Bruce, whose father, Mr. J. E. Bowman, was at one time a member

of this House, and also Hon. Adam Beck, *who has achieved considerable notoriety and celebrity in Ontario because of the power scheme he has advocated. And, in this House, the German Canadian is well represented. We have the very popular and always industrious member for West Hamilton, Mr. Adam Zimmerman, the very popular and deservedly popular representative of South Waterloo, Mr. G. A. Clare, and also the equally popular representative of North Middlesex, Mr. Valentine Ratz, all of German descent. In the field of law. the German Canadian has held his own and taken a leading part. When I speak of the lawyers in Canada of German descent, I will mention but one, Mr. A. B. Klein, who is one of the county court judges of Bruce. Mr. Klien, who is of German descent, was one of the ablest and most popular lawyers having a country practice in Canada and is not less popular on the bench as one of our Canadian judges. And he showed his loyalty to Canada by the interest he took in the affairs of our militia, having retired from the 32nd Battalion of Bruce with the rank and title of major.
We have large German settlements in every city'in Canada. For instance, there is a large settlement of this nationality in Toronto, and in that city many of our most prominent men are of German extraction, like the Breithaupts and the Heintzmans, who are well known in the business world. There is a large German settlement in Ottawa, and also in Hamilton. There are many Germans in Montreal and also in Winnipeg. We have Germans engaged in agricultural pursuits in considerable numbers in the county of Bussell, Ont., and in part of the province of Quebec and also in Nova Scotia. In fact, there is not a province in Canada in which we have not a considerable number of German settlers.
It will be said that many of these German people came into Canada of their own accord and not as the result of any immigration policy of this government. That is true so far as eastern Canada is concerned. But we have a very large number of German settlers in western Canada who have come to that western country as a direct result of the efforts made by our immigration agencies and our Department of the Interior. The German settlers in the northwestern Canada will make, no doubt, quite as good settlers as did the Germans in the province of Ontario. Had it cost the government of Canada, not $5, or $20, but $10,000 apiece to bring to Canada some of the German people whose names I have mentioned, the investment would have been a good one and one by which we should have very largely profited.


Mr. AKMAND LAVERGNE.: They came for nothing.
217J


Henry Horton Miller: We have a very large nuin her of Canadian German settlers who came as a direct result, as I have said, of the work of the Department of the Interior and because of the immigration policy of the government of the day. I am very glad that the Department of the Interior has always, under the present government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, shown its appreciation of the value of immigration from Germany. And, in evidence of what the Department of the Interior of the present Liberal government has thought of German immigration and in evidence of its 'appreciation of the German settler, I want to read a sentence from a letter from Mr. Smart, then Deputy Minister of the Interior to Mr. W. T. R. Preston, dated July 18, 1900. He says : ' We are especially anxious to bring persons of German origin.' And, in another letter from Ottawa to Mr. Preston, dated August 26, 1901, Mr. Smart, then deputy minister, acting under instructions from the Minister of the Interior, said :
I will be glad if you will let me know what has been the result of the efforts of the North Atlantic Trading Company in so far as its work in Germany is concerned. I may say that after two years the department is a little disappointed in not seeing greater results from the efforts of the company in Germany and also in Scandinavia. There is no class of people that Canadians are SO' willing to welcome as German settlers, and it seems too bad that some good commencement cannot be made in connection with the people of this nationality. I may add that Mr. Landy, whom I met in Winnipeg, told me a few days ago that it was confidently expected a good many Germans would come to this country, but in order to have authentic information on the subject, I would be pleased if you would communicate with the syndicate which is doing the work.
I was pleased when the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) stated to me that there are no settlers that his department welcomes more heartily and considers more satisfactory than the German settlers. I trust that no legitimate effort will be spared, whatever direction that effort may take, to continue the immigration to this country of the German people. I may say that in every respect we have no better people than the German residents of Canada, they make very loyal and in every way very satisfactory Canadians. The German settler as we have him in Canada, when he looks back to the history and traditions of the land from which he came, sings with great enthusiasm that national song of which he is so proud, Die Wacht Am Rhein. And when he looks around upon his home in Canada, and which he expects to be the home of his children, he sings with equal zeal and equal fervour, and with still greater interest, and with true loyalty, ' The Maple Leaf ' and ' God Save the King.'


Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron).: The question of immigration which we are

now discussing lies at the very foundation of our national prosperity and greatness, and no more important question could engage our attention. I must say that I think it is much more important than the question which we had intruded here this afternoon. Although I stand on the opposition side of the House, I desire to say right here that I have no sympathy at all with the intrusion into this debate of the question of a little bit of dredging. The character of the immigration that is coming to our country means everything to the future of our country. The subject was brought up in this House by one of the ablest men in it, a man who never speaks on any subject unless he has something of importance to say, a man who can handle a subject properly, and it is much to be regretted that the discussion was interrupted by the break that was made this afternoon. The future and greatness of the country depend on the people who inhabit it. Look at Scotland. Scotland is not a large country, but what other country in the world exercises so great an influence over the world, according to its size and its population, as Scotland? Germany is a wonderful country, and our good friend who has just spoken (Mr. Miller) has told us that the Germans are a wonderful people. They are, and they are exerting a wonderful influence all over the world. Now then what we want to do is to get people of the right kind to come to this country, and so long as they are of the right kind, the country will go on and prosper. I believe that this country will become in due time one of the great nations of the world. Cheap labour, as has been well said toy an lion, member this afternoon, is not everything. You may get in cheap labour, but that will not make the country great. The Americans got in cheap labour in their negro population, but that did not make the country great, and it has been the occasion of the great civil war and the expenditure of millions of money. In the neighbouring republic they have that labour question on their hands, and it is complicated with the race problem, which is one of the most difficult problems that any country could have to face. In the same way we look to British Columbia, and some say that the bringing in of cheap labour from Asia will be a great help to Canada. But I think we can scarcely afford to allow immigration of that sort. These people will not assimilate with our western type of civilization, they will not assimilate with Canadians, and if they did, it would only be to lower the tone of our civilization. At the same time we have nothing against the Japanese, we admire the Japanese, but we don't wish them as immigrants because we caunot assimilate with them. Now then speaking of immigration, it seems to me that too much attention has been paid to settling up the west to the neglect of eastern Canada. It seems to me that the east has been forgotten. Of course we have a great country in the west, and there is no danger but Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
that it will be filled up in time. On the one side, only four or five days journey distant, we have the teeming millions of Europe ; and on the other side, only eight or ten days journey distant, we have the hundreds of millions of Chiua and Japan ; while to the south of us we have eighty millions of people. If we have got a good country the great trouble will be to keep people out of it whom we do not want to come here. For instance, the Doukhobors are occupying land iu the west that we ought to keep for our children and our children's children. To get these people into this country our government have paid $7 a head, besides affording them assistance after they reach here. They occupy the best land in our western country; and I can say now that if they had never set foot in this country that land would now be occupied by good Canadians. On the 7th of June last year I was in the city of Prince Albert, and there were a number of Doukhobor homesteads, discarded homesteads, that the Doukhobors would not have, that were to be opened on that day. These homesteads had been held for the Doukhobors for seven years by the government. They had lived in their villages, and had made no improvements on the land for seven years, and still the homesteads were held for them. If a Canadian boy goes uj) there to get a homestead, if he is not on hand the very minute he should be, he loses his right, but the Doukhobor can hold it for seven years. One of my own Wingham boys went up there, and understanding that, according to the regulations, the first man who was on hand the next morning would get the choice of these five homesteads, he went into the office the night before and made some inquiries, and when the time came to close the office, he was requested to leave. He walked out, but he kept his hand on the door knob all night. I went up the next morning, it was raining, but still the poor fellow had his hand on the door knob. There were four or five hundred people surging around him, his hat was trampled into the mud, the rain was running off his hair, but still he stood there with his hand on the door knob. I was proud of him as a Wingham boy. The result was that he got the first homestead. Now here were 500 good Canadians ready to take these homesteads, and if the Doukhobors had never gone there those 500 Canadians would have taken up those homesteads. These homesteads were held for these Doukhobors for seven years, but a poor boy went up there last year from my riding. You know that we had a very late spring. He went up into Saskatchewan, he got into a half built hut and he took cold, inflammation of the lungs and pleurisy. His father had to go and bring him home, and he was brought to my riding. I went to the land office a little while ago to make some inquiry to see if they would hold his homestead open. He had his side opened three times and a tube put in. I was pre-

sent at one of the operations and the Liberal doctor who is attending him in Brussels sent a letter down to the department and said that the boy had still a tube in his side, and that matter was running out of his side and we asked the time to be extended until after the first of May. What was the reply that we got from the land office?- 'they are not holding homesteads open after the first of May.' This poor fellow is expected to go back and he must go or he will lose his homestead and, of course, if he goes, he may lose his life. How does it come that these Doukhobors could have homesteads held for seven years and a poor boy in my riding cannot have a homestead held for a few months although he'has a tube in his side.
The farmers of Ontario particularly are neglected under our immigration policy. They are very hard up for help. There is a famine of farm labourers in our country; everything is being done for the west and it is draining the east. We have harvest excursions at cheap rates taking away 20,000 of our young men to the west at a time when we need them most. When we get in the so-called farm help we find that the bonus system is bringing in the wrong class of settlers. They do not bring in men from the heather mills whence my own father came nor from the vine clad valley of Germany and France. They bring in men who have been brought tfp in the cities and no matter how foolish you may think a farmer to be when he goes to the city, no matter how many mistakes he may make, they are nothing to the mistakes which will be made by the city man who goes upon the farm. He is far more out of place. It is no use for a man like that to go to one of our farmers and tell him that he has been brought up on a farm in the old country. The farmer will very soon know where lie comes from. I heard a little story the other day about a man who came from Glasgow and who hired out as a farm labourer. The farmer said : Now, Sandy, there is a farmer across the road and he and I are exceedingly good friends. We have an arrangement that if he in any way spoils any of his farm implements he is to have a loan of anything that I have and if we happen to break any of our implements we can go over and get his. If that man comes over and asks for the loan of any farm implements when I am not here, you must give it to him. One day the farmer was away and the neighbour came across and said : ' Sandy, man, have you a plough ? I have broken my plough and I wish to finish my ploughing.' ' Oeh,' said Sandy, ' Ye can ha the pleu. The boss said ye cud ha onything aboot the place bit I dinna ken whaur the pleu is and I dinna ken whether I waud ken a pleu gin I saw ane, Tout there is the wagon and maybe ye can pleu wi' it till the boss comes hame.'
Then I heard another one about a man
who came out to this country who was taken out to the bush to assist a farmer to get out some logs. The farmer said to him : ' John, will you go and get a cant-hook ? John went home and soon brought back a mooly cow because he thought she could not hook because she had no horns and that therefore she must be a cant-hook. I believe that if an effort were made this difficulty would be solved if the minister would give attention to this matter and I am sure he has tried to do the best he could, but he does not understand the situation. The farmers have solved the difficulty of the cheese and bacon question, and I believe that the farm labour question might be solved by going about it in the right way. There is a great difficulty not only in regard to the scarcity of labour, but, since Automobiles have been placed upon the highways, the farmers' daughters and wives cannot go to town and to market. They cannot drive the horses because farmers' horses, being more isolated, are more easily frightened. I have seen farmers in my county with 200 acres of land who would [DOT] have to leave the farm work and drive to town on account of the automobiles. We must get into our country a class of men about whose history we know something, about whose life history we know something. A farmer must take his hired help right into the bosom of his family, to be the companion of his sons, his wife and his daug-ters. We must have the life history of such people. We cannot take every man that you pick up in Whitechapel, or Glasgow, or Dublin. These men may or may not be suitable associates for a farmer's family. We must know them and have their life histories. I propose that the province of Ontario should be divided into districts and that the farmers who wish help should be invited to assemble at some central point during the slack time in the winter. They would give in a list of the labour that they required. One man wants a man with a family because he has bought out his neighbour, he has 200 acres of land and he has acquired a nice brick house with it. There is some man away off in Europe, in Germany, or England or Ireland or Scotland living in a cottage with his family and if that man must come and occupy that house he would think that he was in a palace and the farmer, with 200 acres of land, might give him five or six acres to work for himself and his family. In this way the farmer could get the kind of help that he requires. Another man needs a boy. Each farmer would designate exactly the kind of help that lie required and all these requirements would be written down. Then the farmers assembled together wTould elect one of themselves to go to the old country, hire the help and bring it to Canada. That man would go to the old country and he would say : Here is John Jones; he has a large family and he could occupy that house and culti-

vate a piece of land in connection with it. The man who would actually engage the help in the old country would see the man who had been delegated to go over there and ascertain from him exactly the kind of help that would suit him. If the man who was delegated to do this work did not do it properly the farmers would next year elect another representative. Let the government pay the expenses of these men who would be selected to go over to the old country and engage help. It is not my place to suggest how it should be done.
There is another thing that I desire to say and that is that as a result of the way in which our tariff is regulated the manufacturers enjoy rates so much in excess of those which the farmers enjoy on their products that it is impossible to keep farm labourers on the farm. They drift into the cities because they get work and the farmers are not able to pay them high wages because their products are not protected to the same extent as the products of the manufacturers are.
I regret that many of the immigrants we are getting in this country are not such as are desirable, or as are calculated to build up and strengthen our nation. On the contrary, far too many of them are subjects of charity aud are filling our hospitals and our charitable institutions, and still worse, in some cases they are filling our jails and penitentiaries. I quote from the St. Thomas ' Evening Journal ' of the 11th of April, a good Liberal paper, the following :
Dumped in Ontario is Hon. Mr. Hanna's claim.
Toronto, April 11.-Hon. Mr. Hanna called the attention of the legislature last night to the effect of immigration in the last year or two upon the inmates of the principal institutions. He had just received a telegram from Port Arthur, as follows:
' Port William police magistrate has committed ten male Doukhobors to Central Prison ; nine females to the Mercer Reformatory. They are in jail here. We have no room for them. Fifty-three other prisoners here now. There are fifty-seven other Doukhobors at Fort William to be sent to the Central and the Mercer. They have burned their clothes and are naked.


'ALEX. W. THOMPSON,
[Stage Direction]
' Sheriff.'
This was not only a matter of so many more inmates of the jails, but indicated a condition of affairs that must be dealt with, and the responsibility for which placed where it belongs.
Although 80 per cent were native born in the province, the inmates of the ayslums were 30 per cent foreign born.
During 1907 there were 1,162 patients admitted to asylums of the province of whom 316 were foreign born. During the past five years the percentage of foreigners admitted to these institutions had increased from 20 to 30 per cent, while Canadian born patients had decreased from 80 to 70 per cent, in the same period, from 1903 to 1907, the cost of main-Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
tenance of foreign born patients had increased from $21,613.20 to $51,744.30. While the foreign born of the entire adult population were only 20 per cent, the total admission to asylums from that class was 30 per cent.
The figures showed the necessity of effective methods to prevent the dumping on the province of undesirables by friends, and others aided by charitable associations with no other object than to get rid of the responsibility of providing for them. Taking into consideration the probable length of life of these patients, the cost of maintaining those admitted in 1907 alone amount to $1,487,058.80 without including any proportion for capital expenditure.
Of the estimated total population of the province, over 16 years of age, 1,209,308 were Canadians, and 291,675 were foreigners, or 20 per cent of the whole. At the same time, of the commitments to jail, 38 per cent were of foreign birth, and the cost of providing for them amounted to $21,724.65.
Now, that is quite a large sum of money for the province of Ontario to be mulcted in by reason of this undesirable immigration. We should take care that the immigrants who are brought into this country are physically and morally fit to build up our country, and that they are not such as will deteriorate the character of the people with whom they mingle.
The lion, member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) spoke very kindly and very correctly about our German people, and I may be pardoned for following his example and saying a few words about them myself. The German settlers in this country have in every case made model citizens. In southwest Ontario, in Wellington, in Grey, in Bruce, in Huron, in Perth, in Oxford, and in Waterloo we have large German communities, and in these districts the farms are not only clean and well kept, but they are thoroughly and effectively tilled. The homes of the German Canadians are comfortable and commodious and the people honest, moral, respectable and in many cases wealthy. The Germans very easily assimilate with us Canadians because they are practically of our own race. We know that the Saxons of England came originally from Germany, and as a German would say : * Hie Deutche spreehe ist die mutter der Engleschen '-the German language is the mother of the English language. The grammar and construction of the German and English languages are so much alike that even old persons who know the one soon learn the other, which in my opinion accounts in a great measure for the ease with which our German settlers have been able to adapt themselves to the language and customs of this country. Our German settlers are not only industrious and frugal and law-abiding, but in every case they are thoroughly loyal to our King and our country. It appears to be no trouble to them to yield allegiance to the uncle of their emperor, especially when they know that his father, the late lamented Prince Albert, was

a German and that his mother, the good Queen Victoria, was a descendant of the House of Brunswick and of German George
I.	Things are made still more easy for them in this respect when they know that many of the United Empire Loyalists who made great sacrifices when they came to Canada from the United States at the close of the revolutionary war were of Dutch or German origin.
It does not need any bonusing to induce German immigrants to come to this country, because the German people are so thrifty that they always have money to meet their own wants. In my opinion, Sir, we should encourage German immigrants to come to Canada. We Should not only give the German people the glad hand, but we should' strive in some friendly way to remove from' our tariff that odious surtax which the Canadian government is levying against goods coming from the fatherland. I believe that tlie German people/ resent this tax and feel it very strange that their country should be singled out by us for such treatment. I notice here by a report of the Trade and Commerce Department that, while we have trade commissioners in Australia, China, Japan, Corea, France and Mexico, in the German empire, that great manufacturing and food consuming country, there is not a single trade commissioner. Our German friends are scarcely to blame if they feel that the Canadian government is not treating their country with that consideration which I believe it deserves from us.
Now, let me say a few words about the North Atlantic Trading Company, and in that connection I want to refer to the statement frequently made that the Prime Minister offered to give to the leader of the opposition the names of the members of the North Atlantic Trading Company. Let me quote from ' Hansard,' 1906, page 4472, what the Prime Minister said in reference to that:
But, sir, I have in my hands at this moment the names of those gentlemen with whom Mr. Preston, Mr. Smart and the government dealt in 1890. and I am willing confidentially to put those papers
Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am willing eonfidentiallv to put those papers into the hands of the hon. leader of the opposition or of any hon. gentleman he will select.
What names were they ? The names of the gentleman with whom Mr. Preston, Mr. Smart and the government dealt in 1899. According to what I see here, the North Atlantic Trading Company was not in existence at that time, so that it could not have possibly been the members of that company whose names were to be given. Now I quote from a letter contained in the report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1906. written by Lord Strathcona to Mr. Smart, in which letter he says :
Inclosed with this letter you will find a copy of the certificate of registration of the North Atlantic Trading Company, Limited, dated at Greffe, Guernsey, the 11th day of June, 1905, together with a copy of the memorandum and articles of association of the same company, dated the 3rd June, 1905.
Now, how can any person make out that an effort was made to give the names of the members of the North Atlantic Trading Company five years before such a company existed ? Another point is this : I notice in ' Hansard ' of the 2nd of April of the present year that a member stated :
Lord Strathcona sent a man by the name of Charles A. Allen to Amsterdam to get these names. He felt that there was great demand in the public mind of Canada to know those names, and so he sent a special messenger over there for the purpose. And this is what he sent back to Lord Strathcona, dated June 5, 1906:
Just received letter from company, as follows : begins, very utmost we are able to do is to allow Mr. Preston to show names to Premier, Hon. Mr. Fielding, and if absolutely necessary also to only one Liberal and only one Conservative member of confidential committee, on condition that they each give a sworn declaration in writing never to mention names either verbally or in any other way and on condition that Premier takes full responsibility that these sworn declarations are kept, as disclosing names would result in some prominent members committing suicide.
Now, suppose our leader had been given those names-not, mind you, the names of the members of the North Atlantic Trading Company, but those of the gentlemen with whom these other gentlemen had dealt five or six years before-lie would have been sworn to secrecy. He dare not tell us that he had been trapped and misled, and we would have all been sitting here like boobies behind him, knowing nothing about it. I deny that the names of the members of the North Atlantic Trading Company were ever offered to the leader of the opposition, If they were, I do not understand the English language as I read it in ' Hansard '. Another thing : These men mentioned as having done business with Mr. Smart and Mr. Preston and the government in 1899, Mr. Smart himself, in his evidence, stated positively were only in business a few months. Therefore they were out of business for five years before the North Atlantic Trading Company came into existence at all; so that I either misunderstand the English language very much or there is some great mistake.	.


Mr.  G. H.@: MeINTYRE (South Perth). Mr. Speaker, this debate has travelled over considerable time, yet its continuity is very much broken. The hour is late, and there are a number of members who would yet like to speak. Perhaps the House will al-

low me to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

Mr. FIELDING.: The House on Thursday last passed a resolution that when the House should adjourn on Wednesday, the loth, it should stand adjourned until the following Tuesday. If we followed that resolution, the House would sit to-morrow, and at the close of sitting, the Easter recess would begin. But during to-day's sitting several hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House have expressed a desire that we should not meet to-morrow, which is a short day, as a good many desire to go by the early trains so that at the best we would have a slim House and a short day. Anticipating that in responding to that suggestion we shall meet the wishes on both sides of the House, I would now move :
That the resolution of Thursday, April 9, respecting the adjournment of the House on Wednesday the 15th be rescinded.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understand that this is bejpg presented with the unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: I would now move :
That when the House adjourns this day, it stands adjourned until Tuesday the 21st instant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up on the day the House resumes ?


William Stevens Fielding: It was anticipated that we would proceed immediately with this debate ; but an intimation has* been given by hon. gentlemen opposite that it may suit the convenience of the House that on Tuesday, when the House resumes, we take up some routine business and let the debate stand over to the following day. In the absence of the Prime Minister I would not wish to make any definite arrangement; but we hope to arrange accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 21, 1908.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH SMITH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 157) to amend the Railway Act.
Mr. G. H McTNTYBE.: 


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Explain.
ill-. RALPH SMITH. The object of this Bill is to pi'ovide for an 8 hour day for despatehers and operator's on the railways of Canada. This matter was put into my hands by the parliamentary representative of the railway men. but too late for anything to be done this session, as I informed them. This class of railway men in this country are prompted to seek legislation of this kind for the reason that the United States Congress has passed a law which came into force on the 1st day of this month, providing a 9 hour day for despatehers and telegraphers. They regard this legislation as important to secure ' the safety of employees and travellers upon railways by limiting the hours of service of employees. I am strongly in favour of this legislation and am sorry it cannot be passed this session.


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

Robert Laird Borden: On the orders of the day being called, I would like to ask the government whether their attention has been directed to a statement in the public press that Major Hodgins, formerly engineer on the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, has charged the making of improper classifications on that division, and whether the government propose to make any investigation of the matter in detail ?


Mr.  G. H.@: Upon reading this morning the correspondence to which my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has just alluded I at once telephoned to the chairman of the commission, Mr. Parent, to ascertain if he had read it also ; but, I was told that Mr. Parent was out of the city to-day. I shall communicate with him as soon as he comes back.


ANGLO-AMERICAN TREATY.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire also when it may be expected that the treaty which has been communicated, as I understand, to the Senate of the United States of America will be laid on the table of parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: I must inform my hon. friend that up to the present time we have not received that treaty which, I presume, has been communicated to the American Senate in conformity with the constitution of the United States for the concurrence of the Senate with the consent of the president. I may say to my hon. friend that I caused a telegram to be sent

this morning to the British embassy to have this treaty forwarded as soon as possible.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CIVIC ELECTIONS IN HALIFAX.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) whether any intimation has been given by the officers of his department directly or indirectly to the employees of the Intercolonial Railway at Halifax as to how they should vote at the approaching civic elections. The statement has come to me that certain officers of the government are giving directions to the employees. I desire to know whether it is or is not the policy of the government that the employees of that road should be permitted to vote exactly as they desire to vote without any intimidation or influence whatever by the officers of the railway or of the government.


Mr. GRAHAM.: That is the first intima-mation that I have had that the employees of the Intercolonial Railway were being interfered with in any way or by any person on behalf of any candidate. The position of the government is that every employee of the intercolonial Railway shall exercise his rights of citizenship without interference from anybody.


INVESTIGATION OF DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like also to inquire whether counsel have been appointed, as stated in the public press, in connection with the investigation which is to be carried on by Mr. Justice Cassels, who are the counsel, whom do they represent and whether any counsel are to be appointed for the purpose of representing Messrs. Courtney, Fyshe and Bazin, whose report seems to be under review by the investigation now proposed by the government.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I may say, in answer to my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden), that Mr. Geo. Watson, K.C., and Mr. J. L. Perron,
K.C., have been appointed to assist Mr. Justice Cassels in the investigation. I had an interview some time ago with Mr. Justice Cassels, and he expressed a desire that some lawyers should assist him to carry out the investigation.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Have they been appointed at the request of Mr. Justice Cassels ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, he intimated to me that it was desirable that counsel should be there.


Robert Laird Borden: These particular gentlemen were not suggested ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, no particular names were suggested to me. I do not know but
that perhaps the name of Mr. Watson was suggested.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister did not answer a part of my question which was as to the appointment of counsel to represent Messrs. Courtney, Fyshe and Bazin as their report seems to be under review in this proposed investigation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I do not think that their report is under review in this case or that their report will have to be particularly investigated except that they have made some representations in their report and the investigation will be based upon those representations.


Robert Laird Borden: Possibly I may have misread the order in council. I will take it up again at a time when it can be discussed.


MARINE AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT-OFFICERS SUSPENDED.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire also what is the present status of the three officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries who have been suspended. Are they still under suspension and is their fate dependent upon the investigation which is to be made by Mr. Justice Cassels, or is it dependent upon some investigation which is being made by the minister himself, or, if not dependent upon either one or the other of these tribunals or investigations, what is the attitude of the government in regard to the matter ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The order of suspension respecting one of them has been removed.


Mr.   I@: Which one ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Owen, who was suspended long before the report of the Civil Service Commission was brought down. The two others are under suspension for the reason given the other day.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has not answered my question as to whether or not their fate is to be determined by the investigation before Mr. Justice Cassels or is it to be determined by the investigation, which I understand, is being made by the minister himself.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not come to any decision in regard to that yet.


Robert Laird Borden: That is still open ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the investigation to be made by Mr. Justice Cassels to be an investigation with open doors or closed doors ? Is it to be a public investigation ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know. It is a matter for the judge to decide. I have not discussed this questio;! with him.

iMr. BERGERON. The Minister of Marine has answered that Mr. Owen was relieved on suspension. Are we to understand by that, that he has been discharged, or that he has been granted his pension, or, that he has been taken back to the department. What is the meaning of that answer?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He has applied for
leave of absence.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What does that mean?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He has applied for
leave of absence and he is not coming to the department now.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Does that mean that he is going to be discharged, or superannuated, or taken back to the department when his leave of absence expires ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He has applied for leave of absence and has asked for his superannuation.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is it not a fact that an order in council has already been passed granting his superannuation ?
the telegrams which were received by the magistrate, the second being received before he had time to answer the first:
The Minister of Justice requests that you will be good enough to send immediately re-nort upon case of ten male and nine female Doukhobors committed by you to Port Arthur jail.
Please report pardon for Doukhobors now in Port Arthur jail prenaratory to their being shinned back to Saskatchewan, where thev came from.
I would like to ask whether the statement regarding the telegrams is substantially correct and whether it is true that the government have pardoned or contemplate pardoning these male and female prisoners who have been sentenced for a grave offence against public decency. If it is true that they intend to pardon these prisoners-


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman can merely put a question ; that is all.


Richard Stuart Lake: I thought I was putting a question.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has a recommendation been made ?


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to call the attention of the government to certain returns which I moved for some time ago and which have not yet been brought down. They are as follows :
Votes and
,,	Proceedings,
Moved ior.	page.
Quebec bridge, December	12..	..	56
Naval station at Esquimalt, January 13	 94,
Wharfs, &c., January 13	 91
Public buildings, January	13..	..	95
Metlakatla and Songhees Indian Reserves, March 23	 350
I would like to have the returns expedited.


DOUKHOBOR PRISONERS AT FORT WILLIAM.
Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the government a question with regard to an intimation in the Montreal 1 Gazette ' of this morning in connection with the Doukhobors at Fort William, which is as follows :

Magistrate Palling, of Fort William, who passed the Central Prison sentence upon the nineteen who are now in jail, received a telegrain from A. Power, Deputy Minister of Justice at Ottawa, asking him to recommend a pardon preparatory to their heing taken back to Saskatchewan. Mr. Palling will jwce to whatever arrangements are made by the Ontario or Ottawa governments and will recommend the pardon. The following are Mr. BRODEUR.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, No argument must take place.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is it true that they contemplate sending these people to the province of Saskatchewan ; if so, on what grounds, under what authority and at whose expense will they be sent ? Will they undertake the responsibility for the good behaviour of these people in the province of Saskatchewan if they send them there, and all expenses in connection with them should they again misbehave?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is rather an involved question, and my hon. friend had better give notice in the regular way. As to giving bonds for the good behaviour of these people, I am afraid that is more than we can undertake to do.


Richard Stuart Lake: Can I ask one question; Under what authority do the government propose to send these people back to the province of Saskatchewan?


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend puts his question in due course I shall give him the answer also in due course.


MR. WATSON. K.C.
William Barton Northrup: May I ask if Mr. Watson, ICC., who has been appointed to assist Mr. Justice Casseis in the Marine Department investigation, is the same Mr. Watson who a few years ago acted as counsel before a commission appointed to investigate a provincial election in the riding of West Elgin in the province of Ontario?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know anything about that.


Robert Laird Borden: You never heard about it?


William Barton Northrup: The Minister of Marine is the one man in the Dominion who does not know about it.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES.
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).: Before the orders of the day are called I draw the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to an item in this morning's issue of the ' Citizen,' and I wish to ask the minister if he has any information to give in connection with it. The item is as follows:
Province takes charge-Legal clash imminent between British Columbia and Ottawa.
Vancouver, British Columbia, April 20.- Attorney General Bowser announces that the conferences with Mr. Bastedo, sent here by the Dominion government to adjust the fishery differences with the province, have proved fruitless. The provincial government, therefore, will take charge of the fisheries under the decision of the Privy Council and a legal clash with the Dominion is immediately expected. The Dominion government proposed, a short time ago, that the pro-* vince should relinquish its interests in the fisheries to the Dominion, the latter to pass all regulations and not pay the alleged share of the province in the revenue under the agreement made seven years ago, the Dominion to recoup the province for its expenditures in the hatcheries, &c.
Mr. Bowser declined to agree to this and insisted that before a settlement could be considered, payment should be made of the alleged share of the revenue due to the province. Mr. Bowser also wanted a local joint administrative board appointed, with one provincial nominee, and, third that more consideration be given to halibut.
The Victoria government will immediately enforce its jurisdiction bv issuance of licenses to fishermen, five dollars to each boat, good to the entire province.
The present Dominion regulations provided licenses of $11 ner boat and good onlv on the river on which it is issued, the open season on the Fraser to be .Tuly 9 to August 5, with closed season August 5 to September 15.
Mr.. Bowser says the salmon industry is in great danger of depletion. In the last nine years there has been a steady depletion in the salmon run. ranging from 22 to 59 per cent. Mr. Bowser added: ' Of course, from now on the modus vivendi hitherto existing between the Dominion government and ourselves will be terminated, and we expect that the monevs collected from the source of license fees will hardiv be sufficient for the work we propose to do in the way of properly maintaining our fisheries.
Can the minister inform us if the facts are as represented here ?
(Mr. BRODEUR. Mr. Bastedo arrived in Ottawa this morning and he has reported orallv the result of the different conferences with the representatives of the British Columbia government. He has discussed
with me some claims which have been made by the British Columbia, government, and these are now receiving the consideration of the government.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENTS.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse).: I wish to draw the attention of the government to a great disaster which has taken place in my county in connection with the construction of the Grand Trunk Transcontinental Railway, and by which nine men have been killed and three seriously injured. Is it the intention of the government to give instructions to the commission in charge of the construction of the Transcontinental Railway that measures should be taken to prevent further disasters of that kind?


George Perry Graham: This matter was discussed in the House the other day, and I have asked for certain information. I have been told that taking into consideration the number of yards of rock being excavated the accidents on the Transcontinental Railway are less than on any other road ever constructed on this continent.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: The number of yards of rock that have been taken out or that are to be taken out. The minister's statement is equivocal.


George Perry Graham: It is not equivocal to any one who does not wish to make it so. What I stated was, that taking the number of yards of rock already excavated the number of accidents have been less than on any road on this continent. I look upon this as a very serious matter and as well worthy the close attention of the government, and I am seeking further information. As I understand it, the accident referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) was caused by a premature explosion. In discussing this matter with railway men and others of experience I find that their conclusion is that these accidents are largely due to the carelessness of the men who become so accustomed to that class of work that they neglect to take precautions. The difficulty about this sort of accident is that the witnesses from whom we might get evidence as to the cause of the accident are unfortunately killed. The matter is a serious one, and it is not being overlooked.


ENGLISH AND FRENCH ORDER PAPERS.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some time ago I drew attention to certain irregularities which appeared on the Order Paper, and Mr. Speaker in a casual way said it would be looked into and that the Order Paper would be made right and kept right. I see that exactly the same blunders are repeated in the Order Paper of to-day. I notice under the public Bills and orders,

that the French version follows rule 28 and puts the items down in the natural order, but according to the English version the first order (No. 26) should really be the third order, the second order (No. 22) should really be the first order, and order (No. 30) away down on the order paper, should be the second order. The rule appears to me to be plain enough to get it right. The first order should be: House in committee on Bill (No. IS) An Act to amend the Railway Act (reported as amended). That should be the first order because it is House in committee on an Act to amend the Railway Act as amended. When Bills are amended they should come first after Bills set down for third reading, and sometimes they come first on some order papers and in others they come second, and in others they come third. They ought to be in their regular order as they are taken up by the House. As 1 say, the second order should be the first because it is House in committee on Bill (No. 18) to amend the Railway Act (reported as amended). Then take the second order should be: House in committee on Bill (No. 4) An Act to amend the Railway Act (reported as amended). On the present order paper these Bills come after Bills which really should be after them. I notice that these errors are happening right along. I take up several of the order papers. In the Order Paper of March 6 T find this item :
Third reading of Bill No. 25, an Act respecting the Hamilton Radial Electric Rail-wav Company.
The fact is that the Bill did not stand for the third reading, but there was an amendment moved by Mr. Clarke which should have been on the Order Paper, but does not appear there at all. If any one thinks that is not correct, all he has to do is to look at page 4690 of the unrevised ' Hansard ', there he will find that a question arose as to whether it was the third reading of the Bill that was before the House or an amendment that had not been disposed of. The question was raised by Mr. Henderson. Mr. Graham said : I
I think the discussion now is on an amendment proposed by the member for Toronto (Mr. Macdonell).
Further on, Mr. Brodeur said :
I see that on the 3rd of March it was proposed :
That the Bill (No. 25) an Act respecting the Hamilton Radial Electric Railway Company, be now read the third time.
Mr. Macdonell moved in amendment there-* to, that the said Bill he not now read the third time, blit that it be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amendin'' section 2 of the said Bill, as follows :
Givinv the amendment:
And a debate arising thereon, and the hour devoted to private Bills under rule 25 having expired.
The House went into committee.
Mr. SPROTJLE
Although that amendment was not disposed of, the Bill was put down on the Order Paper as standing for a third reading. This is not regular and ought not to occur. There ought to be some conference, so that members would not be misled as they frequently are by the Order Paper. Again, I take up the Order Paper of March 9, and I see there this item under private Bills :
House in committee on Bill (No. 32) an Act to incorporate the Bank of Vancouver (reported as amended).
This Bill was not reported as amended, but it was reported as amalgamated with another Bill. Then I take up the Order Paper of March 19, and I find a government notice of motion appearing in this way :
In Committee of Ways and Means-the following proposed resolution.
A resolution to be considered in Committee of Ways and Means is never printed on the Order Paper, as it is considered only after the House goes into committee ; but in this case the resolution is printed in the Order Paper as an ordinary notice of motion. That is not in accordance with the rules at all, and is misleading to the House. Then I take up the Order Paper of April 9, and I find the following as item No. 3 :
House again in committee on Bill 135, an Act to amend the Immigration Act.
That should be tlie fourth order, and tlie fourth order should be the third order. In the Order Paper of Friday, April 10, I find exactly the same error as occurs in the Order Paper of to-day. It seems to me the Order Paper should be made in accordance with a fair interpretation of the rules, and not in a way to mislead the House and to cause our business to be carried on in an unseemly and improper way.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend called the attention of the House to this matter a few days ago. I cannot speak as to past errors, but so far as to-day's order is concerned, I understand that there is a variation between the French Order Paper and the English Order Paper.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: For my part I am glad to know-and perhaps my hon. friend will share the pleasure

that it is the English Order Paper that is wrong and the French Order Paper that is right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the case.


Wilfrid Laurier: The proper officer will no doubt try to have the matter regulated properly for the future, and I shall be glad to second my hon. friend's efforts in seeing that the French have their rights respected in this House.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, tlie same matter was brought before the House by myself about four months ago, and the very same answer was made by my right hon. friend. When the question was brought up again the other day, my right hon. friend answered, I understand, that the matter was iri the hands of the officers of the House, and the speaker said that he would see to it. There is only one way to have the Order Paper made correct, that is, to bring together the French officer in charge of the French paper and the English officer in charge of the English paper, and have them understand that one copy must be as correct as the other. In this case I understand that the French Order Paper is correct and the English Order Paper is not correct. The English paper could be made correct if it had to be translated from the French.
I may say that some of the papers in the country took a very extraordinary view of the position taken by my hon. friend from East Gray (Mr. Sproule), chaffing him for appearing to be defending the French orders of the day. I need not say that he is defending not the French orders of the day, but the rules of the House, though he said with impartiality that the French Order Paper appeared to be right.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have no authority over this matter, but it is for Mr. Speaker to see that the proper officer attends to it.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
William Humphrey Bennett: On the 13th inst., the Minister of Public Works promised to lay on the table on the following day, the 14th, the order in council and the report of the chief engineer relative to some contracts for dredging. It was not laid on the table on the 14th, but the minister promised to lay it on the table the next day. As however the House adjourned the next day, there was no opportunity for him to do so. I would ask him now if the report shall be placed on the table to-day together with the order in council or a copy.


William Pugsley: I said I would lay the order on the table preparatory to a discussion which the hon. gentleman desired to undertake with regard to dredging. He went on with the discussion, however, without waiting until a copy was made. The hon. gentleman will also remember that I said that the question of extending the time for the completion of certain dredging works was under consideration. I said the order in council had been passed authorizing me to extend the time, if I so decided, but that I had not decided. Without waiting until I had announced my decision, the hon. gentleman precipitated a discussion. Since then I have decided not to extend the time for the completion of the works mentioned by the hon. gentleman and by myself, but have decided to ask for new tenders. Therefore it will not be necessary to submit the order in council. That order in council has in fact been rescinded.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many works were to be embraced under that order in council ?
I have some information by correspondence from various quarters since then, and I am advised that not only Victoria harbour and Midland but a dozen other works were embraced under this order in council.


William Pugsley: The matter is entirely immaterial because the order has been rescinded.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not agree that it is immaterial, and as the minister has promised to bring the order down, he is bound to do so, and it will be wise for him to do so.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have this to add


Charles Marcil: I cannot allow any debate on this question.


PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN SCHOOL STATUTES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE (Montmagny)
I wish to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a question of great urgency. I refer to the Statutes of the province of Saskatchewan, 1907, Chapters 2 and 25, concerning which I put certain questions to the Minister of Justice on the 13th April and received certain replies.
Charles Marcil: The hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne) has put a statement in my hands, in compliance with rule 37 of our Rules and Orders. Section 4 of that rule provides that a member who desires to make a motion to adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance must hand a written statement to the Speaker who, if he thinks it in order, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the House. I have some doubts as to whether this is a question of urgent public importance. and I would like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lavergne) to state his reasons.


Samuel Hughes: What is the written statement he gave you ?


Charles Marcil: The written statement which the hon. gentleman put in my hands is as follows :
That it is urgent the adjournment of the House should be moved in order that the House may consider chapters 2 and 25 of the Saskatchewan statutes, 1907, and a certain declaration regarding the same made bv the hon. the Minister of Justice on April 13 last.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The Minister of Justice said that he would not have disallowed the statutes had they been brought to his notice, and the delay for disallowing expire to-morrow. Tljere can therefore be no clearer case of urgency.


Mr.  G. H.@: I liave very serious doubts that the matter is urgent since the House has been in session for four months and it could have been brought to our attention at any time. However I shall not press the point.


Charles Marcil: Has the hon. gentleman leave to move the adjournment of the House ? Those in favour will please rise.
And more than twenty having risen, the Speaker notified Mr. Lavergne to proceed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry to take up the time of the House at this stage of the session, but I shall be as brief as possible. I am sorry also that the government did not see fit to consent to a discussion of the question without any reservation. On the 13th of this month, I put the following questions to the government :
1.	Is the government informed that chapters 2 and 25 of the statutes of the province of Saskatchewan, 1907, intituled, respectively, ' An Act for raising money on the credit of general revenue fund of Saskatchewan/ and
' An Act to provide for the organization and maintenance of secondary educational institutions/ contain provisions contrary to the educational clause of the law of Autonomy for the province of Saskatchewan, 1907?
2.	Does the government know that the delay for the disavowal of these laws expires the 22nd April next?
3.	Will the government disallow these statutes ?
To this the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) replied as follows :
To question 1, no ; to question 2, yes ; to question 3, no.
I do not think that the Minister of Justice, in the whole course of his political career, was ever so clear or so brief. If I analyse these replies, I find that the government, in the first place, did not know whether these statutes were illegal or not, a'nd, in the second place, would not in either event disallow them. These statutes might be ultra vires or iutra vires, the province of Saskatchewan might have the right to pass them or not, this government would not take the trouble to inform itself and bad no intention of disallowing them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They did not care.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is what it amounts to practically. We have had the right hon. the first Minister of Justice telling us that these statutes had been passed a considerable time ago and bad never been brought to the attention of parliament and that consequently there was no urgency. Well, I am not the Minister of Justice-and at times I am sorry for the minority in the House and the country- but the moment the matter was brought to my notice 1 took the trouble to look up the statutes and find out whether they were


Armand Renaud La Vergne: illegal or not. It seems to me rather strange that when a member of the Catholic minority, which comprises about 41 per cent of the total population of the Dominion, puts a question concerning the most sacred interests of that minority and even the rights of this parliament, which passed the law giving the province of Saskatchewan its autonomy, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) does not take the trouble to consider whether the statutes passed by that province are in contravention of that autonomy law and consequently should be disallowed. But on the other hand, if a province in the west thinks fit by statute to exclude from its own limits Asiatic immigration and determines to remain a white man's country, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) has no hesitation in disallowing any such law without waiting for any one to put him a question regarding it in parliament. More than that, the correspondence brought down with reference to the Japanese treaty shows that the government promised the Japanese consul that they would disallow the laws of British Columbia even before they were passed, when they had simply been mentioned in the speech from the Throne. Thus, the situation is that it has come to pass that 40 per cent of the Canadian nation are less in the estimation of the government than a few Japanese yellow citizens who are coming to this country against the will of a whole province.
Were these statutes ultra vires? Of course it is not my place to answer and I shall not attempt to give a definite answer; it would be for tile Minister of Justice to state whether they were or not. He did not think it expedient to answer the question or necessary to examine the statutes; he was prepared to disallow them without even knowing what they contained. He will find that in this case a report has been made to the government of Saskatchewan more than six months ago and it appears that he reported to that government without even knowing what was contained in the statutes. As I have said I do not know, and I would not express a legal opinion as to whether these statutes are or are not illegal. I do know that when the statutes were passed and certain taxes were raised in Saskatchewan, a certain portion of the population, the Roman Catholic taxpayers, refused to pay the taxes imposed under chapter 2 and chapter 25 of the statutes of Saskatchewan. Cases were entered before the courts. The courts did not decide the cases, I think the election of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan took place before the eases were concluded and they were not pushed to a conclusion, somebody paying the fine which was asked from the Catholic taxpayers. Whether the fine was paid by the taxpayers or by friends of the government or by friends of the opposition I do not know and shall not say.

It is certain that, judging from what lias taken place, the minority in Saskatchewan felt that these statutes were infringing on the rights granted to them by the constitution of 1907. If we look at the debate of 1905 on the Autonomy Bill of the Northwest in this House we will find at page 5984, May 15, 1905, the then Minister of Justice (Sir Charles Fitzpatrick) described the privileges left to the minority in the Northwest in this way:
1.	Right of separation-by the ordinance- common to Protestants and Roman Catholics alike;
2.	Half-hour religious instruction-by ordinance-to Protestants and Roman Catholics alike; common to public and separate schools.
He then goes on to describe the rights which are left to the separate schools and says :
4.	Right to elect trustees, who choose the teacher-by ordinance; common to all schools.
It may be objected that the statutes passed by the Saskatchewan legislature concern especially secondary and not primary schools; but I have carefully examined the British North America Act and the statutes of interpretation and find nothing making a difference between schools for primary and for secondary education. By chapter 2 of tile statutes it is provided that the population may be taxed for permanent public improvements authorized by the legislature, after the first day of September, 1905, and by chapter 25 of the statutes of Saskatchewan, we find among these improvements, high schools. The law at first sight appears to permit the high schools to he established without any separation and we see nothing there granting separation to the minority if it wishes it in a public district. You will see also that they have the right to choose all text books, which is contrary to the law of the Dominion passed in 1907. They have also the right to choose trustees and it is enacted that the population may be taxed for the maintenance of their high schools, even if they want to have a separate school of some other kind, and that no municipality can exempt them from those taxes.
Therefore I shall not say that the statutes are unconstitutional, but I may say that they have a strong flavour of being unconstitutional and contrary to the educational clause of the Act passed by this parliament in 1907. The least we should expect from the Minister of Justice was that before stating that he would not disallow these statutes he would have looked into them, would have had a report made upon them and have had the opinion of his officers as to their constitutionalitv. He said before the House that he would not disallow them even without looking at them; so it has come to this that in this country the Catholic minority is considered by the Department
of Justice and this federal government to be less important than the yellow allies who come from the extreme orient. If this is the spirit which is to be maintained in our confederation, I may say that our confederation has seen its best days. It is time that the rights of the minority should be a little more respected and also that when there is some doubt about the rights of the minority or when those rights are placed in jeopardy, the Minister of Justice who is the natural guardian of the rights of minorities should take the trouble to glance over the country and see whether or not the laws of any province are against the rights of the minority, I care not if it is the Catholic minority of the other provinces, or the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec. A thorough examination of these statutes would be only common courtesy on the part of the government towards 41 per cent of the population of Canada. But it is more than that; it is a matter of the future prosperity of our country, because while it may not be the opinion of the entire province of Quebec now, it is the opinion of the entire youth of that province, of the men who are in the colleges and universities and who will come out from them to-morrow or the day after to-morrow. If the confederation is to go on in this way with a superior race and au inferior race, a superior religion and an inferior religion, confederation has seen its best days. The youth of our province are loyal to our confederation but they want it to be remembered in this parliament and in the country that they are a part of the confederation in the terms of equal partnership.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I have to express my regret that my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. A. Lavergne) should have found in the answer which I gave last week to the question he put, anything of discourtesy or of too brief a nature in the circumstance that I answered in monosyllables. My hon. friend's question was propounded in the French language, and he translates it as inquiring whether or no the government is informed that the chapters of the statutes of the province of Saskatchewan to which he refers are contrary to the provisions of the Constitutional Act known as the Autonomy Bill. I cannot pretend to be acquainted with the niceties of the French language. or to be able to appreciate exactly the meaning of the French phrase in which the question is couched. I certainly understood it to be somewhat the equivalent of the English phrase, Is the government aware. I did not for a moment understand it as meaning. Has the government taken pains to inform itself. If the question had been put in the latter form, if the question had the meaning. Has the government endeavoured to ascertain, or. u,iS the government taken any means to find out or to
685!)


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does my hon. friend say that no statute of British Columbia has been disallowed?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It is, Mr. Speaker, upon the minutes, upon ' Hansard,' upon the records there, in answer to a question put by my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith), that in the course of the last ten or twelve years there have been no less than five statutes of the province of British Columbia disallowed, but I am answering to my hon. friend that there has been no disallowance of the statute to which he refers, a statute passed by the legislature of British Columbia within the last few months. On the contrary, that statute was the subject of proceedings in the courts of British Columbia and within the course of a few weeks after it had been assented to was held by the courts of British Columbia to be ultra vires the legislature which had passed it. Under these circumstances the illustration which my hon. friend has selected as the means of showing that there has not been, in his judgment, due attention paid to the interests of the highly important minority for which he purports to speak is, I think, an unfortunate illustration and is certainly one that has no application in so far as i am able to see.
My hon. friend accuses me, and I regret that he should think that there was any cause for the accusation, of some feeling, if I understood him correctly, of illiberality towards that ancient faith to which he gives adherence. Let me remind him that it is only a few days ago, that, across the floor of this House, as I saw next day by ' Hansard,' although I did not hear it at the time, I was accused, as if it were a reproach, that I too had been called a Roman Catholic. I think, under these circumstances, my hon. friend might have spared me the attack which he has made upon me personally and in respect to which I certainly am not aware that I have given to him or to any one the slightest cause.


Mr.   J.@: G- H. BERGERON (Beauharnois). Mr. Speaker, I never thought that the position taken by some of us with regard to the Autonomy Bill a couple of years ago would be vindicated so soon. When the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) brought down the measure to grant autonomy to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan there was, in the first instance, incorporated in that measure clause 16 which was in accordance with what we thought to be the constitution of the Northwest Territories as embodied in the statute of 1875, and which gave to the minority of these provinces entire autonomy and the rights and privileges to which they were entitled. But, for reasons best known to himself and which were disclosed to this



House by the retirement of one minister and by the protest of another the right hon. gentleman brought down clause 16, No. 2, which was vague and which could produce no other result than that which we have before us now. There were some other hon. gentlemen who, taking a different position from the one that the right hon. gentleman took, or who did not entirely share his opinion, said that it was better to leave these new provinces free to do whatever they desired to do in the future. They were willing to grant these provinces autonomy, having entire confidence in the judgment which they should exercise in time to come. We, myself and others, who were of my opinion, and who were afraid to leave this question in the hands of the new generations coming into the west, expressed the opinion that it was dangerous and stuck more than ever to clause 16, No. 1, which was a repetition of the statute of 1875. Now, we have proof that the position which we took was the correct one. These things are done with a great deal of cuteness. This is the opening of the door to what will happen later on. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) knows very well that it is not a question as to whether it is legal or not. It is a question whether the legislatures of these provinces are acting in the spirit in which this parliament granted autonomy to them. Did we mean to say that the minority in these provinces should be entirely at the mercy of the majority? Did we mean to say that the minority in these provinces should have no power, no rights and no privileges? If we did the law passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan is legal, but it is not according to the spirit of the Autonomy Bill as expressed at the time by the majority in this House. Now, the ministers or the government who do act in that way have a very cunning way of going about it. When my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and myself happened to be in the west the Liberal organs in the province of Quebec. which are not at all in partnership with truth, said that we had gone to Prince Albert for the sake of influencing the election at a time when the Attorney General of Saskatchewan was seeking election in that part of the province, I being a French Canadian and a Roman Catholic. It was known to those who wanted to know the truth, that there was nothing in that statement. It had been decided weeks and weeks before it was known that there was to be an election that we should have a meeting at Prince Albert on Saturday night. In the meantime the election was announced. The election was on the very same day we were to have our meeting and our friends, without our knowledge, decided that it would be better to have the meeting the night before so as not to interfere with the election taking place next day. Instead of holding a meeting at Prince Mr. BERGERON.
Albert on Saturday night we held the Prince Albert meeting on Friday night, and held a meeting at Rosthern on Saturday night. And, Sir, the man who at that time was defending what my hon. friend from iMont-magny condemns to-day-and which I think is an act of infamy and a lack of good faith on the part of the Saskatchewan government towards the minority of that province-the man the Saskatchewan government had to defend that measure was a Roman Catholic and a French Canadian. Had we wanted to take any part in that election we could have done so, but we chose not to mention a word about the local election for we were there to discuss federal affairs and we spoke about nothing else but federal affairs. The election of Mr. Turgeon took place the next day. I saw a good many French Canadians on the evening of the meeting who were in favour of Mr. Turgeon because he was a Roman, Catholic and a French Canadian. Men I knew intimately said to me : How can we vote against a man of our race and our religion ; it is true he is championing what we are opposed to; we do not believe in Prime Minister Scott forcing the Roman Catholics of this province to contribute towards the support of schools to which we shall not be allowed to send our children, but how can we vote against one of ourselves, a Roman Catholic and a French Canadian? I neither answered yes nor no to that because had I spoken my own mind I certainly would have said something that would not please them. And, Sir, this is but the commencement of what is going to happen in Saskatchewan. When this government granted autonomy to the Northwest provinces they knew that thirty years before the minority in these provinces had been promised justice, and promised that they would have respected their rights and privileges in the matter of education. But to-day we have the Minister of Justice approving of a provincial law which will force the minority to pay taxes for schools to which they will not send their children.
Is that what the right hon. Prime Minister had in his mind when he changed the first clause, No. 16, for the second clause, No. 16. That was what was probably in the mind of the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and in the mind of the Minister of Finance, but surely the Prime Minister did not con- . template that. And when the delegate who represents the highest authority of the church accepted the second clause 16 was he told that before a year the government of Saskatchewan was going to give the lie to all the promises which had been made to him, and the minority would be forced to contribute towards the building of schools which their children would not be allowed to attend?


Samuel Hughes: Are we to understand from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ber-

geron) that the amended clause No. 16 had to be submitted to the delegate of Rome before it could be passed by the Canadian government?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I will tell my hon. friend this, and with his usual intelligence he can draw his own conclusions ; I can tell him that when it was decided to substitute the present clause 16 for the original clause 16 it was explained to the delegate. My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) can draw all the conclusions he wants from that. My hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne) appears to be surprised at all this but I can tell him that I am not a bit surprised. The party which prevented the minority in Manitoba from having their legal rights and privileges could not be expected to give justice to the provinces of the west. It is a most extraordinary thing that when the Manitoba Remedial Bill was before parliament the right hon. gentleman and all his followers from Quebec except seven of them, voted to prevent the Manitoba minority from getting their rights-I am not speaking about privileges now but their legal constitutional rights. And when the question was before the Manitoba legislature and when Mr. Roblin, the present premier of Manitoba, voted against the member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) who was then Prime Minister, and the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and Mr. Joseph Martin who were taking away from the Manitoba minority their rights and privileges as Roman Catholics and abolishing the use of the French language; when Mr. Robliu told these men that they were stealing from the Manitoba Catholics to act in such a way; when Mr. Roblin, a Protestant, took that course, nearly all the Roman Catholics in the legislature were against him and supported Mr. Greenway. It was a most extraordinary state of things and I direct the attention of my hon. friend from Montmagny to it. It was history repeating itself. It was like the settlement of the New Brunswick school question, when men were fighting there for their very existence and when high dignitaries of the church were accepting the half measure of Mr. Mackenzie. I will tell my hon. friend (Mr. Armand Lavergne) more than that:	In Manitoba today, where the Prime Minister of that province, a Conservative, is trying to be as kind as he can to the minority without transgressing the law, does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lavergne) know that it is Roman Catholics of Winnipeg who go over to the Manitoba ' Free Press ' and say :	Why
don't you write against Roblin because he is transgressing the law and allowing the Roman Catholics more privileges than they should have? It is French Canadians and Roman Catholics who are acting like that today. It is a most extraordinary state of things and l direct the attention of my 218*
hon. friend from Montmagny to it. The hon. gentleman is astonished but he will see a great deal more than that probably before very long. I want to say one word more. I want to tell the right hon. gentleman that this kind of thing has gone on for some time and that it may go on for some time longer but it will not go on for ever. Just fancy what occurred in this House in 1895 and 1896 in connection with the Manitoba Remedial Bill when a majority of Protestants and Orangemen in this parliament were voting to give their rights to the Catholic minority in Manitoba, and when the Roman Catholics in this House were voting against that measure. That kind of thing cannot last very long. A time will come when these people will discover the insincerity of those men who go to them and say : We are your friends, we think like you, don't you think we will do more for you than will the people over there who are Protestants and Orangemen. A time will come when there will be a stop put to that, and then I fear for the result. I am very glad that my hon. friend from Montmagny has brought this question before the House, i It is a matter to which the attention of the public should be hailed, but the hon. gentleman will find that he will not get much thanks from certain quarters.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not the first time in this House or out of it that I have seen a Roman Catholic trying to be more Catholic than the Pope, and we have just had an instance of that from my hon. friend from Beauharnois. It is not the first time he has raised discussions of tills kind, and that he has availed of every convenient opportunity to say something calculated to spread the very sentiments which he attributes to others. The hon. gentleman tells us that he was in Prince Albert during a certain election and for a certain purpose, and that a meeting which-he was to address along with the leader of the opposition and which was to come off on the day of the election at which Mr. Turgeon was running as attorney general for the province, was postponed ; not, mind you, till the day after that election but to the day before the election. Of course, the meeting could not take place on the very day of the election, and so it was transferred to the day before election, because it might interfere with polling, which would have been completed two hours before the meeting was held, and so it was transferred to the day before the elections. It could not be postponed till the day after the election, and so in order not to arouse those Roman Catholic prejudicies which he deprecates, or those Protestant prejudicies which he also deprecates, he had his meeting put off till the day before the election. If my hon. friend thinks this is not too thin, he is very much mistaken. He

says that co-religionists of his and of mine told him that they could not vote against Mr. Turgeon because he was a Roman Catholic, but they deprecated the legislation now under review. I take his word, but will my hon. friend permit me to tell him that if there were Roman Catholics in Prince Albert who entertained such sentiments as he now attributes to them, which he says were expressed by them to him, how is it that they proffered their complaint to him who could not do anything in the matter, while the government never heard a word of complaint from them ? My hon. friend says this legislation is a tyrannical invasion of tire very rights which have been conferred by this parliament on the minority. That is his complaint. I have to say this to my hon. friend, that from the day this legislation was passed to the present time there has never come from the province of Saskatchewan to this government a single word of complaint against it. With ail due deference to the great confidence which the minority repose in my hon. friend, I venture to believe that if they had been so oppressed as he says they were by that legislation, they would have thought proper to proffer that complaint, not to him, but to us. We are asked to disallow this legislation. If there were any substantial minority in the province of Saskatchewan to find fault with" that legislation, I suppose they would have done what was done by the minority in Manitoba in 1891, in 1892, in 1893, in 1891, in 1893, when the party supported by my hon. friend was in office. That minority complained to the government and asked for disallowance. The minority in the province of Manitoba had a grievance, and they brought that grievance before the parties who could remedy it. But the minority in Saskatchewan have not asked for the disallowance of this legislation. Under these circumstances I think that these men who went to my hon. friend and shed a tear on his bosom were very poorly advised. They could have done better than that on their own behalf if they had a grievance, a thing of which I have my own doubts. But my hon. friend tells us that this is the result of the measure we gave to the minority in 1905. My hon. friend remembers the legislation that we passed at that time. He knows that it was passed with his concurrence to a certain extent, but not with the concurrence of those who sit beside him. He knows that such questions are always involved in a great deal of difficulty. He knows that the Manitoba question, of which he spoke a few moments ago, was for five years before the government which he supported, and that they never dared in that time to come to a conclusion upon it, and he knows that when they undertook to give the minority a remedy, it was an illusory remedy. He knows that it is impossible to legislate on questions of this kind without arousing the prejudices, the hon-Sir WILFRID IAIIRIER
est prejudices, of either one section or the other. We did the best we could under the circumstances. We thought we gave the minority the legislation to which they were entitled. If I could have done more I would have done it, but I know this, that little as my hon. friend says we did, the minority in the province of Saskatchewan were duly thankful, and no one knows it better than the representatives of that province who sit in this House. Now, it is charged that the legislature of Saskatchewan has already violated the disposition of the statute which we then phased. If such be the feeling of the minority, which I do not believe, what would have taken place ? Before we could proceed on the lines my hon. friend suggests, we would have to consider this question :	Is this
legislation legal or illegal ? Is it an invasion of the rights of the minority or is it not ? Is it a violation of the dispositions contained in the Act of Saskatchewan or is it not ? Upon this question we have a division of authority. My hon. friend from Montmagny, who has looked into the question, says he cannot tell us whether the law is legal or illegal, whether it is intra vires or ultra vires of the legislature of Saskatchewan. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who is an authority on these questions, tells us that he has looked into this matter and he cannot find that the legislation is an invasion of the rights of the minority, and under such circumstances he would not advise disallowance. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), who is more of a champion of the rights of the minority in these later days than he was in former day, tells us that we should disallow the Act, though the Minister of Justice expresses the opinion that there is no violation of the law. I would expect that the members from the province of Quebec would be chary, and very chary, about advising the government to disallow any Act as to the validity of which there may be even a doubt. We have taken the position, in the province of Quebec and in the province of Ontario, that disallowance is a power to be exercised very sparingly, and unless it can be shown that the Act is absolutely illegal, it should be left to the courts to determine, because the subject is too sacred a one to be lightly treated.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say a word.


Charles Marcil: With the indulgence of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Spoke.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I ask only witli the permission of the House, but I shall have another chance of doing it, and I will do it better.


Mr. ARMAND LAYERGNE.: If the hon. Minister of Justice had answered my ques-

tion, which was put as plainly in French as I could make it, and had made only one-half the statement he has made this afternoon, probably this debate would not have taken place. What we might have expected from the Minister of justice was that he would have said that the government were informed that the statutes were legal, and the debate would have ended there ; or that the government were informed that the statutes were illegal and that he would look into the matter. It would have been less curt and less brutal to the minority. The minister knows that I am making no personal attack against him. I have simply taken his answer as he gave it, and it is not the first time he has answered my questions in that way. So long as the curtness of his replies merely reflected on my own personality, or indicated lack of personal regard for myself, I paid no heed to that fact, but when interests more important than my personal feelings are involved,
I think it my duty to protest. The hon. minister has accused me of mis-statement when I said that this government had shown no scruple in disallowing statutes regarding immigration passed by the province of British Columbia, and he added that it was not the government but the courts that had disallowed the British Columbia statutes. Well, on the very same day I find this question put by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith):
What number of provincial Acts in all the provinces have been disallowed by the Dominion government since January, 1904, to January, 1908, and in what provinces respectively ?
To this question the Minister of Justice replied :
Five; all Acts of British Columbia.
Two of these statutes were to regulate immigration into British Columbia, and these two statutes, with two others following relating to other matters, were re-enactments of statutes which had been previous-1 ly disallowed and were disallowed again for the same reasons. The minister must admit therefore that I made no mis-statement of fact, and it is evident this government has been more anxious to disallow provincial statutes passed by a province which wanted to exclude undesirable immigration than disallow statutes which take away the rights of the minority. I would just say a word in reply to my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron). I know that in this parliament we need not expect that any statute passed .by any province will be disallowed out of respect for the rights of the minority. We have seen no such disallowance in the past, I care not under what government, and I do not expect any change in the future. I know therefore that my protest is useless. And as I am not Minister of Justice, I know that my opinion is not worth mentioning, but that opinion nevertheless is that these
statutes of the province of Saskatchewan have a strong flavour of illegality, and if not disallowed, the government of that province will be able to tax the minority for schools in which they do not believe and make them pay for schools to which they will not send their children. That is likely to be the result of the autonomy law which was passed in 1907. It seemed to me that that law did protect the minority in that respect but it may not. I was in favour of clause 16, not as it was drafted by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), but as it was drafted by the then Minister of Justice (Sir Charles Fitzpatrick). Unfortunately however when the hon. member for Brandon resigned from the government on that question, the government took fright and allowed him to redraft the clause. I stood with six other members of this House in favour of the clause as first drawn, but the law as it now stands is an accomplished fact and we cannot undo it. My words therefore are useless, but nevertheless I thought it my duty to take the stand I have done, and I hope I can leave my case in safety in the hands of the English speaking majority of this House and country.
Motion to adjourn negatived.


CANNED GOODS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 147) to repeal the Canned Goods Act.-Mr. Fisher-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is an old statute, passed twenty years ago, which has never been put into effect. It applies to all canned goods, whether sold in the province or not, whereas the Act we passed last year only applies to foreign and interprovincial trade. When we passed the Act of last year, we decided that it would be better to leave the local trade in the hands of the provincial authorities. As last year's Act deals with the matter, there is no reason why the previous Act should remain in our statutes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But suppose the local authorities do not do their duty, you will expose the whole province to the danger of having canned goods sold, which are injurious to health.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That point was thoroughly discussed last year, and parliament in its wisdom decided that it would be better for the Dominion not to undertake to deal with purely local trade. My hon. friend seems to intimate that we ought to hold the power to act in case the provincial or municipal authorities will not do so.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not disposed to agree with my hon. friend .because if we hold the power the municipal or provincial authorities may take that as a reason for not

themselves acting ; whereas if we relieve ourselves of that duty, then the municipal am] provincial authorities will have to act. It is almost impossible for a department of this government to deal with these purely local affairs and it is contrary to the general spirit of our constitution. There is no doubt as to the authority of municipal and provincial authorities to deal with these matters of public health and sanitary affairs, while eminent authorities have expressed doubt as to our power to do so. Unless it is absolutely necessary for us to undertake that work, I believe it will be better to leave it in the entire control of those as to whose authority there is no doubt. If we retain the power here to deal with these matters it affords the local and provincial authorities an excuse for their remissness, whereas if we have not the power it is clearly incumbent upon them to take action and the public will hold them responsible if they are remiss.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Have the provinces the organization and legislation necessary to carry on the work ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They have the machinery in their health officers, market inspectors, &c. I cannot at the moment quote the exact scope of the provincial statutest but they can, at any time, add to their statutes whatever provisions are required. The provisions of the Act concerning export and interprovincial trade are covered by the Canned Goods Act of last year and therefore there is no necessity for the existence of this Act, especially as the penalties imposed in it are much less than those under the Act of last year and some people maintain that they should be prosecuted under this Act and not under the Act of last year.


Mr. R. E. BORDEN.: Why, for instance, is it necessary to repeal the section of this old statute requiring that every package of canned goods for local consumption must, be stamped with the name and address of the packer ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have explained to my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) the reasons for doing this, that it was thought better to allow these matters of purely local trade to be left to the local authorities.


John Dowsley Reid: After this Act is passed, exports will be subject to inspection ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: By the Act of last session.
ill1. J. D. REID. According to the Act of last year there was an inspection for interprovincial trade. Now under this Act is that inspection abandoned for local trade or interprovincial trade?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


John Dowsley Reid: For instance, goods manufactured in the province of Quebec Mr. FISHER.
and sold to a Montreal wholesale merchant, can they be distributed into other provinces?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Subject to the Act of last session.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, if they are manufactured in that particular province they would not be subject to inspection?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are subject to inspection if they go out of the province.


John Dowsley Reid: Therefore, local trade throughout the Dominion is practically without inspection?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as we are concerned, yes.


John Dowsley Reid: So far as the Dominion government is concerned. I do not see how the provincial governments can carry an inspection into force. For instance, to-day a person can ship an animal from the province of Ontario to the. province of Quebec without inspection, and that animal may be diseased. Even if it is a dead animal they can ship it without inspection. For instance, any person in my own county can purchase dead hogs and ship them to Montreal without any inspection whatever.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, by the Act of last session that has been forbidden up to the present time. If it is not shipped to a packing house which has been declared to be under the operation of that law. it is forbidden.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see anything in the other Act with regard to false marking the quantity or weight of the package.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 17, subsection 3.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This all applies to exportations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The whole Act applies to exported articles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the other would apply either to products for home consumption or to exports.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman will read the Act 134, he will find that clause 3 says ' every package of canned goods, &c., in Canada for consumption therein.' It does not apply to exports.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it would apply to a product used for home consumption but not exported. Then if I understand it, chapter 27 does not provide any remedy for false marking the quantity of goods in any package when they are to be used for home consumption. That ought to be provided for also.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have already explained that so far as the local consumption is concerned, that would come within the purview of provincial or municipal authorities to deal with.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Don't you do it with regard to butter and cheese? We passed a law here some years ago concerning markings on cheese.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me the proposal of the minister is a departure from the policy which has been in force in this country for the last twenty years. This Act was obviously passed for the purpose of protecting public health, among other things. You find it in the revised statutes immediately following the statute wThich forbids adulteration. You might as well say that the Act respecting adulteration should only apply to articles for export. The minister shakes his head, but that does not settle the matter by any means. Now, why is it that the parliament of Canada, having jurisdiction over public health, should by this statute permit any person throughout the country, so far as this parliament can permit, to put up packages on which the date nr the weight, or the quantity may be falsely stated? What particular inconvenience or detriment was the country suffering from the enforcement of this Act for the past twenty years?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has never been enforced.	'


Robert Laird Borden: That might be a verv good reason for enforcing it, but it is not a very good reason for repealing it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have explained it.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has explained it. but he has not explained it very satisfactorily to my mind. He says that this is a matter that might be dealt with by the provinces and that it had better be dealt with by the provincial or municipal authorities under provincial laws.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For local purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: For local purposes. Is there any particular reason why this parliament, having jurisdiction over public health, should not enforce the provisions of this Act all over Canada? What is the particular reason against it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not quite sure that this parliament has jurisdiction over public health. That is a moot question.


Frederick William Borden: Well, if it had no jurisdiction over the subject dealt with by this statute it has surely no jurisdiction as to the adulteration of food.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What provision of the British North America Act would support the statute in regard to adulteration of food and would not support this?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say offhand that there is any particular section defining it. but I can only reiterate the argument which was made here last year when the Act
was passed that it was unwise for us to undertake local business which was clearly within the purview of the provincial or municipal authorities and which might not be within our powers. I can only say that it is possible that it is not within our powers. It may be within our powers. I am not altogether sure upon that point. There is a question as to whether it is within our powers whereas there is no question ns to its being within the local powers. I therefore thought it was better not to undertake to enter upon a work that is clearly and definitely local and in regard to whch possibly we might find ourselves without due authority, especially when, as I consider, it is better not to have a mixed authority in regard to any subject. It is better where a subject is clearly and definitely within the purview of one authority that the doubtful authority should not enter into that field.


Robert Laird Borden: What brings it definitely within provincial authority?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no question about the provincial authorities being able to deal with market inspection, meat inspection and things of that kind in connection with the sale of foods. We all know perfectly well that every considerable municipality provides for the protection of the public health, that municipal authorities, under the provincial laws, have local health boards everywhere. There is a law in the various provinces giving authority to municipalities to provide for the inspection of foods sold within their respective limits.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But they have no power to analyse.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They can analyse for the purpose of enforcing the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They certainly have no staff for that purpose. The Department of Inland Revenue makes an analysis of food in connection noth the enforcement of the Adulteration of Foods Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know that in Montreal there is an analyst who is employed by the board of health of that city and whose special business it is to analyse foods sold there. He is regularly employed, I am inclined to think, on salary, but if not on salary, on fees. I used to know a gentleman who was engaged in that work. Dr. Girdwood was employed for years for that purpose. I know there is an analyst in the city of Toronto, although I cannot give his name.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That might apply to large cities, but it does not applv to rural districts generally. Under the Inspection of Foods Act, which was passed years ago, the country was divided into districts, and each district had its analyst to whom samples of food might be sent for analysis. The local authorities do not provide for the

analysis of food as far as I know. We have here the weights and measures branch of the Department of Inland Revenue, so that the question of weights and measures must be controlled by us and the inspection must be made by the federal authorities. The Department of Inland Revenue make an analysis of food under the Adulteration of Foods Act to ascertain whether they are adulterated or not. The work in that respect is not duplicated by the provinces in so far as I know. It has always heretofore been understood that the adulteration of food was attended to by the Inland Revenue Department, that it looked after the adulteration of molasses, honey, butter and everything of that kind, and if you drop it here I am quite sure the provinces are not likely to take it up. They have not the machinery that we have to do it, and they are not likely to do it to the extent that the interest of the people requires.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not been able to find any instance of the enforcement of this Act during the twenty years it has been on the statute-book. This matter has been attended to by the provinces.


Haughton Lennox: How does this question arise at this time? We passed the law of last year dealing with the subject and I would like to know whether there have been any protests or representations from any of the local governments. This statute, as I understand it, has been in force for twenty years, and unless there have been some protests from some of the local governments it seems rather peculiar that this question should now arise at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The way in which the question arose was that when we were undertaking to enforce the new Act there was some question as to whether the penalties provided by this Act or the penalties under the new Act of last year should apply. A question was raised as to the legality of the prosecution under the new Act. As we did not see that the old Act was of any benefit we thought it better to repeal it.


Haughton Lennox: The question arose as to the legality of the new Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not as to the legality- I should not say that-but as to which Act the prosecution ought to be taken under.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose that you had the Act under which you were attempting to prosecute, would you not lay the complaint under that statute? I would think that you would lay it under the statute that you were undertaking to enforce.


Mr. LANCASTER.: In my opinion the very reasons given by the minister for repealing this Act would be the very best reasons for repealing, or improving the Act of last session and making it apply to the Mr. SPROULE.
whole trade. Last session I had the temerity to say that the Bill ought to apply to the food that Canadians eat as well as to the food that is shipped out of the country for other people to eat. I have been confirmed in that opinion after having conversed with my constituents and with people in various parts of the country since then and I am bound to warn the minister here, in so far as my humble opinion may be regarded as any warning, that if it is a wise thing, notwithstanding what he says about mixed jurisdictions, for this government to interfere, I think it should interfere in regard to all food and not limit it to the food consumed by a certain class of people. While my hon. friend's inspectors, under the. Act of last year are doing their work, while they are seeing that these marks are upon packages of food which are intended for the export trade .and while they are condemning food that they find not up to the standard for export, w-hy should this Act not provide that the condemned food shall not be eaten by Canadians ? What province is going to create a civil war because the Dominion government should undertake to protect the lives and the health of the people of that province ? I believe the Dominion government should do all within its power to guarantee the purity of the food we eat. but, if the Minister of Agriculture is going to say that food for export shall be pure and shall be condemned if it is not pure, why should he be afraid of oflleuding any province by saying that the food which is eaten locally shall also be pure? I have not even a remote idea that any province would raise a question of provincial rights under such circumstances as that. If the Act is not applicable to the conditions it is intended to remedy it ought to be repealed, but if by repealing it you are going to remove the only protection we have to the lives and health of Canadians, then I would certainly be against its repeal. In my opinion the provisions of this measure should apply to the province in which the goods are produced as well as to other provinces or to foreign countries.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a new thing for the Minister of Agriculture to be so anxious about provincial rights, and I am father surprised at his anxiety in this case. 'This is a most important measure and this parliament should do all it can to improve the food products of this country. The minister has not yet been able to show that any provincial government has complained because the federal government is applying this law to all the provinces, and until there is such a complaint I think we should assume that wre have power to take measures for the protection of the health and the lives of our people. Under existing circumstances hogs can be shipped for export

to Montreal and if an animal is found diseased his export is prevented, but it can be disposed of locally and given as fool to the working people of that city. In the same way the unhealthy organs of an animal are taken out and while the meat would not be allowed to be exported, it can be shipped to Montreal, Toronto and other centres and disposed of there. The Minister of Agriculture knows that in repealing this law he is taking a retrograde step, and I am surprised he should propose to parliament any such measure. The bon. gentleman tells us that a judge cannot tell under which Act he is to impose a" penalty, but if there is any doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court it would be a sensible thing for the minister to propose an amendment to the law which would make it plain.


Robert Laird Borden: While the government seems to have one policy with regard to canned food they have an entirely different policy with regard to drugs, because Bill 146, which has been Introduced by the Minister of Inland Revenue, contains provisions of exactly the same character as those which the present Bill proposes to repeal. Section 4 of the Inland Revenue Bill says:
All proprietary or patent medicines shall be put up in packages and bottles and every one of them intended for sale or distribution in Canada shall have ulaced upon it in conspicuous characters forming an inseparable part of the general label the name and number under which the medicine is registered and also the manufacturer's name and address.
Section 7 says:
No proprietary or patent medicine can be manufactured, imported, exposed, sold or offered for sale when it contains any drug which is included under schedule A of this Act and the name of which is not conspicuously printed on the label.
I cannot see any distinction in principle between the provisions now proposed to be repealed and the provisions In chapter 134, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1900. The minister says there is some doubt as to our power to legislate as to public health. Wherein Is the power contained which enables us to legislate with regard to the adulteration of food ; wherein is the power to be found which enables us to legislate respecting proprietary and patent medicines?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will explain, in answer to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) I may say, that last session we fully discussed the application of the Bill not only to local but to export matters. I want to take straight issue with my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) upon o.ne point. I am sorry he is not in the House, he said what he had to say and then goes away evidently not taking enough interest in the discussion to follow it up.


Haughton Lennox: He may have a reason far leaving the chamber.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He may be back. I do not think it is the duty of this parliament to supplement or implement the duties of another legislature. I grant that if it is the duty of this parliament to look after the public health, we ought to perform that duty ; but I do not think this parliament is called on to do or ought to do what it is the duty of the local legislatures to do ; and if the local legislatures are remiss in the performance of their duties, that is not a reason why this parliament should step in and perform those duties. I take direct issue with the hon. gentleman on that point. This parliament would be committing a wrong if it overstepped the bounds of its duty and did what the local legislatures ought to do and are remiss in doing. The local legislatures are simply shirking the question, and the people should hold them to their duty and not call upon another legislature to do that which is no , part of its duty. Last session it was clear- " ly understood and discussed, and I think unanimously decided by parliament, that as the provincial legislatures, through their municipal Acts and their health Acts, had full power to deal with these subjects so far as they related to trade within the province, this parliament would not legislate upon them in that respect.


Mr. CROCKET.: X would like to ask the minister if he holds that this parliament has not the power to pass such legislation ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I do not hold it. I have said, however, that a doubt has been raised on that point.


Robert Laird Borden: Who has raised it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A number of lawyers.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the opinion of the Minister of Justice been sought on this matter ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Minister of Justice said he was not prepared to say positively that we had not the power, but he said that there was a doubt as to our power.


Robert Laird Borden: If there is a doubt about it, it seems to me that there is a similar doubt about the Adulteration Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so, because that Act applies to commerce all over the country, both that Act and the Act respecting proprietary medicines. These relate to subjects of general commerce in the country, which are not subject to local restrictions or police regulations. '


Robert Laird Borden: The minister is entirely mistaken, as I will show him in a moment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to point out what I think is the difference. The restrictions in the Adulteration of Foods Act

and the Patent Medicines Act are not confined to any particular locality, but apply to general trade in the country everywhere. The Act passed last session applies to all trade which is not within a province- to interprovincial trade and to export trade; because the provincial and local authorities could not deal with these. But the provincial and local authorities can deal with transactions which are entirely within one province or one locality, therefore it is not necessary for this parliament to deal with them, and I think it is better that we should not do so. Where the provincial legislature can deal with the inspection aud sale of food in a locality or withiu the bounds of the province, I contend that it is the duty of the provincial legislature to deal with it, aud if it is their duty, it is not wise for us to step in and do what the provincial legislature is called on by the constitution of the country to do.


Mr.   I@: The minister has absolutely convinced me that there is not the slightest ground in anything he has said for the repeal of this Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was not discussing that now.


Robert Laird Borden: I admit that the minister has confused two things ; he has confused the jurisdiction to p>ass the Act with the expediency or the necessity of continuing it. I will deal in the first place witli the question of jurisdiction, which he has explained not to my satisfaction, but in a way absolutely contrary to the position he has taken. He justifies the jurisdiction of parliament to pass the Adulteration Act and the Act respecting Patent Medicines on the ground that these extend to trade and commerce all over Cau-ada. The Act which he is repealing does precisely the same thing, and therefore he has argued most convincingly that this parliament has absolute power to pass the Act respecting Canned Goods. Therefore his suggestion that parliament has not jurisdiction to pass it falls completely to the ground.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend has uot understood me at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I have understood the hon. gentleman a little too well. Let us take up the other argument. Let us not confuse two things ; jurisdiction is one thing, the advisability or expediency of passing a statute is another. I find no words in the British North America Act which enables parliament to pass the Adulteration Act or the Act respecting Patent Medicines which would not also enable parliament to pass the Act respecting Canned Goods. Let us now come to the question of expediency. The minister says parliament has no duty in respect of this particular matter because it can be dealt with Mr. FISHER
better by the provinces who will enable the particular municipalities to pass by-laws regarding it. In that connection let me point out that the words in section 92 of the British North America Act ' Municipal institutions,' do uot go quite so far probably in the direction the hon. minister suggests as he may imagine. There have been pronouncements of the Privy Council on the construction of those particular works. I find, in the Adulteration of Food Act, that you may not offer milk for sale if a certain quantity of water has been added or certain constituents taken therefrom. How is it that milk is less a matter of local consumption than canned goods or why is it more the duty of parliament to legislate with regard to milk than canned goods ? I can see no distinction. If any distinction be made,' milk might be regarded as more of a local article than canned goods. So far as expediency is concerned, I can see no reason for eliminating the Act respecting canned goods from our statutes and leaving the Act respecting the adulteration of milk.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act of last session covers everything except the local trade and it is only a question of the previous Act remaining on the statutes for the purposes of the local trade. Under the Act of last session we are required to have inspectors wherever the goods to which that Act applies are produced in Canada and sent out from one province to another or to foreign countries.	.


Mr.   I@: What is the difference between that Act and the Adulteration Act or the Act regarding Patent Medicines?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The difference is this. The Act we passed last session regarding canned meats and canned goods requires that we should have inspectors wherever the goods to which the Act applies are produced in Canada and sent from one province to another or outside the country. The adulteration of Foods Act and the Patent medicines Act do not require a complete system of inspection. They are a good deal like the Fruit Marks Act in that respect.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon. gentleman dealing with the question of jurisdiction or expediency ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Expediency. The matter was dealt with last session from that standpoint. If we were required to undertake a very complete inspection of all canned meat goods, for local as well as interprovincial and export trade, we would be asking something practically impossible for a department of the Dominion government to do effectively.


Robert Laird Borden: Leaving the Act on the statute-book does not bring about any such results.

6S82


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If it remains, it is in direct conflict with the principle on which the Act of last session is intended to be administered.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see how.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To this extent The clear intent of the Act of last session is that the local trade is not to be dealt with.


Robert Laird Borden: The result of leaving the first Act on the statute-book is simply this. So far as the articles for interprovincial trade or export are concerned, you must have inspection. So far as concerns the articles for local consumption in the province, you would still have prohibition of false labels or statements.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That Act has been on the statute-book some twenty years and has never been enforced, but when we began to enforce the new Act there seemed to be a clash or doubt, because the provisions of the new Act are different for the same kind of offence from those of the old Act. I do not think it matters very much whether it remains on the statutes or not, but it has never been enforced.


Robert Laird Borden: It ought to be.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It provides no machinery for its enforcement. It would have to be amended and machinery created for its enforcement, and it would be impossible, unless the Dominion inspectors are to be increased infinitely, for them to undertake to do work which is purely local.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then what need was there for clause 10 of the Adulteration of Foods Act which provides for the appointment by the Inland Revenue Department of local inspectors to examine articles of food in any city, township, county or other municipality, after they have passed an examination showing their competence to act as inspectors, on the nomination of the municipality ? That is purely local and purely for the safety of health. The Adulteration of Foods Act defines clearly what shall be considered as adulteration. '


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a question of adulteration, not of public health.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is an Act respecting the adulteration of foods and other articles, it defines adulteration and provides for these inspectors all over the country. They are local inspectors, but that service is administered by the Inland Revenue Department.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not for public health only but for trade and commerce, because they are deceiving the public in pretending to sell something which they are not selling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it is for public health, because it provides for the case of articles injurious to public health: it deals
not with export trade but with public health. What does it mean by saying that vinegar shall be considered as adulterated if any mineral acid or vegetable salt having copper or lead as its base has been added thereto? That is adulteration because it is injurious to health.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Partly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the reason we take it up, we do not say anything about commerce.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, this is for public health. It is the same with regard to alcohol and milk. Milk to which water is added becomes adulterated.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not health.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is for the benefit of health.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is because you are being cheated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you are feeding children on milk represented to be pure which is not pure and you are destroying the health of the infant, because the milk is of less value


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is it, because it is of less value.


Robert Laird Borden: So with canned goods improperly dated, the consumer is getting less value.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it is a matter of trade and commerce.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Stuart Lake: The discussion on this Bill has included the Meat and Canned Foods Act passed last year. Before this Bill passes I wish to aslc the Minister of Agriculture if he has made any special provision for such parts of the world as the northwestern provinces.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As soon as this Bill passes I will ask the committee to take up the next Bill which deals with the Meat and Canned Foods Act. I will suggest that my hon. friend wait until that Bill comes up.


Haughton Lennox: I think that if we are repealing this Act because we have not jurisdiction to deal with it in this parliament, we must repeal a great many other Acts standing in practically the same position. I understood the minister to say that one of the main reasons, if not the reason, for this Act is that a doubt had been expressed as to the jurisdiction of this parliament. and that the suggestion had been made that this was a matter which should

bo left within the exclusive control of provincial legislatures, so far as this Act that we now propose to repeal chapter 123 is concerned. I understand the minister to say that this Act had not been enforced as a matter of law, but that it was practically a dead letter. As to that I do not know : I take it that the Minister of Agriculture has ascertained that to be a fact. But assuming that to be a fact, wTe must not shut our eyes to this other fact, that as soon as we repeal this Act there will be an intimation to all parties who have found this Act embarrassing, that they are no longer controlled by it as they were before. So we may expect that tile evils that sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 were aimed at will probably prevail. I am not innocent enough to believe that the minister has not some reason for wanting to promote this legislation, and I am almost suspicious enough to believe that there are some motives for promoting this legislation that the minister has not seen fit, for reasons of state or otherwise, to divulge to the House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have given all my reasons.


Haughton Lennox: At all events, there is this peculiarity, that we find the minister, who is an astute and clever debater, resorting to arguments which, so far as I can see and as appears to many other members on this side of the House, are not borne out by the facts before us. I commend the minister on the position he has taken, and I suppose he stands alone in the cabinet in that regard, in realizing to some extent the proper limits of provincial rights. I would be glad if other members of the government were more pressed by the desirability of keeping strictly within the limits of our own jurisdiction. I agree with the minister when he says that the failure of a provincial legislature to exercise jurisdiction is no reason why we should usurp it and attempt to legislate. I am with the minister in another respect, that I think we have too much legislation. I am bound to say that the minister who is promoting this legislation is not the least guilty of the ministers in that regard. I often think that if there is anything in which he has conspicuously erred it is iu having tried to spoon feed the farmers, and in interfering too much with private and domestic concerns, trying to legislate where no legislation is required. So in this view I am not at all sorry that he is repealing this Act, and I would be glad if he would sweep away a lot of other legislation that he has put upon the statute book recently. But this statute is an old statute of some twenty years standing, and while I agree with him that we are interfering far too much with provincial rights, yet when we have a statute in existence for some twenty years we ought to hesitate very much before repealing it. As regards the difference between Mr. LENNOX.
this statute and others, such as the Adulteration of Foods Act, I am entirely unable to follow the minister in his reasoning. The Act chapter 144 is, so far as it goes, an Act that relates to every package of canned goods that is put up for consumption in Canada, not in any particular province or locality, or by any particular class of men. Misrepresentations relate to all misrepresentations in Canada. The Act is as general and as broad as Canada itself. When I turn to the statute immediately preceding that, the Adulteration of Foods Act, I find that it is also general iu its character relating to questions of health and also relating to questions of trade and commerce. I quite agree with the minister when he says that pot only does this Adulteration of Foods Act deal wTith questions of public health, but it also deals with questions of trade and commerce, with dealings between man and man and that it aims, in addition to protecting public health, at securing honest dealing between parties. So, we have this provision in section 23 :
Milk from which the cream has been removed by skimming, or bv a separator or creamer, may be sold as skim milk, if contained in cans bearing upon their exterior the word ' skimmed ' in letters of not less than two inches in length.
Can the Minister of Agriculture point out how that provision is broader or more general in its nature than sections 3, 4, 5 and <j of the statute which be proposes to repeal ? I am not at all opposed to simplifying- legislation and I would not be sorry if we could eliminate some of the provisions of law that the minister has from time to time introduced. I am delighted to find that he is, for the time being, a convert to the principle of provincial rights. The sin of ignoring provincial rights is becoming more prevalent every day and I take this as an intimation that we will have a better state of things soon. Maybe to-night we will have a question of provincial rights before us in another form. I notice that the Adulteration of Foods Act has been held to be intra vires of this parliament in the case of the Queen vs. Stone, so that if we have the power to pass the Adulteration of Foods Act we had certainly the right to pass the other Act. We have legislation with regard to the subject of adulterating maple syrup and sugar -which contains a provision that if these articles are not pure there shall be a statement on the can or receptacle that they are adulterated or mixed. I see that the law is observed to some extent at all events and that is exactly upon the line of the statute that we propose to repeal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood from the minister that one reason why he proposes to repeal this law is that there was some confusion, when prosecutions took place, as to which Act would apply, having regard to the penalties imposed. Could he give

any instance of suc-li a prosecution taking place ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot give an instance. The deputy minister drew my attention to the fact and told me that that was the case but I could not give an instance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When you draw an indictment against an individual do you do it under a certain statute and under a certain clause of that statute? The violation of that clause must have some penalty attached to it in the statute and I cannot understand how there will be any confusion in prosecuting under such a statute as to which penalty shall apply. The penalties in the statute should be the penalties that would apply to a case taken under the statute.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I confess I cannot exactly explain what the difficulty was that arose but I know" there was such a difficulty.


John Dowsley Reid: The Act that the minister proposes to repeal and which deals with canned goods applies to Canada as a whole. Section 12 of the Act of 1907 provides that :
All articles prepared for food in any establishment and packed in cans or similar reT ceptacles, or in any package whatever, shall be subject to inspection during the whole course of preparation and packing; and all such packages shall be marked with-
(a)	The initials of the Christian names, the full surname, and the address, or, in the case of a firm or corporation, the firm or corporate name and address, of the packer;
(b)	A true and correct description of the contents of the package.
Now this is the provision that I suppose conflicts ;
Provided, however, that if it be established to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that such marking would hinder the sale of any of said articles in the British or foreign markets, he may exempt such articles from the provisions of this section.
That implies that the Act has reference entirely to the export trade. Is there any reason why the minister should not embody in this Bill a clause that would cover the whole of Canada ? There is no objection, as I understand, from any of the provincial governments. It strikes me that there is some other motive than that of simply desiring to repeal the Act, that there has been some influence brought to bear on the government to secure the repeal of the Act.
Mr. FISHER, You are altogether too 'suspicious.


John Dowsley Reid: I have reasons to be suspicious.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, you have not.


John Dowsley Reid: The Act of 1907 applies entirely to goods that are exported. If a person were brought up for violating the
law', as I understand it, no judge would convict him under this Act, because it simply applies to export goods, but a conviction could be secured if the Act which has been in existence for twenty years were retained upon the statute-book. If there has been no complaint from the provincial governments why should not that Act be allowed to stand or else amend the Act of last year in such a w7ay that it will apply to goods consumed in Canada as well as to export goods ? I want the Act to apply to the whole of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend had this question pretty thoroughly explained to him this afternoon. I do not think I could explain it any more clearly. I do not know why my hon. friend does not understand it. The imputation of the hon. gentleman that there is anything behind [DOT]what I said is absolutely without foundation or justification. I have given my reasons and I want the hon. gentleman and his friends to understand that there are no other reasons in my thoughts. It is therefore not right for them to say that I am hiding ideas or reasons. My hon. friend should accept that statement, and it is true. I state frankly to the hon. gentleman that the parliament of Canada decided last year that a clause should not be inserted making this Act apply to local trade within the province.


John Dowsley Reid: That is because we had an Act that did apply to it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it was not. The hon. gentleman did not know that Act was there.


John Dowsley Reid: I knew it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was not referred to during the whole discussion. The hon. gentleman himself I believe urged that the Act of 1907 should apply to local trade.


John Dowsley Reid: Why should it not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because parliament decided that the Act of 1907 should not apply to local trade and it is not feasible that it should apply to it. The only reason for repealing this Act is that it provides for somewhat the same offences, different penalties and different provisions from the Act of 1907 covering practically the same thing. As a matter of fact, section 134, R.S.C., has been on the statute-books for over 20 years, and it has been practically a dead letter ever since. The Act of 1907 deals with interprovincial and export trade and it is well known that the provincial authorities can deal with the trade within the provinces.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no reason why both these Acts should not be incorporated into one. The necessity for protecting our Canadian market was discussed last year, and the Minister of Agriculture preferred to have chapter 134 apply to local condi-

tions, and so long as we had that Act it was satisfactory, although I would like to have the whole thing included in the meat and Canned Foods Act. My idea is to protect our own Canadian people as well as foreigners, but the repeal of this Act leaves our people without protection. Even if the provincial governments have laws bearing on tlie subject, there are unorganized territories under federal jurisdiction, and if for no other reason this Act should be left on the statute-books so that they might be protected.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Is that the only reason the hon. gentleman has?


John Dowsley Reid: Have I not given other reasons?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as that particular reason is concerned, the only unorganized territories are Mackenzie, Keewatin, and as there are not going to be any canned goods put up in these territories for a number of years to come, they are protected by the Act of 1907 the moment canned goods are shipped to them from any of the provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that certain* clauses of chapter 134, which it is proposed to repeal, are practically repeated in the Meat and Canned Goods Act. Section 17 of chapter 134 provides a penalty for falsely representing the weight in the package or falsely representing the date, and that applies to canned goods for home consumption as well as for export. But if chapter 134 is repealed then the corresponding provision in the other Act would only apply to export goods that are to be sent out of a province.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is quite right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Don't you think it is a very salutary provision to guarantee the date of canning and the quantity in the package? If you repeal chapter 134 there is no enactment to prevent false marking of goods put up for consumption within a province.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is quite right in saying that so far as the Dominion law is concerned, there would not be any such provision if this Act is repealed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They have been depending on the federal law all along.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Although they have been depending on the federal law. it does not provide any machinery for the enforcement of its provisions, and the consequence is that anything that is done under it can only be done by the authority of inspectors provided by provincial Acts for provincial organizations. The Act of 1907 does provide full machinery for the enforcement of its provisions, but it does not provide macbin-Mr. J. D. t?EID.
ery for the enforcement of the provisions of chapter 134.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Clause 7 of chapter 134 provides for lodging a complaint before a justice of the peace. That is all the machinery that is required to put the law in motion and to secure the infliction of a penalty. It is the same as many other laws in that respect. Although there may never have been a conviction under the Act, I am far from reaching the conclusion that it is of no value. We know that many laws which provide penalties for doing wrong are the very things whioh prevent people from doing wrong-they fear the danger of the penalty. How can we tell how many thousands of people have been prevented from falsely marking goods by fear of the penalty provided by this law. The fact that no prosecutions have taken place under it may be only because people knowing that the law was in existence were deterred from violating it to the extent that would bring them under the ban of the law. If this law has been instrumental in preventing people committing these offencgs, though no prosecution has taken place under it, it would be valuable nevertheless.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend perhaps did not understand what I meant when I said that there was no machinery provided for enforcing this Act. 1 grant that there is a penalty provided, but there is no machinery for inspection. It was only because the Act of 1907 provided machinery for the enforcement of that Act that anybody found that this Act was in existence, though it was absolutely ignored.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under the provisions of this Act inspectors are not so much required, because any one dealing in the article can lodge a complaint before a justice of the peace. If this Act is repealed, I think we ought to go further and amend the Meat and Canned Foods Inspection Act, and make clause 7 of chapter 134, both as to quantity and weight and false marks, apply to goods manufactured for consumption in the country as well as to goods for export. If the minister would amend the other Acts in that respect, I do not think there would be any objection to the repeal of this Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I would not do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I do not think the hon. gentleman is justified in repealing this Act, and I do not think he would do so if pressure of some kind had not been brought to bear upon him.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nothing of the kind. The hon. gentleman has no right to impute motives.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am saying nothing that I have no right to say, and I will repeat it if the hon. gentleman desires. From what

I have heard I have reason to believe that some representations were made from sources that might be interested to have this Act repealed. That is the information I have ; whether it is correct or not I do not know.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like the hon. gentleman to state what sources they are and from whom the representations were made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be from the very parties who have not disclosed their aim, and who. because of dread of the enforcement of this Act, dare not embark on the lines which they contemplate doing, and which they will be likely to do when this Act is repealed.


John Dowsley Reid: Why did the hon. minister not repeal this Act last session ?
Mr. FISHER, Because the matter was not then brought to my attention.


Mr. KEMP.: In regard to the Canned Meats and Inspection Acts passed last session, has the minister ]jad representations made to him by wholesale grocers in regard to private brands ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As soon as this Bill is passed, I am going to take up an amendment to the other Act, when that whole question will come up.


Albert Edward Kemp: But the hon. gentleman has had representations made to him from reputable wholesale merchants ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Tes, and I ,intend to bring up amendments to that Act.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the minister if any representations have been made to him in regard to chapter 134 by any of the parties who put up canned meats or foods for the local market ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Representations were made that the trade did not know which Act to follow in regard to the marks on the cans.
Mr. .1. D. REID. Have these representations been made by people putting up canned meats or foods ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, the people who come under the provisions of the Act.


John Dowsley Reid: By those engaged in the export trade or those engaged in the local trade ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Both.


John Dowsley Reid: These are the people who have made representations to the minister and have asked that this Act be repealed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They simply wanted to know what they should do-which Act they should follow. I could not see any advantage in having the two Acts, and I thought
the simplest way was to repeal this Act and leave the other in force, and thus avoid confusion.


John Dowsley Reid: If everything they put up that way is entirely for export, how could this interfere with it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The two Acts provide for two different markings, and they say they do not know what Act to follow when putting labels on their goods.


John Dowsley Reid: Why not then have amended the old Act by simply making the markings the same?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No doubt, that would have met that particular point. But there is no object in keeping the Act on the statutes, and I thought the simplest way was to repeal it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Act passed last year applied only to goods manufactured for export or inter-provincial trade and not to products put up for local consumption. If you repeal the first Act, you will have no law to control the goods put up for local consumption.


John Dowsley Reid: The whole trouble was simply in the marking, and if the minister had simply amended the old Act so as to make the markings exactly the same for the local market as for export and inter-provincial trade, there would be no difficulty. Instead of doing that, he repeals the old Act entirely and leaves the people helpless in those provinces where there is no law now to protect them against the putting up of goods for local consumption unfit to be used. If that is the stand the minister and the government take, I make my protest, but so long as the people understand it, we have done our best.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 149) to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act-Mr. Fisher-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Richard Stuart Lake: In the province of Saskatchewan, a number of hogs are slaughtered and sent by the carload to Winnipeg. That has been the custom in years past, hut this year, under the regulations of the department, this export business has been knocked on the head, and the farmers have to practically ship the animals alive and take what prices they can get from what is supposed to be a combine in the Winnipeg market. Has the minister considered the possibility of providing some means by which farmers may be able to slaughter at home and have the animals inspected right on the spot and shipped in the old way? Winnipeg is the only large market they have to which they

can ship these products. I am told the regulations have been a source of considerable inconvenience and actual loss to them?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember having received any representations from the province of Saskatchewan, but the same question has come up in various parts of the country. The difficulty is one for which I have not yet found an adequate remedy. The inspection of the packing of meat is required to secure a reputation for our Canadian meat and canned meats. We know how important the export and the interprovincial trade is in bacon. Our export trade in bacon depends ou the enforcement of just such regulations as are provided by the Act of 1907. Without such inspection as is required under that Act, we would in a short time be shut out to a considerable extent, if not entirely, from the English market. We require therefore such an examination of the carcasses as will enable the veterinary officers to declare honestly that the meat packed or put into the cans is healthy. The expert veterinary authorities universally agree that they cannot judge the health of a carcass unless the organs

especially the heart, liver and lungs-are open to their inspection, so that dressed hogs, or hogs shipped without those attachments, cannot be declared honestly by the inspectors free from disease. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to provide machinery by which the trade in carcasses can be safely carried on. I do not Say that where those goods are being shipped to a factory not declared to be under the operation of certain clauses of this Act, those clauses would out apply. That meant that only factories dealing in the export trade would be brought under the operation of those clauses of the Act.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does the Act proscribe the export from one province to another of carcasses which are not intended to be packed, but simply intended for local sale?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act does, but the regulations provide that it is only when the carcasses are shipped to a factory which is declared to be under the operation of those sections of the Act that the shipment is forbidden. We found great difficulty because there are more factories in what is called the export trade than we supposed before the passage of the Act, and the result is the change I am now proposing, requiring the exemption of certain factories from the operation of the Act instead of declaring certain factories to come under it. That will make the condition of affairs my hon. friend describes a little more acute, because heretofore farmers in Saskatchewan could ship dressed carcasses of hogs to a packer or to the market in Winnipeg, except to a few factories in Winnipeg declared to be under the operation of the Act. In Mr. LAKE.
future they cannot legally ship to any factory unless it lias been declared exempt from the operation of those sections. But the farmers may ship to any place that is not a factory, to the local butcher or the market without being interfered with by the operation of those sections. Section 5 of the Act of last session provided for these shipments by farmers.


Richard Blain: They could ship out; of the province equally well under that provision?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Air.  A. A.@: AIcI.KAN. In Prince Edward Island there is no factory under the Act. Farmers, knowing that, slaughtered their hogs without meeting the requirements of the Act. When the buyers came down from Montreal last fall as usual to buy hogs, they could not buy them for their factories, they had to return without purchasing, and consequently there was virtually a monopoly among the few buyers on the island, and the price of pork went down with consequent loss to the farmers. There is something wrong in the Act when such' a condition could exist under it. The minister should frame an amendment to avoid such a condition. The farmers lost money last year through its operation and the neglect of the government to inform them of the provisions of the law. In fact very little is known in the country of what the law really is. It is possible to find out from the department I suppose, but almost impossible to find out from the statute itself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When this difficulty in the island was brought to our attention we provided that hogs there could be inspected locally and shipped. It was unfortunate that the farmers there killed their hogs before the Quebec buyers came, as killing in that way they did not comply with the regulations which would have permitted them to ship to factories under the operation of the Act. Aly hon. friend is speaking a little harshly in saying that we created a monopoly. There was no monopoly ; it happened that certain buyers were not able to buy the hogs for shipment, but others were able to buy them for the local markets.


Air.  A. A.@: AIcLEAN. Is that not a monopoly ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It prevents outside competition by other buyers, but there is no monopoly in itself. The difficulty was overcome before the end of the season; we arranged to have them inspected locally and shipped. As soon as the situation was presented to us we hastened to meet the difficulty and overcame it in that way.


Richard Stuart Lake: It is a pity that information was not more widely circulated among the farmers in order to provide against such a contingency. I am also sorry the

minister does not seem to be able to improve the conditions in Saskatchewan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite ready to do what I can.


Richard Stuart Lake: Could not an arrangement similar to that in the island by which there might be local inspection? I do not know how many inspectors there are in Saskatchewan, but it might be possible, by giving notice to the farmers in a particular district, to arrange for them to slaughter at the one time so that inspection would be possible and the carcasses could be shipped to these factories.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My bon. friend will remember that there are two considerations in respect to Prince Edward Island which are peculiar. The first is that the buyers go to the island and buy, the formers ship only after the animals have been bought, and they, therefore, know the destination, they know that the carcasses are going to a factory which is under the operation of the Act. Then there are in the island practically only two shipping points through which trade passes to the places where factories are in operation. Consequently it is a very easy thing for us to make an arrangement for inspection at the point of shipment from the island, instead of on arrival at the factory. But my hon. friend seems to overlook the fact that it is only when the hogs are sent to a packing factory that they come under the operation of the Act. If a farmer is shipping a carload of hogs to the Winnipeg market, the Act will not operate on him at all. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange to have inspectors at all the shipping points in the province of Saskatchewan so that the cargo may be inspected locally before it is shipped.


Richard Stuart Lake: How many inspectors are there?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We only have inspectors at the factories. In the case I speak of in Prince Edward Island last fall, an extra man was sent there specially. I think the hogs were all shipped from Charlottetown, and the inspector saw them before they were shipped.


Richard Stuart Lake: It would be a great convenience to the farmers in Saskatchewan if they could be made aware of the extraordinary position in which they are placed. It will be impossible for them to ship carcasses-[DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not taking that position.


Richard Stuart Lake: The organs have to be left in them if they are to be shipped to a factory. I think some provision should be made by which the carcasses may be shipped. as in the past: and further, that an intimation should be given to the farmers 210
throughout those parts of the Northwest where hogs are raised for shipment. It ought to be a comparatively simple matter to spread the information so that the farmer who exports hogs will know all the conditions he has to comply with.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My officers made a resume of the provisions of this Act, which was sent to every newspaper in Saskarcne-wan, and throughout the whole of Canada.


Albert Edward Kemp: Will the minister explain the sections of this Act as they will affect the use of private brands? I understand some wholesale merchants who have been selling canned goods for many years, reputable merchants, work up and advertise a private brand. They object that they have to put the name of the packer on their can, and contend that their own guarantee in many cases is better than the guarantee of the packer, and that it destroys the value of their private brand when they have to put on the name of the packer. That complaint is made in certain parts of the country. I would like to know what position the minister is going to take in regard to that matter.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: That point has been the subject of discussion between the wholesale merchants and the canners of Vancouver. It was brought before the minister, and he suggested when the Bill came before the House that an amendment might be moved to clause 12. Clause 12 of the Meat and Canned Foods Act reads:
The initials of the Christian name, the full surname and address, or in the case of a firm or corporation, the firm or corporate name and address of the packer.
The point the hon. gentleman brings up is this, that a wholesale firm has been buying for some years the output of a factory. They place upon the can their label, Smith, Jones & Brown. The wholesale firm buy from Robinson; Robinson does not appear at all, but Smith, Jones & Brown are a first class reputable firm, and they have sold under their brand for years. Further, in the province of British Columbia nearly all the wholesale merchants purchase the output of some small cannery that is packing salmon. They will buy from one man this year his output, say he packs 4,000 cases, and they will put their own label upon it. Next year this man may have a small pack, he may be holding his salmon for a higher price. By this Act they would not be allowed to go into the market and buy from another small canner. That is the point that was brought up by the wholesale merchants of Vancouver. They wrote to me, and I suggested an amendment which I will make to section 12.


Charles Marcil: I had better read section 1 first.


John Dowsley Reid: That does not touch the point I want to refer to. I want to



ask the minister a question about that Saskatchewan matter. I understand that the farmers of Saskatchewan are in this position: The Winnipeg packers can go to them and say, We cannot give you the full price of these hogs because there is not a demand for them in the home market, and therefore for the export trade we pay you a less price. Is that the position that the Saskatchewan farmers are in now? I also want to ask the minister if the packers of this country are allowed to bring in hogs in bond from the United States, pack them and ship them out again?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a customs matter, but I think not. The question of bonding does not enter into this at all.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: The minister knows that other manufacturing establishments have that privilege and if pork packing establishments have that privilege, it certainly would be a very serious thing for the farmers in Saskatchewan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that any factory in Canada is a bonded warehouse under the Customs Act.


John Dowsley Reid: If the pork packing establishments in Winnipeg can force the farmers to take a less price than their product is worth by representing that there is an overproduction on the home market it would place the farmers of Saskatchewan in a very unfortunate position.
Mr. FISHER, I do not think the farmers are in that position.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the minister not think that the very fact of them being subject to inspection puts them in that position ?
Mr. FISHER, I do not think it allows any person to force the farmers in any respect.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, I disagree with the minister in that respect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You repeal clauses 3 and 4 of this Act ?
Mr. FISHER, Up to the present time section 11 only applies to such factories as are declared by the minister to be under the operation of sections 3 and 4 and 6 to 10. We repeal that section and substitute this section which says that the Governor in Council may, upon application of the owner thereof, exempt any establishment from the operations of this Act. That is to say that the active operation in dealing with it is for the purpose of exemption. Before, the active operation in dealing with it was for the purpose of putting it under the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A great many hogs are killed in our part of the country, they are shipped in carcasses to Toronto and sold to Park, Blackwell & Co., or Harris or any-Mr. J. D. REID.
one else. How does the individual who sells these carcasses know whether they are intended for export or not ? Do these carcasses come under this clause of the Act or do they not ?
Mr. FISHER, If they are -bought to be taken to a factory that is under the operation of the Act, of course, they do. If they are bought and not brought into such a factory they do not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They may be bought by any wholesale butcher who sells them again.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Suppose that a wholesale butcher buys them from the farmer


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, he buys them generally from a merchant.
Mr. FISHER, Well, supposing the merchant buys from the farmer, he can do that without this Act affecting him in any way whatever, but if the merchant sells a carcass to go to a factory which is under the operation of the Act he cannot do it unless the carcass has been inspected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A merchant, for instance, in the town in which I live, purchases a number of hogs. A buyer comes from Park, Blackwell & Co. or Harris, and he purchases them ; is it the duty of the seller to ascertain whether these carcasses are going to be shipped to that factory for export, or what disposition is to be made of them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely it is not the duty of the seller and yet if they were going to a factory I take it that they would come under the operation of the Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Before they went into the factory they would have to be inspected and the inspector would reject them if they had not complied with the provisions of the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who would be responsible for the inspection, the buyer or the seller ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is something I cannot tell you ; it depends on the bargain between them. If I sell to a man who does not ask for a guarantee that the law had been complied with he is responsible. If I sell to him and say that these carcasses have been inspected and are all right to go into the factory he would hold me responsible. It is a matter of private arrangement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is no understanding reached between them the seller would be exempt from any liability with regard to the inspection ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As far as I can tell.


Richard Stuart Lake: It seems to me that it is not absolutely clear in regard to this matter of export. The interpretation clause

says that ' export ' means out of Canada or out of the province in which the establishment is situated. I imagine that the matter of exporting from one province to the other must have got mixed up with transactions in regard to carcasses which are bought simply for the local market. I do not think that is clear. In section 5 there is a clause which apparently makes it possible for a farmer to slaughter at home for the home market only, but I understand from the minister now that it is perfectly clear that the farmer may slaughter at home for the home market and he may export into another province provided the carcass does not go to an establishment that is packing for export.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is clear.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: Is the minister quite clear in his own mind upon that point ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Angus Alexander McLean: Absolutely and perfectly clear ? The reason I ask is that in the 5th section it is stated ' unless the minister otherwise orders.' What does that mean ? Have any regulations been made by the minister under the 5th section ? I have heard two different versions of the matter. It is said that hogs which are exported out of a province are liable to inspection under this 5th section, unless the minister otherwise orders. Has the minister made any order or are there any orders in council in force ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If carcasses are sold from one province to another by a farmer who has slaughtered them, or if they are sold on the ordinary markets or sold to a dealer and they do not go to a packing house for export they are not under the operation of the Act at the present time. If they are being sold to go to a factory which Is under the operation of the Act then they have to comply with the regulations.


Richard Stuart Lake: That is to say that the organs have to accompany the carcass or else the animals have to be shipped alive.


Angus Alexander McLean: As a matter of fact, any person who ships hogs will have to comply with the regulations to be safe.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It he is not pretty sure it is going into local consumption.


Angus Alexander McLean: As far as my province is concerned the regulations under this Act are not approved by anybody, because of the uncertainty of the market, the uncertainty of the inspection, and for many other reasons. I have condemnatory letters of all kinds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The arrangements which were made at the end of the season with regard to Prince Edward Island and which we expect to be able to continue will I 2194
think remove the difficulty my hon. friend mentions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What were these arrangements ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the case of Prince Edward Island the carcasses would be inspected and allowed to go forward and to be received by the factory they were shipped to.


John Dowsley Reid: If an inspector would inspect a carload of hogs at Saskatchewan could they go to a packing house and be afterwards exported?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Our inspectors are usually at the packing houses. If an inspector inspected carcasses in Saskatchewan which had the organs attached, and marked them as inspected they could go to the factory.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it necessary that the carcasses should contain all the organs when they are inspected ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The veterinary experts inform me that any inspection without the organs attached to the carcasses is futile.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not see that provided for in the law.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a regulation.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When animals are purchased is there an understanding between the buyer and the seller that they are to be subject to inspection before the buyer pays for them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a matter between the buyer and seller.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a carload is consigned to, say Harris, of Toronto, and they are to be paid for when delivered, but on inspection at Toronto it is found that some are diseased, could the buyer charge the loss to the seller ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not a matter for the department, whose duty is simply to see that no diseased hog is taken to the factory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Supposing no understanding existed between the buyer and the seller, the buyer could not charge the loss back to the seller ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would be a question for the courts to decide.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What establishments are at present under the operation of this Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am told there are nearly thirty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These will now be exempt ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. Those already under the operation of the Act will remain under it and if the amendment is passed all other factories would come under the operation of the Act until an order in council exempted them.	,

On section 12,
Mr. (MACPHERSON. I beg to move that the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following section :
Paragraph (a) of section 12 is amended by adding thereto after the word ' packer ' the words:
Or of the first dealer obtaining it direct from the packer who sells or offers the same for sale. Such dealer shall upon the request of the inspector appointed under this Act give the name of the packer of such articles.
That will meet the wishes of the wholesale man who sells under his own brand the goods which he buys from the packer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand this amendment to be for the purpose of allowing the first purchaser from the packer, who has made arrangements with different packing houses, to put his name on the package instead of the original packer, he being then responsible for the character of the goods. 1 know that this is an amendment which the wholesale trade of Canada generally are very much in favour of. I think it is safeguarded by the second clause which requires, iu case of a suit, that the name of the original packer shall be given to the inspector and therefore I would not object to the incorporation of this amendment in the present Bill. The object of the whole Act is to secure that the public shall be safeguarded by the name of a responsible person on the package, so that when a consumer buys the article he can know where it comes from. Originally the intention and idea of the Act was that he should know the actual packer; but representations have been made, reinforced by a considerable number of good names, that the name of the wholesaler is frequently as good a guarantee as the name of the original packer. As the law requires that in case of any suit or action arising out of an infraction of the Act the name of the original packer shall be given, which under this amendment shall be done, I think the general intent and principle of the Act is observed to a sufficient extent to justify this facility to the wholesale trade being granted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended, agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: In the month of January I asked a question in regard to an article that appeared in one of the English papers on the subject of the importation of frozen meats into England. I would like to ask the minister if this Act will affect the export trade of frozen meats in boxes during the winter mouths.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As I gathered the tenor of the article to which my hon. friend refers, the fact that we have this Act will preclude our meats being objected to in the English market, although we have not any official declaration to that effect. The Eng-Mr. FISHER.
lish are no doubt jealous of imported food stuffs, and one of our objects in passing this Act last session was to throw all possible safeguards around our trade with England in those articles. My hon. friend will notice that in the article Canada is not mentioned as a country from which dangerous food of that character might come, which I think is attributable to the fact that we have this Act.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose any Act they might have would apply to all countries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would depend, of course, on the provisions of any such Act; but we have the assurance from the authorities in England that compliance with the provisions of this Act will be sufficient to justify them in not applying any such exclusion to Canada.
Bill reported, and amendments read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
On the question, when shall the Bill be read the third time:


Mr. W. JACKSON.: With reference to the clause ignoring the manufacturers' label with the name on the can, I would ask that this Bill do not receive its third reading now, as I wish to communicate with some of the eanners in London in reference to it.
Bill reported.


INSPECTION AND SALE ACT-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved second reading of Bill (No. 148) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This Bill has not yet been translated into French. However, I do not object to going on with it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Inspection and Sale Act, chapter 85 of the revised statutes, is a consolidation of a large number of Acts affecting different commercial products. That Act is divided into ten parts. Part 1 does not apply to grain, but is not otherwise limited. Part 2 applies exclusively to grain, part 3 to flour and meal, part 4 to beef and pork, part 5 to leather and raw hides, part 6 to pot ashes and pearl ashes, part 7 to fish and fish oils, part 8 to dairy products, part 9 to fruit and fruit marks, and part 10 to certain staple commodities. Under the Department of Agriculture's legislation, partly since I have been in office and partly before, there were a number of special Acts passed applying to dairy products and to fruits, and it is only to those parts of the Act which apply to dairy products and fruits that this Bill relates. I may say that the Act passed by this parliament a few years

ago now forms part 9 of the Inspection and Sale Act. Part 1 of the Inspection and Sale Act does not apply to grain but is otherwise not limited in its application, and I want to exclude from it dairy products, fruits or fruit marks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A number of the members interested in dairy products and farming generally are absent, and I think it would be better if the minister would take up some other Bill so as to give them an opportunity of discussing this one.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We might go over some of the amendments and get them passed and then let the committee rise and report progress, and get leave to sit again.
On section 2,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This section repeals certain provisions of the Inspection and Sale Act which are practically obsolete. They were taken from the old General Inspection Act and have been replaced by a special Hairy Act passed some nine or ten years ago.
On section 3-adulterated cheese,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is to prevent any inferior curd being incorporated in the new cheese during the process of its manufacture and also to prevent the placing of any foreign substance in the cheese. There has been a. little difficulty lately through careless cheese makers incorporating sour or inferior curd in their cheese.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there no Act to prevent this already ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Justice Department say there is not. Then some foolish people have taken it into their head to put bottles and little cans into their cheese with their name or something of that kind in them. That is complained of seriously by the trade. It is a fraud because people are getting what they did not buy, and besides the quality of__ the cheese around the foreign substance is apt to deteriorate.
Mi1. SPROULE. I am afraid the bon. gentleman is not a gallant or he would hesitate before doing what may be a great injustice. I remember reading not long ago of some young lady putting in a cheese a small bottle with a paper inside it. giving her name and address, and shortly afterwards she got an offer of marriage from the lucky purchaser of the cheese. It would be strange for a bachelor to make such an amendment to the law as would prevent the possibility of this occurring in the future. I would think he would be more chivalrous than to attempt to do so. Besides he might get a wife himself in that way.


David Henderson: Would colouring matter be regarded as a foreign substance?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so; I think that is part of the process of making the cheese and would not come under the section.


Haughton Lennox: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course the insertion of any such thing in the cheese must be deliberate, it cannot be an accident. There has been very serious complaint on the part of those engaged in the trade and it was thought necessary to stop the practice. I do not think a magistrate would impose the extreme penalty unless there were strong reasons, and $25 is not too high a penalty if it is desired to deter people from doing such acts.


David Henderson: I would suggest that the minister might use some more definite form of expression which would include the cases he has mentioned but would not be broad enough to include colouring matter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This clause was submitted to the Minister of Justice, but as the Bill has to go back into committee I shall ask the Department of Justice whether colouring matter would come under it, and . if so, we will see that it is provided against. I would not wish for a moment that colouring matter should be included under this section.
On section 5-making of regulations by Governor in Council.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These two sections were in the special Act, but in the consolidation of the statutes, in consequence of the other sections that we are now repealing having been left in, these two were omitted. It is now necessary to reinsert them to enable us to appoint inspectors and make regulations.


Haughton Lennox: These referred principally to milk?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To dairy products.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not rather irregular to give authority to the Governor in Council to make regulations and to impose such large penalties for contravention of them?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That has been in all the agricultural Acts.


David Henderson: That is not a very good reason.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And it has worked well.


David Henderson: We are empowering the Governor in Council to authorize penalties of $50 for infringements of regulations of which we know nothing. They may be innocent and unimportant or they may be very important, and yet we are fixing a penalty of $50 for what may be a very trifling offence. Could not the minister so frame this as to afford better protection to all parties?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The regulations must necessarily be in accordance with the provisions of the Act; you cannot make regulations contrary to the provisions of an Act. I do not think the penalty herein referred to is too high for infractions of regulations in consonance with the Act.


David Henderson: I do not think the provisions of the Act control the regulations to any extent. We have not the slightest idea of these regulations or what crime the government may formulate by them.
Mr. FISHER, The regulations cannot enlarge the operation of the Act. they can only be consistent with it.


David Henderson: When such an expression as this is used 'The Governor in Council may make such regulations as he considers necessary.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In accordance with the Act.


David Henderson: I do not see that it is limited in any other way.
In order to secure the efficient enforcement and operation of this Act, and may by such regulations impose penalties not exceeding $50.
I fail to perceive that the Act limits the power to make regulations at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, that is well understood in legislation.


Haughton Lennox: The Governor in Council may make regulations for the efficient carrying out of the Act, and they have to relate to the subject matter of the Act. He makes a regulation, we will say, that certain facilities are to be afforded to the inspectors, and he may make other regulations as to other matters, some of them may be very trivial. For the non-observance of some of these regulations a penalty of $1 might be ample, and $5 might be an outrage. Now we are here making the law. and we are delegating to the Governor in Council, without knowing anything about the nature of the regulations, unlimited power to impose such penalties as they see fit up to $50, and they come into force bv Mr. SPROULE.
the mere fact of publication. The minister said a moment ago that this was merely a re-enactment of the sections that were left out when the revision was made. Perhaps he will tell us where we can find the statute as it was originally.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think 56 Yic. chapter 37, is the original Act. My hon. friend has pointed out that infractions of the different regulations would require different penalties. Now this clause empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations and to apply penalties suitable to the gravity of the infraction. It does not say that to every offence a fine of $50 may be applied ; the Governor in Council is empowered to go as high as $50 when the offence is a serious one, but if it is a trivial one a smaller penalty would be applied. It would be impossible for the Act to fix penalties to be applied to regulations that are not in existence when the Act is passed. You have to leave it to the discretion of the Governor in Council when they make the regulations to attach a proper penalty for the infraction of a particular regulation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Give us some idea of what the regulations are likely to be.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have regulations fixing the duties of inspectors, but we have not found occasion to make any regulations for offences. The penalties for offences provided in the Act itself apparently have been found insufficient. We have not had a great deal to do to enforce this Act, the Act is well known, and the dairymen have been living up to it pretty thoroughly. Once in a while we have had some serious cases, and we have dealt with them and imposed a penalty, but I think in every case where the offences were serious, the penalties provided for under a special clause of the Act were found sufficient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says they have found no need for regulations up to the present, then why propose to amend the Act ?
Mr. FISHER, Because the need may arise at any moment. But we are not amending the Act, we are reinstating clauses that were in the Dairy Act which were taken out of it when the consolidation of the statutes was made last year ; because there were some old clauses which seemed to apply to the Dairy Act as well as to other parts of the Inspection Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The revisers could not have done their duty properly.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was supposed that the general provisions under this Sale and Inspection Act would cover it, but that has not been found satisfactory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister stated that the dairymen had been living up to the Act. It would seem almost a waste of time to

make enactments when there is no need of them.
Mr. FISHER, My hon. friend has misunderstood me or has not grasped the situation. There are clauses in the Act providing for certain offences and penalties. We have enforced these clauses without any difficulty. Only the other day in Quebec we had a man fined $300 and not long ago we had a Montreal man fined $200 and costs under this Act. There have been occasions when, if we had been fully convinced that we had the authority to proceed, we might have proceeded, hut since the revised statutes have been in force we have not had that assurance; consequently, we have hesitated to proceed, and we want to be in a position to enforce the Act should occasion arise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a different explanation now. If authority is needed it should be provided.
On section 6-' Culls ' define'd.
Mi1. FISHER. We found it necessary to define culls.


David Henderson: Is this an entirely new definition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Entirely new. It is the best we could work out.
On section 7, false marking.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The only difference here from the original Act is that we put in the words * no culls.' If my hon. friend looks at the last part of the clause he will see that it provides that No. 2 quality shall contain ' not less than eighty per cent free from worm holes and such other defects as cause material waste.' We found that people were interpreting that to mean that the other twenty per cent might be pure culls. That was not the idea of the Act and now we say that this quality includes no culls.
On section 8, penalties respecting marking.
Mr. FISHER, This section increases the penalties under the Fruit Marks Act. We have found that the penalties were so small that people engaged in the trade seemed practically to ignore them. We took all the trouble and expense of prosecuting and upon securing the conviction of a man who shipped 100 or 1,000 barrels might be fined $3 or $4. We have had 168 convictions during the last season and I remember seeing not long ago the list of penalties imposed. Hardly any of them exceeded $10 and it seemed perfectly ridiculous.


Mr. BRODER.: You raise the minimum ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We raise the minimum and maximum and make the penalties so severe that the people will be deterred from breaking the Act.


Andrew Broder: In a case where a man sells a certain kind of apple and then ships other than the kind or quality sold a penalty should be provided.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the intention of the Act.


Andrew Broder: I know, and the law has been broken.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, we have taken out prosecutions to try and put a stop to that. It is false marking. But if a man takes an order for one kind of apple, ships another and marks the barrels with the name of what is in them we cannot deal with that.


Andrew Broder: Of course, he is breaking his contract.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but that is not a matter that we can deal with. It is only when he breaks the law that we can deal with him.


Andrew Broder: Yes.


David Henderson: Before leaving section 7 I desire to point out to the minister that it defines No. 2 quality as having not less than 80 per cent free from worm holes. My impression is that No. 1 quality must have 90 or 95 . per cent free from worm holes.	-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Ninety per cent.


David Henderson: I notice you are not amending that clause. Consequently the same difficulty that the minister referred to before might occur with regard to culls ; the balance of the barrel might be made up with culls as well as in the case of No. 2 quality, and I was wondering why the minister had not amended that section as well as 321.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have not found such infractions in the case of No. 1. I suppose they might possibly occur and I would not object to amending the section by putting in the same words. It hardly seemed worth while for the packer to put in 10 per cent of culls in No. 1 quality, but when it came to 20 per cent he would do so.


David Henderson: Ten per cent is a good profit.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not see any objection to putting that into No 1. I will consider that before the Bill is finally taken out of committee.
On section 9, penalty for tampering with marks.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 329 provides a penalty for defacing or changing the marks on a closed package. It is a deliberate fraud and we wish to increase the penalty. The penalty under the original section was $40 tine and we are making it $100 for the first offence and $200 for each subsequent of-

fence. That seems to he a very deliberate crime and I think it ought to be severely punished.
On section 10, penalties respecting apples and berries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some time ago I called the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to some of his inspectors in Nova Scotia whom it was thought were not in a position to deal fairly with the public because of their interference in municipal politics. The minister then did not seem to pay much attention to the matter but I would now ask him if he has decided to appoint inspectors under this Act who are not mixed up in public affairs. It was thought these inspectors could not be impartial owing to their environment and the minister was asked if he did not think it wise that such inspectors should refrain from taking part in such contests. Even supposing these men were doing their duty fairly it is in my opinion not desirable that the action they take in the direction I have indicated should lead to suspicion that they might treat those who support them with greater partiality than those who do not support them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would say quite frankly to my hon. friend that if a complaint were made and proven that any inspector in consequence of any action of his in a municipal contest was guilty of discrimination, I would not hesitate at all to dismiss such an inspector. If an inspector made use of his position, by reason of personal spite in connection with ally-contest, whether municipal, political or personal, to discriminate between individuals I would look upon such an one as unworthy to be an inspector. But I do not think I would be justified in taking action on the mere supposition that an inspector might possibly do a thing of that kind. The particular inspector in this case is not engaged by the year, he only acts as such for six or seven months in the year and at the time of the municipal contest I am not sure that he was engaged as inspector.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My information is that he was.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That may be, but at all events he is not a permanent officer on salary. I know of no complaint which has ever been made about him. The correspondence referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) did not say that he had been guilty but simply that he might possibly be guilty. I do not think it would be fair for me to say to that gentleman that he should not take any part in municipal affairs because for a portion of the year he is inspector under the Act. While it is possible that a man might do something wrong under certain circumstances, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that just be-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: cause of such a possibility it would be harsh and unfair on my part to interfere with him. If it were shown he had acted unfairly or had discriminated it would certainly be my duty to remove him from the opportunity of making such discrimination. Since I spoke last on the matter in the House I have no indication that this inspector has done anything unjust or unfair and if he had I think the information would have reached me by this time. I therefore think I was quite right in not taking any steps to remove him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the minister think it is desirable that in such a case eveu the possibility of suspicion should be removed from the public mind. Suppose a man who is engaged as a public weigher should himself be a purchaser of cattle and that he was called on to weigh his own cattle along with those of others, would there not be a feeling in the public mind that there was danger of his acting with partiality towards himself? I have a letter before me written to Mr. A. L. Davidson, of Nova Scotia, which says :
I have to acknowledge receipt of your let-t0r of October 22, and note what you say in regard to Mr Freeman Fitch and his duties under the Fruit Marks Act. Your statements require careful consideration which I shall certainly give them. I cannot say, however, speaking from memory and without investigation, that there is any law or rule in the public service that debars members from taking part in municipal affairs. I will see what the practice is in regard to such things and will act accordingly.
I do not know whether the minister has since communicated with this gentleman, but the letter upon which that was based is as follows :
I beg leave to call your attention to the following: Freeman Fitch, of Clarence, in the county of Annapolis, is at present employed by your department as inspector of fruit under the provisions of the Fruit Marks Act.
As such inspector his duties are to inspect apples packed by growers and dealers thereof and to ascertain if they are packed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
If, as such inspector, he finds apples fraudulently packed he is required to mark the package in which such apples are contained with the words ' falsely marked/ It is also a part of his duty to prosecute parties for violating the provisions of the said Act.
From the quasi.judicial nature of the office of inspector it is possible for the occupant of the said office, to discriminate between those toward whom he is friendly disposed and those toward whom he is unfriendly disposed.
The ratepayers of pollinc district No. 3, in the county of Annapolis, are nearly all engaged in the pursuit of raising apples for sale, and it is a part of the duty of the said Freeman Fitch as said fruit inspector to inspect the apples as packed by the different ratepayers of the said polling district No. 3, in the said county of Annapolis.
690!)

The said Freeman Fitch is at present a candidate for the office of municipal councillor to represent the said polling; district No. 3 in the municipal council of the municipality of the countv of Annapolis. The election for the said office will he held upon the 19th day of November, 1907. when the ratepayers of the said polling district will elect their councillor by ballot.
As a candidate at such election the said F reeman Fitch is peculiarly open to the temptation of showing favouritism as an inspector to those of the said ratepayers of polling district No. 3 as may support the said Freeman Fitch at the said election and discrimination against such of said ratepayers as'do not support him at said election. If elected as a councillor the said Freeman Fitch will be peculiarly tempted to refrain from enforcing the law against his supporters for the fear of estranging their support, and his usefulness as an inspector will in the nature of things be seriously impaired.
The time spent by the said Freeman Fitch in canvassing the said polling district as a candidate as aforesaid, coming as it does at the season of the year when his official duties are the most pressing, cannot hut interfere with the proper discharge of his duties as an inspector as aforesaid- as will also his duties as a councillor should he be elected to that office.
All of which facts are respectfully submitted.
This is dated October 22, about the time the fruit is being put up, and therefore I take it that he was engaged in inspecting then.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I think he was in that case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is apparent that he is running for municipal councillor at the very time his inspection must be done, and that he must of necessity have friends on one side and those who are not his friends on the other side, and he is inspecting for both alike. Would there not be an impression left in the minds of those carrying on a vigorous contest against him that they would hardly get hot justice, or at best more than very cold justice, whereas those canvassing and working for him would be more likely to get fair play ? Does the minister not think it would be a proper thing to ask his inspectors to refrain from running for such offices or to appoint others to these positions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is quite necessary that the people should feel that they are getting fair play ; but I have had no representations except that one letter to show that there was any feeling in regard to this gentleman. I have had no complaint that the inspector has shown any partiality or discrimination of any kind whatever, and I do not think it would be fair to judge him on the suspicion of one correspondent that he might possibly act unfairly. As to public officials taking part in municipal affairs, there is no law or rule against it, and I think it is a matter of judgment how
far it should be allowed. I do not think public officials should take part in municipal affairs to an extent that would interfere with their official duties ; and if it could be shown that Mr. Fitch was not attending properly to his duties as an inspector because he was at the same time a municipal councillor, I would have no hesitation in saying to him that the two things were incompatible. But that is not suggested in this letter. The only suggestion is that if he happens to be a candidate for the municipal council, it is possible that he will exercise Ms powers as an inspector in favour of those who vote for him and against those who vote against him. Under these circumstances, I do not think it would be proper for me to say" that Mr. Fitch should not be an Inspector.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You think he could at the same time carry on an election and properly attend to his duties as an inspector ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It might be a little hard to do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister does not see any objection to his official doing the two things at the same time ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the one interfered with the other, there would be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is plain to me that it is sufficient to destroy that confidence in the public mind which ought to exist, and in my judgment it would justify the minister in notifying his inspectors that they could not be regarded as eligible for that position if they were at the same time running for election either as municipal councillors or in any other capacity that would practically divide the public Into two portions, one of whom would be friendly and the other unfriendly. It is not human nature for people to feel that they are likely to get fair play under such circumstances, and to my mind it is a good deal to have the people satisfied that they are getting fair play, whether they do or not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I again repeat that there is nothing whatever to indicate that anybody has the feeling expressed in that letter. This gentleman says they may have that feeling. He does not say that anybody has been hurt or feels that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they had no suspicion would they write the letter ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Only one man wrote the letter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The whole community is made up of units and one man has an equal right to another and an equal claim to have an abuse remedied.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If only one man has a suspicion and writes a letter, I am not to take it for granted that he represents the whole community.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you take it for granted that he misrepresents the facts and is not worthy of consideration because he is only one man. But this one man gives the circumstances which justify suspicion and cause public dissatisfaction, and the minister in his reply said that he would give the matter careful consideration. Has he given it any consideration?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and I have explained the result of my consideration. I have said that I did not consider the statement of one individual that certain improper things might happen, which he does not say have happened, or that certain people might have a suspicion, which he does not say they have-I did not consider such vague statements required any action on my part.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why then did this man write the letter he did instead of making a direct charge?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Why did he not make a direct charge?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A good many know of wrong doing, but do not make direct charges ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then I do not bother about them. If a man has not the courage to make a direct charge, I do not take any account of his suspicions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The bon. gentleman had better tell the apple raisers of that county that that is the way he uses the farmers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is how I use that man.


David Henderson: I would suggest the substitution of some other word for the word ' foreign.' I would suggest the word ' nonedible.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to see an oyster in the middle of a cheese.
Progress reported.


CONSTRUCTION OF DRY DOCKS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 119) to encourage the construction of dry docks-Mr. Fielding-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
William Stevens Fielding: This Bill is founded on a resolution which was fully discussed and explained some time ago, and which I think commended itself to the general consideration of the House. This amendment is destined to adapt the machinery of the Act, which was put on the statute-book some years ago, to some difficulties which have been met in its administration. Under this general legislation a dry dock had been constructed at Halifax and another at Col-liugwood and an agreement was entered into for the construction of one at Vancouver. The latter, however, has not yet Mr. FISHER.
been constructed. The essential difference between the present law and the amendment touches two points. The limitation of the amount in the law is 3 per cent on $3,000,000, but in view of the increased size of steamers and the need of larger docks, it is proposed to increase the amount to $1,500,000, which, at 3 per cent, represents $45,000. The second point of importance is with respect to the method of payments. Under the Act payments are to be made for twenty years, subject to the condition that the dock shall be at all times kept in successful operation. Capitalists, however, take exception to that. They say that the men who advance the money might reasonably ask for a definite fixed assurance of payment and the government should provide other means for insuring the operation of the dock. The proposal now submitted provides that the twenty years' payment of the subsidy shall be fixed and definite and that, in the event of the company failing to operate the dock, the government shall take possession of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to grant an additional subsidy to the Collingwood dry dock?


William Stevens Fielding: No, that dock was constructed under the present Act and that transaction is closed. Of course the dock might be enlarged, but we have no such proposal before us.


Haughton Lennox: Would this cover the case of the enlargement of a dry dock and how would the basis be arrived at in the case of enlargement? Take the Collingwood dry dock. Suppose the company should sjiend an additional sum in order to enlarge it, on what would you base your additional subsidy?


William Stevens Fielding: If they propose to enlarge the dock, they would be entitled to an additional subsidy, but would have to come under the condition with respect to non-operation. Under the existing contract they are only entitled to a subsidy so long as the dock continues in operation. Under the new Act, the government would have the right to take over the dock. Should they extend the dock, they would come under the new Act both for the extension and the jiortion already built. You could not separate the two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If for instance, the Collingwood Company desired to enlarge their dock and applied for an additional subsidy under this would the government then take over that dock ?


William Stevens Fielding: Only in the event of failure to operate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose that after enlarging they proposed to operate the same as before, on what basis would you then grant an additional subsidy ?


APKIL 21. 190S
William Stevens Fielding: They would have to receive an additional subsidy under the terms of this Act. They would get a subsidy for twenty years on the additional amount and that would be a fixed and definite subsidy under the provisions of this Act. In order to avail themselves of that subsidy, they would be obliged to give the government the right to take over not the new work alone but the whole dock, because there could not be any distinction between the two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if they desired to continue to own the dock ?


William Stevens Fielding: Then under the present law we do not interfere with them. Even if tlie government took it over they would not own it but would only operate it temporarily.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would you base the additional subsidy on the cost of the extension or upon the valuation of your engineer of the works, including the site ?


William Stevens Fielding: The cosc would have to have reference entirely to the proposed new work. The work of the past is disposed of. I understand the company to have received all the subsidy to which they are entitled. If they proposed additional work then only the cost of the additional work would be considered,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And that would be upon the basis of the valuation of the government's own engineer ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the engineer would have to examine and report in order to fix the subsidy.
On section 2-interpretation,


William Stevens Fielding: I beg to move to amend this section by adding the words :
And ' dry dock' includes floating dock.
I do not think this is absolutely necessary but it is well to remove possible doubts. Marine docks are now being constructed largely under the system of floating docks, and we want to make it clear that if it is thought well to build a floating dock it will be included under the Act. It has been so interpreted now, but we want to make it clear beyond all doubt.
On section 3-basis of subsidy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There seems to be no time limit. Suppose you make annual payments-


William Stevens Fielding: It is twenty years, the same as the old Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do they receive for the Collingwood dry dock per annum ?


William Stevens Fielding: The figures were given in a previous discussion.


Haughton Lennox: I think it is $15,000 a year.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be pleased to get the figures before the Bill is disposed of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not seem necessary for the parties who are enlarging to show any data as to the cost, it is all left to the judgment of the engineer.


William Stevens Fielding: Necessarily the engineer will have to receive the representations made by the company, with their plans, &c.; this would have to be submitted to the examination and inquiry of the engineer. I fancy it would require the co-operation of the company and the engineer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The actual cost and an estimate are different things.


William Stevens Fielding: The actual cost could only be determined when the work is completed ; but in order to fix the cost for subsidy purposes it is necessary to come as near to it as possible in advance and that is the provision of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would that be changed in the light of experience ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the engineer in his report would have to be careful not to place the estimate too high, because you give a guarantee to the financial people of a certain amount at certain times. Difficulty arises from the necessity of fixing the subsidy in advance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be the case if a company is investing money but with a few individuals building it on the strength of preliminary arrangements made with the government on the basisi of a valuation with a condition that they be paid three per cent on the cost of it, then after the completion of the dock the actual cost could be obtained from data furnished during the construction and the payment could be made on that.


William Stevens Fielding: The very essence of this is that you shall be able to give financial people absolute certainty of so much money at certain times. If the government were to allow that payment to be fixed on an excessive valuation that would be improper; that would realize the danger which my hon. friend suggests. We would have to see that the report of the engineer was carefully made, and did not value the property in excess of its real value.


Haughton Lennox: This does not seem to go on the same principle as the last Act. Reading subsection 2 of section 4, the basis of the subsidy would appear to be as the1 minister suggests, that the chief engineer of the department shall make a careful estimate, before the work is executed, as to the probable expense, and upon that the government shall base a subsidy that shall be final. That would appear to 1 be in accordance with the wording of the

section. But I know as a matter of fact tiiat under the old Act, after the work had been executed the government sent an engineer to value the work, and by the valuation of the engineer and by the examination of the accounts, the government ascertained what was the actual cost. I do not know whether there is any reason for changing the system. Take the case of Collingwood. After all the work was executed, Mr. Coste, I think it was, examined the work and determined that a certain amount must necessarily have been expended. Also certain accountants went into the matter and went over the books and papers so far as they could be obtained for the purpose of ascertaining where the money had been actually expended. I think that was in accordance with the old Act. Is there any reason for departing from that principle? Is not that a better principle than this merely preliminary estimate before the work is executed?


William Stevens Fielding: I rather think that the old system was the better one. But the difficulty has been that it .leaves an element of uncertainty as to the payment of the subsidy. Although that did not avail against the Collingwood dock, it has been found to avail against other schemes of docks. The Collingwood people were willing to construct a dock under these terms. There was some discussion last year over the Collingwood dock. I am not familiar with the details, but I know that the essence of the old arrangement was that the cost was determined by a report of the engineer at the time of completion, and on that the subsidy was paid. Now it has been found that financial people who have been asked to assist another dock scheme, particularly the one at St. John, N.B., people who were disposed to put money into it, said, Well, we are financial people but we are not dock operators, and we do not want to be called upon to take the risk of this dock being operated to the satisfaction of the government; we think the government should make some arrangement for the operation of the dock. It is to meet that difficulty that this change has been made. Therefore we propose to have a report made by the engineer at the beginning, and in view of the facts suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite, we shall satisfy ourselves that the report is a very conservative report, and thereupon a valuation shall be fixed. Then we shall say to the financial people, We have satisfied ourselves that this dock will cost say a million dollars, and we will agree to give you 3 per cent upon that million dollars for twenty years, and we undertake by another method to look after the operation of the dock. It is to meet that condition that the change was made.
On section 0,


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I think the minister has made the time limit rather short when the purpose is to get new docks. I Mr. LENNOX.
can understand that docks already in operation would take advantage of the time for enlarging them, but is there a sufficient inducement for capital to take hold of a new dock in a guarantee- of twenty year bonds at 3 per cent? Unless the minister may have some information I have not got, I think it will be difficult to find capitalists willing to build docks with such a limited guarantee as twenty years.


William Stevens Fielding: I should not like to make the conditions too hard, because the object is to secure the construction of docks at appropriate places. On the other hand, I would not like to make the conditions so easy that people would be tempted to go into the enterprise as a pure speculation. It is well that people should look at the matter carefully, and be content with a moderate guarantee such as the government gives them, and look for a balance out of the operation of the dock itself. The subsidy originally allowed was only 2 per cent, we increased that some years ago to 3 per cent. A twenty-year subsidy of 3 per cent is a fairly strong inducement for people to put money into an enterprise where there is a commercial basis for it. They would have to look for the development of trade for their compensation over and above this twenty years. But unless there is that condition of trade which gives promise of some revenue to the dock, then it is not desirable that the dock should be constructed. We do not want to make it so easy for docks to be constructed that the construction shall be undertaken at numerous places where there is not really business for them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And especially in view of the fact that the tendency of money is always downwards. Three per cent is not a bad interest on money, it is all the interest that banks will allow. Three per cent for twenty years would indemnify a company for going into the enterprise.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is a fair inducement.
On section 13,-The Dry Docks Subsidies Act. chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, is repealed.


Haughton Lennox: If you repeal the Act how do you deal with those docks that are now in existence ?


William Stevens Fielding: I would think that the agreement that we have made, for example, with the Collingwood dock under the Act existing at the time would continue. But. if there is any doubt about the matter I would be glad to take the hon. gentleman's suggestion into consideration. We have no desire to prevent payment to existing docks. If my hon. friend really thinks that it is open to doubt I will let the Bill stand in committee. It is one of those questions with regard to which we should make assurance doubly sure and I should be very

glad to let the Bill stand and ask the Department of Justice to look into it.


Haughton Lennox: The agreement depends upon the statute and usually in repealing a statute you substitute something In its place.


William Stevens Fielding: I am obliged to my bon. friend for the suggestion and I will have it considered.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not seem to me that clause 9 provides that you should be paid for any outlay besides operating expenses and maintenance. Suppose you have an initial outlay of $10,000 or $20,000 to put a dock in condition after you take it over ; then you can only pay for the advances which have been made out of operating expenses and maintenance.


William Stevens Fielding: Read the last portion of section 9. It says that the government shall apply the balance first in repayment of the advances made under the next preceding section and secondly in payment of accrued interest on bonds. But the working expenses must be the first charge. In order to have the cow give milk, the cow must live. You must have working expenses in the first place and anything over and above that is applied to two things, first, to the payment of government advances and. next, to the payment of interest on bonds, if there are any outstanding.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will proceed with the adjourned debate on the motion for Supply and the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish before the House adjourns to call attention to one fact. It seems to be unusual that the government should go on with any other work when a motion of want of confidence is still undisposed of. I think it is unheard of in the British parliament that any minister should attempt to carry on any work except to dispose of a motion of want of confidence so as to show parliament and the country that the government retained the confidence of the majority of the members of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: That only shows what a very obliging and accommodating government we have in Canada. When we proposed on the last sitting day to take up to-day the adjourned debate, the whip of the Conservative party, and who at that time was leading the opposition, asked the government as a special consideration not to
proceed with the debate to-day because a number of hon. members on that side of the House could not find it convenient to be here and he asked that we should proceed with the Bills and let the debate stand over until to-morrow. I hope we did not create any violent convulsion to the constitution, and if we have done so it has been on account of our desire to accommodate hon. gentlemen opposite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is in keeping with the government's management of the House generally.


William Stevens Fielding: We had better not be so obliging.	-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
. HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 22, 1908.