1909-11-16

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 2) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill is made necessary by the construction put upon section 340 of the Railway Act by the Ontario Court of Appeals in a case decided this last year. That section is the one that provides that the shipper shall not be bound to accept anything less than his ordinary and actual damages unless he signs a contract which must be approved by the Railway Commission. The Court of Appeals said they
could decide whether one contract was like another, and that where they differed in some respects the shipper was bound by the contract he signed notwithstanding it had not received the sanction of the board. In my opinion the law of 1903 was intended to make the jurisdiction of the board absolute as regards these railway contracts and did not intend that any court should exercise that jurisdiction in any respect. I introduce this Bill so that the intention of the Act be made clear and distinct. It also provides that where the railway company insists on a higher rate of freight in order to guarantee against full loss, but wants the shipper to take lower rate and lower _ liability the company must allow the shipper the choice of paying the higher rate of freight and being fully protected against loss if he wants to, and not compel him to accept a reduced liability without any option.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCASTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 3) to amend the Railway Act. He said:	This Bill is to limit the
appeals from the Board of Railway Commissioners. At present it is very doubtful that any time limits exist. Any party who accepts an order from the Board of Railway Commissioners may appeal against that order to the Supreme Court.
Now, I think the House will agree with me at once when I say that orders made by the commission are supposed to be carried into effect immediately ; they are not made unless there is immediate necessity for making them. And, as it has been found that the commissioners feel that they must grant leave for appeal almost at any time and under almost any circumstances, I wish, by this Bill to limit that kind of appeal. The very object of appointing the Railway Commission was to give speedy justice in railway matters, and, where a difficulty arose, to apply the remedy as promptly as possible. The purport of that part of the Bill relating to this matter is that the board should not grant leave to appeal after thirty days from the making of their order. If any party, whether railway company or any other, feels himself aggrieved by an order of the commission and desires to appeal, it is reasonable that he should make up his mind within thirty days and make application for appeal. The second provision of this Bill is that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should not be granted unless some doubtful question of law is involved and unless serious injury or loss will result from immediate compliance with the order sought
[Stage Direction]
to be appealed from. It should not be available for delay only. That, I think, will commend itself to the judgment of the House. The third provision is that no appeal, even though leave be granted,_ should lie if it is not proceeded with within sixty days-that is, within thirty days after leave to appeal is granted, the party should proceed and not have the delay, as they may now, without any time limit whatever.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCASTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 4) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill relates to the subject of level crossings. The legislation of last session, I think will be found, when subjected to more careful scrutiny than was possible in the last days of the session, to be unjust to the extent at least to which I propose to amend it. The Bill of last session provides that a railway, if incorporated after a certain time, must protect the crossings whether upon the level of the highway or otherwise entirely at their own expense. I propose' to amend section 238a, as amended last session, by adding the following :
And where the railway has been constructed before the passing of this Act and is permitted by the board to pass over any highway crossing .at rail level, the municipality shall not be ordered to pay any portion of the cost or expense of protecting such crossing unless and except it is otherwise provided by agreement, approved by the board, between the company and the municipal corporation.
That, I think, speaks plainly for itself, and it is not necessary for me to take up time or weary the House by explaining it further.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I have no desire to take up time at this stage. I think it is evident, however, that the proposed amendment is subversive of one of the principles of the Bill passed last session. It clearly makes it impossible for the board to divide the cost among the parties interested. Under the Act as it is now, it is left to the discretion of the board to say whether the municipality shall pay anything or not.


Mr. LANCASTER.: In some cases.


George Perry Graham: It leaves it to the discretion of the board,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In some cases only.


George Perry Graham: This Bill will be subversive of that principle. I am utterly opposed to it, as I understand it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: 



Mr.  W. B.@: NORTHRUP (East Hastings) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 5) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This is precisely the same Bill that I introduced last year and that passed its first reading, but was among the innocents slaughtered owing to the shortness of the session. Under the existing law, if a contract is entered into between a municipality and a railway, and the railway receives subsidies under the contract but afterwards breaks tlie obligations it enters into under the contract, the corporation of the municipality can apply to the board and obtain relief. But, as the law stands, if the railway which has received the benefit happens to have sold out to another railway, which then has the property and enjoys that benefit, there is no relief to be obtained through the board because the board has no jurisdiction in relation to the matter over the company that did not make the contract. This Bill places it in the power of the board to consider such questions either at the instance of the railway, the Crown, the corporation or an individual.


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

Mr.  H. H.@: MILLER (South Grey) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 6) to amend the Criminal Code respecting the matter of race track gambling. He said: The object of the Bill is to amend sections 226, 227 and 235 of the Code with a view to suppressing and preventing, as far as possible,_ not the betting but the 'business of betting and gambling upon race tracks.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 7) respecting the units of electrical measure-Mr. Templeman.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) delivered a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message, which was as follows:
Grey :
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons an approved minute of council appointing the Honourable William Stevenson Fielding, Minister of Finance, the Honourable Louis Philippe Brodeur, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Honourable Win. Paterson, Minister of Customs, and the Honourable Wm. Pugsley, Minister of Public Works, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the pur-

poses and under the provisions of the 11th Chap, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, intituled ' An Act respecting the House of Commons;'
Government House,
Ottawa, 15th November, 1909.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the notices of motion are taken, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals why it is that we cannot have the report of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway in printed form at the commencement of the session. The report which was brought down last session was in typewritten form, and I think the printed form was only completed a few days or a few weeks ago. I have seen nothing in printed form until very recently. The one that has been brought down this session was in the same form, there is only one copy of it, and it is not available for the use of the members of the House generally who would like to examine it. I do not see any reason why it should not come down in printed form like the report of every other department of the government.


George Perry Graham: I think the observations of my hon. friend are quite reasonable. It never struck me in that light before. The commissioners have been practically doing their own work and submitting it to me, and I have submitted it to the House. I will try and see if we cannot make some arrangement by which the report will be printed in advance. It comes in regular form before me, and I present it to the House.


Robert Laird Borden: In the meantime will the minister be good enough to move that the rule be suspended, and that this be printed immediately?
JMr. GRAHAM. I move that the rule of the House on printing be suspended as regards the report of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway, and that the said report be ordered to be printed forthwith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: I made an inquiry of the Prime Minister a day or two ago with regard to the resignation of Mr. Lumsden, formerly chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway, and it was intimated bv the Prime Minister at the time that the answer would be given by the Minister of Railways at an early date. Perhaps it might be convenient to give it now.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: There is an order on the paper to-day, and as soon as it is reached it will be granted at once.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to know whether the report of the resignation of the chief engineer is correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is correct.



INLAND REVENUE ACT-AMENDMENT.

Hon.   WM@: TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution ;
Resolved, That it is expedient that the Inland Revenue Act be amended as follows; That Section 76 be repealed and the following substituted therefore:
'76. The person in whose favour a license is granted for an excise bonding warehouse, not included in the description of the premises in respect of which a license has been issued to him under this Act, shall, upon receiving such license, pay to the collector the sum of fifty dollars.'
He said: I may say that His Excellency has been informed of the purport of the resolution.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: What change does that make?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: It will increase the amount paid for licenses for bonded warehouses from $20 to $50.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. WALLACE asked:: How much was estimated for the Newmarket canal in 1909, and liowr much was expended each month since December, 1908?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	No special vote was taken for the Newmarket branch. The chief engineer allotted for the Holland River Division of the Trent Canal in 1909-10 $50,000 out of $1,000,000. Amount expended each month since December, 1908, as follows:
1909. Contractor's Estimates.
March	$12,440 00
May	 2,050 00
June	 1,690 00
July	 2,960 00
August	 11,040 00
September	 8,000 00
October	 10,690 00


$48,870 00 REVISED EDITION.
[Stage Direction]
1909	Engineering pay-lists.
January..		 $731 95
February..		 547 00
March.   . .@: 574 01
April.. ..		 535 72
May			 536 74


March.   . .@: 816 20


March.   . .@: 683 37
August. .	.. .. [DOT].	 742 86
September.	
October. .	
6,891 65


$55,761 65 COST OF MARKHAM POST OFFICE.
Thomas George Wallace: What was the cost of lot for the Markham post office building and furnishings?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: Site	$1,004 79
Furnishings	 1,744 59


COMMISSIONERS OF INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
Mr. PAQUET asked:: 1.	What are the names of members of the Government Railways Managing Board, appointed to administer the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway?
2.	What is the date of their appointment?
3.	Where do they reside?
4.	What are their salaries?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The members of the government railways managing board, are-Mr. M. J. Butler, C.M.G., Deputy Minister Railways and Canals, chairman, Mr. David Pottinger, I.S.O., Mr. E. Tiffin, traffic manager and Mr. F. P Brady, general superintendent.
2.	April 20, 1909, by order in council, copy of which is attached hereto.
3.	Mr. Butler, resides at Ottawa, the three other members at Moncton, N. B.
4.	Mr. Butler without salary, Mr. Pottinger, Mr. Tiffin and Mr. Brady, $6,000 per annum, each.
The following is a certified copy of a report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 20th April, 1909:
On a memorandum, dated the ICth April, 1909, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, representing that he has, for some time past, had under most careful consideration, the various complicated questions involved in the operation of the Government Railways, both from the financial and administrative points of view, and, as the result, has concluded that a change in the present method of management is desirable.
The Minister directs attention to the following facts :


George Perry Graham: The Intercolonial railway was built as a government road, in pursuance of the requirements of the British North America Act of 1867, Sec. 145 ; and without amendment of this Act, must retain that characteristic.
It was opened for traffic on the 1st day of July, 1876, between Halifax and Riviere du Loup; its length, including the Pictou and Windsor branches, and the line from St. John to Point du Chene (Shediac) being 745 miles.
By various extensions, purchases, and leasing arrangements its length, in the year of 1907-8, reached a total of 1,448 -62 miles-the cost of operating being $9,157,435.53. Its traffic comprised 4,134,046 tons of freight and 2,789,371 passengers.
The Prince Edward Island railway was taken over by the government on the 29th of December, 1873, under the express provisions of the Imperial Order in Council of the 26th of June, 1873, admitting Prince Edward Island into the Dominion.
At the time of the original opening of the Intercolonial railway for traffic, and the taking over of the Island railway an organization was adopted, which, with some modifications, has remained in force up to the present day, notwithstanding the changed conditions, and the expansion of the road and its operations. The official placed in immediate charge is a general manager, who is also in charge of the Prince Edward Island railway, under the title of 'General Manager, Government Railways.'
By section 49 of the Government Railways Act, R.S.C., 1906, chapter 36, it is provided as follows:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such regulations as he deems necessary,
(a)	for the management, proper use and protection of all or any of the government railways, including station houses, yards and other property in connection therewith;
(b)	for the ascertaining and collection of the tolls, dues and revenues thereon;
(c)	to be observed by the conductors, engine drivers and other officers and servants of the minister, and by all companies and persons using such railways;
(d)	relating to the construction of the carriages and other vehicles to be used in the trains on such railways.
The minister considers it expedient and recommends that, in nursuance of the above statutory provision, the following be fixed as the organization to be in force on and after the 1st of April, 1909, for the government railways-the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway-as at present constituted, and as the same may hereafter be extended or modified; such organization to be in supercession of the existing organization :
1.	The position of general manager of government railways to be abolished.
2.	A Board, to be constituted under the name, 'The Government Railways Managing Board.'
3.	The said Board to consist of four persons, namely: Mr. M. J. Butler, Deputy Minister and Chief Engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, who shall be chairman of the Board:	Mr. David Pottinger,' I.S.O.;


Mr.   E.@: Tiffin, the present traffic manager, he

retaining that position; Mr. F. P. Brady, of Montreal.
4.	The said Board to supervise and direct all departments of the railways owned by the Government of Canada.
5.	The duties and powers of the said Board ' to he as hereunder defined, namely:
They shall have the powers usually vested in the executives of railway corporations.
They shall prepare, subject to the Government Railways Act, and the Provident Fund Act, and, with the approval thereto of the Governor in Council first obtained, carry out, rules and regulations as follows:
(a)	For the organization of the staff and officials of the railways.
(b)	For the conditions of employment in the railway service.
(c)	For the purchasing of supplies and the sale of materials.
(d)	For the ascertaining and collection of the railway tolls, dues and revenues.
(e)	Those to be observed by the conductors, engine drivers and other officers and servants, and by all companies and persons using such railways.
(f)	Those relating to the rolling stock to be used in the trains on such railways.
6.	They shall meet for the transaction of business at least once a month and shall keep regular minutes of each meeting.
7.	They shall report to the Honourable the Minister of Railways and Canals, monthly, and shall also make a special and comprehensive report at the end of each fiscal year, on the expenditures and receipts of the government roads; and on all occurrences and transactions of importance; and shall, further furnish such reports as may be, from time to time, required of them by the Department of Railways and Canals.
The Minister further recommends that the salaries payable to the several members of the said Board above named, be fixed as follows: to Mr. Butler, no salary as a member of the Board, and to Mr. Mr. Pottinger. Mr. Tiffin and Mr. Brady, $6,000 a year each.
The Minister also recommends that, with the exception of Mr. Butler, whose departmental duties render such provisions inapplicable, the anpointees be required to devote the whole of their time to the official duties attached to their positions.
The Committee submit the same for approval.


F. K. BENNETTS,
[Stage Direction]
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.
The Honourable
The Minister of Railways and Canals.

Mr. PAQIJET asked:: 1. Who are our immigration agents in France, and what are their salaries?
2. Who are our immigration agents in Belgium, and what are their salaries?
3.	Have we immigration agents in the other countries of Continental Europe? If so, what are their names and salaries?
4.	Has the government appointed a successor to Mr. J. E. Cyr, immigration agent in France? If so, what is his name and salary?
4}


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Paul Wiallard, $3,000 ; Pierre Foursin, $1,000 ; Emile Belanger, $900.
2.	D. Treau de Coeli, $1,500.
3.	No.
4.	No.


BELLEVILLE AND NORTH HASTINGS RAILWAY.
Mr. NORTHRUP asked:: 1.	Has the government yet found a remedy for the grievance which the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals on the 10th February, 1908, in this House, admitted did exist by reason of the failure of the Grand Trunk railway to operate the branch of the old Belleville and North Hastings railway from Madoc to Eldorado?
2.	Is the government aware that on that date the hon. the Minister of Railways, speaking of that and similar grievances, stated to this House: ' We are anxious to find a remedy so that this will not occur again; the people have a grievance not only on account of the subsidies voted by this House, but on account of the votes by the municipalities throughout Ontario and its other provinces. There is a weakness in the law that ought to be remedied, and I assure the House that I am trying to find out the method to remedy this grievance. I will say further that I will not be satisfied until I do find some way. I do not believe that a railway company has a right to take money of the people of Canada and then not carry out its contract, any more than it would have the right to take my money and not carry out a contract entered into with me? '
3.	Is the government aware that such remedy has not yet, after the lapse of nearly two years, been discovered by the Minister of Railways, or if discovered has not been applied, as the grievance still exists?
4.	Has such remedy been discovered? If so, why has it not been applied? If not discovered, is the Minister of Railways still searching for it, or does he now believe that no remedy can be found?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	Since date mentioned, the statute 7 and
8,	Edward VII, C. 61, has been passed and
reference may be made to section 8 of that statute.	*
This was amended by statute 8 and 9, Edward VII, C. 32, section 1.
2.	The words quoted in the question are to be found at different places on pages 2815 and 2816, ' Hansard,' 1907-8, but consist of three separate extracts not spoken in the order quoted, and from which intervening sentences are omitted.
Debate on the amendment, statute 8 and
9,	chapter 32, section 1, is to be found on pages 6202-3-4-5-6-and 7, ' Hansard,' 1909.
3 and 4. It is hoped that the legislation above mentioned will provide an efficient remedy in preventing a recurrence of anv such grievances as is stated.


ARMED VESSELS ON THE GREAT LAKES.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1.	Is the information as to the armament and crew of the United States training or war ships ' Yantic/ ' Hawk,' ' Fern,' ' Dorothea,' 'Don Juan,' 'Essex,' 'Sandoval' and 'Nashville,' which the Prime Minister stated to the House on the 30th April, 1908, was being obtained by the Department of Militia, yet available? If so, what is the extent and nature of the armaments, and the strength of the crews?
2.	Does the government consider that the tonnage and armament of these vessels has any relation to the Rush-Bagot agreement of April, 1817?
3.	Was the question of the admission of these vessels to the Great Lakes submitted to the Militia Council for the views of the military advisers of the Minister of Militia and Defence previous to the requests of the government of the United States being acceded to?
4.	Was the imperial government requested to submit the question of the admission of these vessels to the Great Lakes for the views of the Imperial Defence Committee previous to the requests of the government of the United States being acceded to?


Rt. Hon. SIR WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: 1.	The government does not think that the information in question and obtained by the Department of Militia should now be made public, pending diplomatic action on the same.
2.	Yes.
3.	All applications were considered by the Governor in Council.
4.	No.


COST OF ROYAL MINT.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Royal Mint, to date?
2.	What amount is estimated as necessary to complete it, including the refinery?


Hon. Mr. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: 1.	$544,052.78.
2.	Estimated cost of refinery building	$35,000
Estimated cost of equipment.... 32,000


$67,000 ADDITIONS TO BOARD OF ENGINEERS, QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Has the government, since last session, added any new members to the Board of Commission of Engineers in connection with the reconstruction of the Quebec Bridge?
2.	Why has the government so increased the said board?
3.	Who are the new nominees, what are their functions, and what is the rate of their remuneration ?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: 1 and 2. No new members have been added to the board, but under the provisions of the order in council, two engineers were called in consultation for the substructure and two engineers were called in consultation in connection with the designing of the superstructure.
3.	For the substructure, Messrs. Noble, of New York, and Holgate, of Montreal. For the superstructure, Messrs. Johnson, of Montreal, and Wolfell, of New York. As to the consulting engineers of the substructure, the customory rate of $50 per day. The consulting engineers of the superstructure have not yet billed the government for their work.


BOARD OF ENGINEERS, QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	When were the members of the new
Board of Engineers of the Quebec Bridge appointed ?	*
2.	When did they hold their first meeting?
3.	Has the board or any of its members made any report upon the reconstruction of said bridge to date?
4.	Have any plans been prepared and handed in to the government? _	_
5.	What is the. remuneration of said original three members of said board?
6.	What is the total amount paid to date by the government for the maintenance of said board or commission?
7.	Have any actual works been executed in respect to reconstruction of said bridge? If so, what works?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	No new members were added to the Board of Engineers.
2.	First meeting of the board with Messrs. Holgate and Noble took place July 2, 1909. The first meeting of the board with Messrs. Johnston and Wolfell took place Sept. 7, 1909.
3.	Yes, monthly reports.
4.	Plans have not been completed, but are well advanced.
5.	$1,000 per month.
6.	Paid to October 31, 1909-$97,631.67.
7.	No actual work has been executed other than plans, specifications, soundings and borings, etc.


DRY-DOCK AT PORT ARTHUR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked:
1.	Was any application made for the subsidizing of a dry-dock and ship-building yard at Port Arthur? If so, on what date, and by whom was the application made?
2.	What were the dimensions of the proposed dry-dock and ship-building yard?
3.	Has the department any information as to what site, if any, has been chosen for such dry-dock and ship-building yard?

i.	If so, lias tho department approved of such site for the purposes of granting subsidies under the Act?
5.	For what distance and to what depth will dredging be required to be done to permit of easy approach to dry-dock for vessels desiring to uise the dock?
6.	Has the department ascertained, or has it been reported to the department, that it will be necessary for the proper maintenance of the dry-dock that a break-water be built in Thunder bay in front of the dock to protect it? If so, have any plans for dredging approaches to dry-dock, and for the erection of breakwater, been prepared or approved by the minister? If so, what is the estimated cost of each work?
7.	What is the estimated cost of the dry-dock and ship-building plant to be erected in Port Arthur as represented by the applicants for subsidy, and at what amount has the capital been adjusted or fixed by the department for purposes of subsidy ?
8.	What subsidy has been granted to such dock, and upon what terms?
9.	lias the department any information as to what persons are promoting the building plant at Port Arthur?
William Pugsley: An application for a subsidy has has been received from the Western Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company, Limited, for a dry-dock at Port Arthur; but the department is at present unable to furnish the information asked, as all papers, plans, etc., concerning the application have been forwarded to the resident engineer at Port Arthur to be reported upon.


DRY-DOCK AT SAULT STE. MARIE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. George Taylor-asked :
1.	Was any application made for the subsidizing of a dry-dock and ship-building yard at Sault Ste. Marie? If so, on what date and and by whom was the application made?
2.	What were the dimensions of the proposed dry-dock and ship-building yard?
3.	Has the department any information as to what site, if any, has been chosen for such dry-dock and shipbuilding yard?
4.	If so, has the department approved of such site for the purposes of granting a subsidy under the Act?
5.	Will any dredging be required to be done for approaches to the dry-dock as proposed? If so, for what distance and what depth, and what is the estimated 'cost of it?
6.	What is the estimated cost of the dry-dock and ship-building plant to be erected at Sault Ste. Marie as represented by the applicants for subsidy, and what amount has the capital been adjusted or fixed by the department for purposes of subsidy?
7.	Has the department approved of the plans submitted by the applicants for subsidy? If so, when were such plans approved of?
8.	If such plans have not been approved of
as to site of dry-dock, or the dry-dock itself, what objections have been raised against the same, and have such objections been met by promoters?	, a; '
9.	Is it the intention of the department to subsidize a dry-dock and ship-building plant at Sault Ste. Marie?
10.	Is the department aware that a substantial bonus for such dry-dock has been granted to the promoters of the said dry-dock by the council of the corporation of the town of Sault Ste. Marie after submission to, and approval of such by-laws by the ratepayers of said town, by an overwhelming majority on the 8th March last.
11.	If the department has not already approved of the plans of the dry-dock and shipbuilding yard at Sault Ste. Marie, what is the cause of the delay in giving such approval?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) 11th June, 1909. (c) The Sault Ste. Marie Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company, Limited.
2.	The dock is to be 620 feet long, 53 feet wide in the bottom and 85 feet wide at the top and to have at least 17 feet 6 inches of water on the mitre sill, at low water.
3.	Yes.
4.	6 (a), 7, 8, 9, and 11. The whole matter is now being reported upon by the resident engineer.
5.	No.
6.	(b) The company is entitled to ask for an annual subsidy of 3 per cent on the total cost for 20 years, provided the plans are approved by the department and the work is carried out as designed.
10. Yes.


SEA GULL DOCK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. George Taylor- asked:
1.	Who was the superintendent in charge of the work of construction at Sea Gull dock on St. Joseph Island, in Lake Huron?
2.	When was he employed, at what rate, and for what period of time was he paid?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	T. A. Armstrong.
2.	(a) and (c) October 9, 1908, to March
31, 1909.	(b) $3 per working day.


' CEMENT MERGER.
Mr. BRADBURY asked:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the cement merger that has taken place, by means of which the Canada Cement Company, Limited, has taken over ten of the largest cement companies of Canada with a capital of $30,000,000 and that on account of this merger the price of cement to the consumer has been very much increased?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to take action to protect the public against this merger, which threatens to be a huge combine, thereby increasing the cost of cement, which is almost a necessity to-day in great
* works?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The government are aware from information in the public press, that a number of the cement manufactories of the Dominion have been consolidated under one large company. Whether this consolidation has unduly enhanced the price of cement is a disputed point.
The law provides two methods of dealing with combinations which unduly enhance prices. One of these, in the case of dutiable articles, is by abolition or reduction of customs duties, after the facts have been established by judicial inquiry. It is proposed to introduce, during the present session measures to make this portion of the law more effective. The other method is under the Criminal Code, the administration of which comes under the direction of the Attorneys General of the several provinces.


SOUTH AFRICAN WARRANTS.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked:: 1.	What number of warrants have been issued to date for South African veterans' services?
2.	What number of warrants have been filed for land personally by veterans?
3.	What number of substitutes have been registered ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	6,645.
2.	420.
3.	2,498.


LIFE-SAVING STATION IN BAY OF FUNDY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DANIEL-by Mr. Crocket-asked:
1.	Is there a life-saving station in the Bay of Fundy? If so, where, and what is its equip-anent?
2.	Who lias charge of the boat and equipment ?
3.	Is there a crew provided for the boat? If not, how is a crew obtained when the services of the boat are required?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to provide a crew for this boat?
5.	Was this life-boat used on the occasion of the recent wreck of the SS. 'Hestia'? If not, why not?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes. At Westport, Brier Island, there is a subsidized motor boat and crew. There is a Beebe-McLellan life boat at Seal Cove, Grand Manan, with coxswain in charge, hut no established crew.
2.	At Westport Mr. Bowers, the owner of the boat. At Seal Cove Mr. T. C. Benson, the coxswain.
3.	Not at Seal Cove. Volunteers have to man the boat at present.
4.	Yes, if not at present station, at some more suitable locality.


Mr. BRADBURY.: 5.	No. When the fishermen at Seal Cove, nine and a half miles distant, heard of the wreck, they set out in their sailing fishing boats, with which they rescued the survivors. It was not a case then for a life boat and beyond the beat of the Seal Cove Station.


PASSAGE OF TRAINING SHIPS THROUGH CANALS.
Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	Referring to the passage of United States warships or training vessels through the St. Lawrence canals to the Great Lakes, to what department was each application of the United States government referred?
2.	Did the department to which the application was referred take steps in each case to consult other departments interested? If so, what departments were so consulted, and have records of such consultations been preserved?


Right Hon.   S@: Every application was
dealt with by the Governor in Council on the report, either of the Minister of Railways and Canals, or of the Secretary of State.


OLD PROPRIETOR LIGHT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DANIEL-by Mr. Crocket-asked:
1.	When was the government or any of its departments informed that the light in the buoy on the Old Proprietor rock in the Bay of Fundy was out, and that the whistle of said buoy was also defective?
2.	Is the government or the Department of Marine and Fisheries aware that this light has not been operating during the whole or greater part of the past summer?
3.	Why has this gas automatic whistle buoy been allowed to remain so long in this defective condition?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1 and 2. The St. John agency of the department was advised January 22, 1909, that light was out. The acting agent thereupon notified the shipping interests and advertised in local papers on January 25 that light was out. The department at Ottawa was not aware of the irregularity. Whistle was found defective November 7, 1909.
3.	On account of adverse weather conditions, also press of work in connection with more important aids to navigation.


POWASSAN-NIPISSING MAIL ROUTES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARTHURS-by Mr. Kidd-asked:
1.	Have requests by petition or otherwise been received for a change in the existing mail route between Powassan and Nipissing and Restoule? If so, from wrbom?
2.	Has the Post Office Inspector made a report on the said proposed changes?
3.	If a report has been made recommending a change, why has such change not been made?

Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER
(for the Postmaster General):
1, 2 and 3. The department having been advised that the arrangements for the mail service between Powassan, Nipissing and Restoule were not satisfactory, the matter was referred to the inspector for inquiry. He recommended a rearrangement of the services, which the department authorized, but a largely signed petition having been received from the district protesting against the change, the matter has been held in abeyance until further inquiry is made by the inspector.

[Stage Direction]
A copy of the contract for the dredging of the Napanee river during the summer of 1909; name of the contractor who had the contract; names of the engineers in charge of the work and the inspector; the depth and width of the channel after dredging; the length of time taken to complete the work; the total amount of money expended on the work; whether the work was done by day work or by the yard; and the prices paid by day or by yard.-Mr. Uriah Wilson.
For a copy of all reports, letters, communications and documents touching or relating to the resignation of Hugh D. Lumsden from his position as chief engineer of the National Transcontinental railway, including a copy of all letters, communications or reports of the said Hugh D. Lumsden to the Prime Minister, touching or relating to his resignation, or to the affairs of the National Transcontinental railway.-Mr. R. L. Borden. [DOT] For a copy of all correspondence, documents and papers of every description not already brought down touching the recent treaty with the French Republic, or any modification therein.-Mr. R. L. Borden.
For a return showing in relation to each dog-fish reduction plant or establishment for the reduction of dog-fish erected by or for the government or maintained in whole or in part by the government, (a) the cost of construction, (b) the cost of maintenance for each year, (c) the location, (d) the quantity of dog-fish treated thereat in each year, and
(e)	the amount realized from the sale of or the disposal in each year.-Mr. R. L. Borden.
For a copy of all orders in council at present in force with reference to immigration; also a copy of all regulations in force at the present time in connection with immigration in Canada.-Mr. Uriah Wilson.

Robert Laird Borden: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents and papers not already brought down touching the treaty with the United States of America known as the Waterways Treaty, or any modification thereof.


Wilfrid Laurier: Stand.


Robert Laird Borden: Do you wish this to stand?


Wilfrid Laurier: The matter is still under consideration and if my hon. friend will renew the motion at a later date I will be happy to bring down the papers.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good.
Motion allowed to stand.


WHARFS IN JACQUES CARTIER COUNTY.
Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for:
A copy of all petitions addressed to the government or any member thereof, as well as of all letters, correspondence and reports in the possession of the government, and having reference to repairs required at two wharfs built by the government and situated at Ste. Genevieve and Isle Bizard, in Jacques Cartier County, P.Q.
He said:	These two wharfs were constructed by the Dominion government in the year 1888, on the river which runs north of the island of Montreal from the Lake of Two Mountains to the St. Lawrence at the lower end of the island. The two wharfs cost about $35,000; one was located on the Island of Montreal in the parish of St. Genevieve, and the other on an island in the lake of Two Mountains in the parish of Isle Bizard. The wharfs were built opposite each other and some years ago the provincial government, with the consent of the federal government, I have no doubt connected these wharfs by a steel bridge, the wharfs themselves forming the abutments of the bridge. These wharfs were originally built because they were useful, the river there is navigable at certain seasons of the years and there is considerable traffic in the district. No doubt the federal government acquiesced in the construction of this bridge and at all events on several occasions, since the bridge was erected the federal government has repaired the wharfs. So far as I have been able to discover the wharfs were not deeded over to the municipality or to the Quebec government when the bridge was built, and I believe they remain the absolute property of the federal government. In 1904 the wharfs were in a bad state and this parliament voted $2,800 for repairs. Mr. Hyman was then Minister of Public Works and I sent him an estimate prepared by contractors of repute showing that this vote was insufficient and that it would be necessary to expend four or five thousand dollars to place either wharf in proper condition. Mr. Hyman wrote me that the vote in question was the only amount available, that they would expend it, and that if further repairs became necessary they would no doubt be attended to by the government.



At the present time the condition of these two wharfs is deplorable. The wharf on the St. Genevieve side, owing to the spring freshets and the piling up of the ice has almost completely given way, and the other wharf is also in need of extensive repairs. If these wharfs, the property of the Dominion government, are to be preserved at all, they must be attended to at once. The bridge itself cost $40,000 and should the wharfs give way there will be a combined loss to the provincial and federal governments which it would take $100,000 to replace. The situation from the point of view of the provincial government is this: we have a law in the province of Quebec in regard to the steel bridges constructed under the Mercier administration.
Under that law, 56 Victoria, the supervision of these steel bridges is vested in the provincial government. Bridges joining two parishes in the same county are to be repaired by the county, bridges leading from one county to another are to be repaired by both counties, bridges in the same parish are to be repaired by the municipality of the parish, and the inspector of government public works is authorized by that statute, if he finds repairs necessary, to notify those who are responsible for those repairs, and, if they are not executed, to execute them himself at the expense of the parties responsible. The condition of this bridge has been investigated bv the provincial government, and a notice has been served upon the interested parties to repair the bridge. Nothing has been done. I myself applied to the local government to avail themselves of the provision of the statute which says that if the repairs are not made, then the government makes them and recovers the cost thereof from the parties responsible. But, so far as I can see, the objection of the local government is this:	We will not repair the bridge with
the prospect that in the spring the piers belonging to the Dominion government will be carried away and the bridge will be lost, it is for the Dominion government to do its duty and repair these piers, when they will be in a fit and proper condition, we will attend to the bridge. Now, I have had some correspondence with my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works in regard to this matter, and my hon. friend has always answered my letters with his proverbial courtesy and offered to have the matter looked into. In his last communication my hon. friend stated that there was no money available for these urgent repairs. I think I pointed out to my hon. friend that this was a case of urgency, and that the government had power to make the repairs, and should make them while the water in the river is low, which is the only time at which the repairs can be made. But nothing, so far as I know, has been done, and I ask for this correspendence with the view Mr. MONK.
of bringing this question to the notice of the House. It seems a great pity that a valuable asset such as these piers are, should be allowed to be lost, because I can state, so far as my information goes, that next spring's freshets will carry off at least one of these piers. It is all the greater pity, as the government has allowed the provincial government to place a valuable bridge upon these piers without charging that government or any other authority with the maintenance of this public work. It is a Dominion public work, it is in danger, and I think it calls for the immediate attention of the government.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, in the interesting address which my hon. friend has delivered in support of this motion, he has, I think, forgotten one very important point, that is, to inform the House as to what quantity of shipping resorts to these wharfs and therefore to what extent they are useful for purposes of navigation. If he had done so, my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who was Minister of Finance when these wharfs were built in 1888, might have felt it his duty to make some explanations to the House of the rather ex-t.raordinairy coincidence which led to the building of two wharfs on that river, the one being directly opposite the other, and why the government of that day saw fit to expend some $35,000, ostensibly for the building of wharfs, which apparently, from the remarks of my hon. friend, were intended to constitute the piers for a steel bridge which the provincial government of the day were induced to erect upon these piers. If my hon. friend who represents St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) were here, I have no doubt that on hearing the remarks of my hon. friend, he would feel it his duty to repair at once to the site of these wharfs with his camera and have them photographed to show what kind of wharfs were erected in 1888, when the hon. member for North Toronto was Minister of Finance. It is true, I had correspondence with my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, and I promised him, as I felt it my duty to do, to look carefully into his representations and. see whether I could meet his views. There is a difficulty, because I have taken, and with the approval of my colleagues, somewhat strong ground against a continuance, of the practice of allowing wharfs to be utilized as substructures for bridges. In some cases this has been done, and we have been attacked pretty strongly for it by some of our friends on the opposite side of the House. But the case which my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the House is about the worst case that has come under my notice. It is quite true, I told my hon. friend that I had no appropriation available for the purpose,

I have not at present any appropriation available for the purpose, and I am not quite sure that the maintenance and repairs of what is in reality the substructure of this bridge ought not to be attended to by either the provincial or the local authorities. However, if my hon. friend will be content to have the motion amended by adding the words, ' and also all the correspondence concerning the construction of those wharfs and of their use as piers for a bridge,' I shall be very glad to have the correspondence brought down, and I will then give further careful consideration to the question of making expenditures for the repairs of these alleged wharfs, but what are in reality bridge piers.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Will the hon. gentleman consent to amend his motion as suggested?


Mr. MONK.: I do not mind, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is as pleasant and oily in his words as he is in his letters. From the correspondence which I had with my hon. friend, I understood that he had given some attention to thisi matter and looked at it in a serious way, and intended to examine whether, this being really government property, the government had a right to allow it to perish without repairing it. My hon. friend does not seem to have paid any attention whatever to that point. He is satisfied with a comment upon the circumstances which existed at that very distant period when these piers were built.. Would it not rather be proper for my hon. friend to declare whether the government intends keeping these wharfs as its own property or abandoning them to the provincial gov-enments or the parties to whom they are useful? Does he not think he might have given a few moments to that point, which is the only serious one in the matter. In 1904, either he or his predecessor took an entirely different view and repaired these wharfs. Why will not the present minister do that to-day? In 1904, no question was raised as to where or what was the origin of this public work. The local member for the county then happened to belong to the same political faith as my hon. friend and urged that the work be done. It was done. But because this year the local member does not belong to his political faith, my hon. friend takes an entirely different view, and has not even taken the trouble to make up his mind as to whether we would say to the people that the federal government does not think it ought to keep these works and is prepared to deed them to the provincial government, or that the prov-vincial government having repaired that bridge and having placed it upon these piers, should take over the whole business. He has not thought of that at all, but has indulged in a few pleasantries at the' expense of my hon. friend from Toronto, because forsooth, some twenty years ago, other considerations entered into the construction of these piers which neither my hon. friend nor I know anything about. Certainly from the admirable letters my hon. friend wrote me, one would judge that they were written by some courtier of the court of Louis XIV., and I could not imagine from them that he would get up here and state that he would not repair the piers or allow any one else to repair them. That is indeed a very sad disappointment. As regards the amendment suggested by my hon. friend, I have no objection whatever. There is navigation there, and these wharfs were constructed because they were required for that locality, and they are in a locality which pays one fourth of the taxes in the Dominion. I refer to the Island of Montreal. But this government has built wharfs since where there is no navigation at all. They built a wharf at Disraeli, and we have evidence that the cows are now browsing around it. I am not blaming my hon. friend or the government, but I say that if sins have been committed in the past, they have been very admirable imitators.
Motion as amended agreed to.


RIVER DES PRAIRIES.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a copy of all petitions addressed to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, or to the government, or any department thereof; also, of all letters, correspondence of all kinds, and all reports had by the government in reference to the navigation, cleaning and deepening of the river known as River des Prairies, following along the northern boundary of the Island of Montreal.
He said: This is a motion for copies of petitions which have been sent in to the government during the past year in connection with some works required in the River des Prairies, which is the river where the wharfs mentioned a few moments ago were constructed. In this case, however, the works asked for interest not only the county of Jacques Cartier but the county of Laval, where a supporter of my hon. friend has been elected, which gives me great confidence that this motion will be given greater consideration than the one just disposed of. This river runs from the Lake of Two Mountains through these two counties down to the St. Lawrence at the lower end of the Island of Montreal. It has been very carefully examined and surveyed by the Georgian Bay Canal Survey Commission. The government therefore, is in possession of all the necessary information, not only for the execution of the Georgian Bay canal but also for the comparatively insignificant work referred to in this motion. The projected Georgian


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has been misinformed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, these facts are well known. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugs-ley) will come with me to the place I will show him that it is quite evident that the work was done for private purposes. The hon. gentleman must remember also that dredging was done around some of the islands in Vaudreuil to benefit men politically important, friends of the hon. minister, who owned islands in that locality. They wanted their islands enlarged by dredging the lake and placing the dredged material on the island. In fact the.domain of these owners has been extended by my hon. friend's dredging. And I think dredging of the same kind was done in Nicolet.


Wilfrid Laurier: Long ago.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, not long ago. In fact, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) knows that it is going on now. Thev are dredging across the river St. Lawrence opposite the county of Nicolet, in quicksand or clay, at a point where the current of the St. Lawrence is so rapid that, as everybody in that section knows, the trench dug by the dredge is filled up in forty-eight hours. But the dredge returns every year and continues digging in this trench which is filling up as it is made. This, no doubt, has emboldened my young friends of the Cartierville Boating Club to think that, if dredging is done in the way I have indicated, it might be done for the purpose of affording facilities of navigation for their club and the residents of the locality. This is the letter of the club:
Cartierville Boating Club,
Montreal, Sept. 23, 1909. Mr. F. D. Monk, K.C., M.P,
Dear Mr. Monk, as you are doubtless aware, the Riviere des Prairies is shallow and rocky in many places between Cartierville and Lake of Two Mountains and has practically no navigable channel for anything larger than a canoe in many places and at low water not even a canoe can be pad-died up the worst of the shallows.
Your two hundred and fifteen fellow-members of the Cartierville Boating Club, many of them owning motor boats as well as canoes and skiffs are thus restricted from using the upper portion of this beautiful river and the Lake of Two Mountains except at highwater, and I have been asked to write to you saying that they earnestly request that you will bring to bear all the influence possible.
Very little influence, I am afraid, with my hon. friend or his government.
In order to have our government take the necessary steps to have the river made navigable under low water conditions for boats of say four to five feet draft.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. member (Mr. Monk) say that a canoe cannot float on these shallows now, and that he wants five feet of cutting done in solid rock?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no solid rock, and to deepen the river to five feet would not be very costly, while it would enable motor boats and small craft to go up that river to the Lake of Two Mountains which affords access to great stretches of navigation. Certainly there is more water there than in the Newmarket canal.
Our club may now be considered a body of some importance in aquatic matters about the Island of Montreal. Its members consist for the most part of rising young business and professional men of Montreal and West-mount, and the summer residents of Cartier-ville, together with some of the well-known men of affairs in the vicinity, such as:- Hugh Paton, president, Shedden Forwarding Co., .T. C. King, of Warden, King, Limited, E. W. Barlow, of Barlow, Mongenais & Co., J. A. Bremner, of Alex. Bremner, Bleury St., C. E. Hanna, secretary of the Dominion Textile Co., Limited, S. C. Jones, of S. C. Jones & Co., Importers, H. F. Stearns of the Dominion Wadding Co., and many others.
The Club stands for clean sport in its best sense, and is doing everything in its power to further the interests of boating particularly, and, in its small way, the welfare of Canada generally.
We would ask you then, as one of its -members, as well as the county's official representative, to put the club's request before parliament at your first opportunity and to do your utmost to have this matter put through.
Will y-ou please be good enough to write to me saying what we may expect you to do for us.
Awaiting your reply, I am, sir,
Yours very truely,
F. B. Brown, Honorary Sec.-Treasurer.
Now, I will send my reply as s-oo-n as my bon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) states that, as this work is not very costly, as he has all the information necessary in his department, and as the interests are worthy of consideration, he will have that work executed next summer and give satisfaction to this large number of interested parties.


William Pugsley: I do not think I can properly allow the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) to pass without some observations from me, especially in view of the fact that he has made the statement that this work will be one of very trifling cost and suggests that therefore I ought to do it as a matter of course. I am quite sure that my hon. friend has been misinformed with regard to the cost. The river, at the point at which the department is asked to dredge it, is very rocky and is full of boulders. As the petition states-and I think my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) stated also-at present at times, there is scarcely water enough to float a canoe. The department is asked to dredge so that there shall be a navigable channel with four or five feet depth of water. I may say, I am having the matter
inquired into. I have been very strongly pressed to do this work, not only by my hon. friend, but by the hon. gentleman representing the constituency of Laval (Mr. Wilson). But I may say to my hon. friend from Jacques -Cartier that, if the doing of this work had to depend entirely upon the fact that it would be of some advantage to the boating club to which my hon. friend refers, and whose members have appealed to him so strongly as a fellow-member, I am afraid I should not be able to look upon it favourably. I do not think that the money of this country should be expended, in very large amounts at all events, for the purpose of improving navigation in order simply to accommodate those who are members of boating clubs and -desire to use small motor boats, rowboats and the like. But the hon. member for Laval has put the case upon a very much stronger ground. He stated that in the locality and along this river for a number of miles there is a community of very prosperous farmers who would find it of very great advantage in getting their produce to market if there was navigation upon this river.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think I -stated that also.


William Pugsley: That is an argument that has impressed me, and by reason of that argument having - been presented, I have directed the resident engineer to make a report; and, if it is found reasonably possible, at a moderate expense, to give navigation which will enable the farmers better to take their produce to market and thus cheapen the cost of transportation. I shall be very happy indeed if I can meet their request. Of course, I can make no promise until we have the report of the engineer and a very complete estimate of the cost of the proposed dredging work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are we not going to proceed with the business? This is government day, there are matters that we could advance to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is very impatient, it seems to me. There is no business on the paper that could dbrne before'the House at the present moment. There was a motion to be introduced by the Minister of Inland Revenue, which will come up to-morrow.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is government day, and for my own part I am ready for business, and anxious to advance it. It is only half past four o'clock. There is not a single

piece of government business ready for us to attend to; I think that fact ought to be insisted upon. For my own part I am not satisfied, and I would like to proceed with the business for which we have been summoned to parliament.



INDIAN LANDS IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA.

Mr. J. HERRON (Macleod).: Before the House adjourns, I wish to bring before the House a matter which I consider urgent, and of considerable public importance. It affects more particularly the Department of the Interior, and I am sorry the Minister of the Interior is not in his place; he is probably not far away. He is aware of the fact that I was going to bring this matter up. It refers to the disposal of some Indian lands in the province of Alberta.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is not quite regular for the hon. member to introduce a discussion on this question. We have laid down the rule that it is only in cases of urgency that a matter can be brought before the House on a motion to adjourn. If we allow a discussion to a motion to adjourn, another rule requires a formal motion for the purpose of bringing up the question. I would like the opinion of the House on this point.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the amendment you refer to was one restricting the rule that a motion to adjourn is always in order. That rule was found to be somewhat subject to abuse, and it was therefore restricted. Thus, the right to move a question for the discussion of a particular subject on a motion to adjourn the House, is qualified; it exists only on certain conditions. I do not think that that particular restriction has any bearing on a debate which may take place when the Prime Minister or member of the government who is leading the House, actually moves that the House shall adjourn.


Wilfrid Laurier: With all deference to your position, it seems to me that the interpretation of the rule given by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is correct. The object of the rule is not to interrupt the business of the House by a motion to adjourn.


John Herron: I shall take up the time of the House but for a few moments. I desire to refer to a sale of land occupied by Indians, that was advertised to take plaae on the 24th of this month. The Teserve is situated between Macleod and Pincher Creek, where I live. The quantity of land is something less than a township. A majority of the Indians on the reserve that own the land are required to give their consent to a disposal of any portion of the land. Be that as it may, I am not thor-Mr. MONK.
oughly posted. It is claimed that when the first vote was taken half of the Indians on this reserve did not know the vote was to be taken to dispose of their land. It seems the majority was not sufficiently large to authorize a disposal of the land. It is alleged that the Indians were induced in some way to leave the reserve and be absent when the second vote was taken, and the second vote did not carry by a sufficient majority. A third vote was therefore necessary, and it is also alleged that some inducements were offered to some of the Indians who opposed the selling of the land to be absent, and on the third vote the proposition was carried. Now the sale is advertised to take place on the 24th of this month, and the Indians are apparently making a pretty vigorous protest, that is those who were opposed to the selling of this land. For my own part I am not prepared to say whether it would be a good thing for the Indians to dispose of a portion of their land or not at the present time. I think it would be rather to their advantage to sell the land. But that is not for me to say here to-day. I desire to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of the Interior in order that he may be acquainted with the facts. Perhaps they may be serious.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of Interior).: I am sorry the hon. member has not seen fit to ask for the production of the papers in this matter, because had the papers been before the House, there would have been an opportunity for all members on both sides to acquaint themselves with the actual facts of the case. However, as the question has been brought forward by my hon. friend; and as it happens I am personally familiar with the facts to a considerable extent, I may take the opportunity of placing them before the House, with the hope, however, that later on my hon!" friend will move for the papers, and that they will be placed before the House.


John Herron: I have moved for the papers.	.


Frank Oliver: As the hon. gentleman has said, the Indian reserve in] question is situated between the two towns of Macleod and Pincher Creek, .in Southern Alberta. The reserve is a very large one, and it is occupied by about 500 Indians. It is much larger than that number of Indians are entitled to under the treaty. But the reserve having been set apart for that band, they exercise proprietary rights in regard to the whole area. This band as well as several others in Southern Alberta, have made considerable progress towards self support. They have emerged from the condition of absolute dependence on the government, and to a great extent they now earn their own living, either by working for wages amongst the farmers and others

outside of the reserve, or by rearing stock and cultivating land within the reserve. Recently the development of agriculture in Southern Alberta has been such that it has borne in upon the minds of these people the possibilities that there are in the raising of crops upon their reservation, and they have from time to time approached officials of the department with the request that they be outfitted with the necessary implements and seed which would enable them to cultivate on a larger scale than at present.
Although the conditions of farming are perhaps not as arduous in the west as they are in the east, still farming requires capital; there must be motive power and machinery to break up the land, sow the crop and harvest it. The Indians could not be placed in a position to carry on farming operations without an expenditure of money. Their land has become very valuable by reason of the increase of settlement in the vicinity and it did not seem to the department reasonable that parliament should be asked to vote large sums of money to supply the Indians with a farming equipment when these Indians in their own property had ample means to supply their requirements. The matter has been under discussion for some time and naturally there are differences of opinion among the band on the subject. A member of the band who had a good farming outfit, with stock and a house, would naturally not be in favour of disposing of any of the land, whereas a member who had no equipment or cultivation would naturally be inclined to view the proposition with favour. The question was brought before the band as provided by the Indian Act, the proposition being to sell for the benefit of the band, a certain portion of the reserve on the side towards the town of Macleod. That proposition was not received with favour by the band. It was then proposed to surrender another portion of the reserve and this too was not received with favour. A third proposition was made for the surrender of a, portion of land on the northwest portion of the reserve, which lay across the Old Man river from the portion of the reserve that * was principally occupied by the Indians and this proposition was received with favour by the band. On a vote being taken, a majority of 12 of those present voted in favour of the sale of that portion of the reserve. This vote having been taken and it being considered by the department to be in the interests of the band that this land, which was of practically no value to the Indians, should be utilized to outfit them so as to enable them not only to earn their own living but to actually become profitable producers in the country, the surrender was accepted and means were taken to dispose of the property to the best advantage. Some 35 sections of land are involved. I visited the land myself. It is to a large extent very desirable land and no doubt will produce at the sale which is advertised to take place on the 24th of this month, a very substantial amount, which will certainly be sufficient to so equip the Indians as to enable them to support themselves on the portion of the reserve which they retain. That is our belief and in that belief we have been prepared to go on with the sale. When the papers are laid before the House they will show that there is no foundation for any suggestion of impropriety on the part of the department in the matter.
There is, as I have said, a difference of opinion between the Indians who have an equipment and the Indians who have not, but apparently the Indians who have not are in the majority, and as the law says that the majority shall rule, I see nothing else but to go on with the sale as has bean intended. I held council with the Indians myself for some five hours and heard arguments on both sides very thoroughly threshed out, and I certainly was of the opinion that, the surrender having been made, the sale should be carried out.



ST. JOHN RIVER VALLEY RAILWAY.

Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, New Brunswick).: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns, I would ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if the government have yet considered the proposal which was made to a sub-committee of the cabinet consisting of himself, the Minister of Railways (Hon. G. P. Graham), and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Wm. Pugsley), in April last by a delegation from New Brunswick for the construction of a railroad from Grand Falls to the city of St. John by the valley of the St. John river and, if so, what decision has been arrived at? The right hon gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will remember that there was a very large delegation representing all the river counties of the province and that they represented to the sub-committee of the cabinet that they had the assurance of the government of New Brunswick that the Governor in Council of that province would undertake to guarantee bonds of any company undertaking the construction of that railway to the extent of $25,000 a mile, provided this government would agree to take over the line on completion and operate it as part of the Intercolonial system on the basis of a rental of forty per cent of the gross revenue. The delegation asked for an early reply in order that the necessary legislation might be put through the New Brunswick legislature at the last session, which was then expected to prorogue in the course of a few days. I remember the Prime Min-

ister stating that he considered the proposal a very definite one and intimating that a reply would be given in a very short time. Notwithstanding that assurance, I understand that there has since been no official communication to the government of New Brunswick, or to any other authority, in reference to the action of the government, and I would like to know now if the matter has been considered, and if so, what decision has been arrived at.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has desired that, as this is a matter affecting more particularly the province i f New Brunswick, and as I am very familiar with what has taken place, I should reply to the request of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) for information. I may say to him that no proposal was made to this government by the government of New Brunswick, but a proposal was made on behalf of a company which, we were informed, was incorporated by the legislature of New Brunswick. The members of the company were present, and I think also some officials of the province, particularly the Provincial Secretary, the Hon. Mr. Fleming. It was stated at that time that the company had the assurance of the provincial government that they would ask from the legislature of the province authority to guarantee the bonds of the railway company to the extent of $25,000 a mile, provided the Dominion government would agree that the Intercolonial railway should operate the line as a part of the government railway system and would pay over to the province forty per cent of the gross earnings. The government took the matter into consideration and a short time afterwards the government were informed that the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvel!) had received a telegram from the company stating that they were desirous of having a reply to the proposals which had been submitted. The member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) interviewed the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, and myself, and possibly other members of the government, and as a result of that interview he wired, as he was authorized to wire, to the company, that before giving-I am mw stating the effect of the telegram, I do not profess to give the exact words.


Mr. CARVELL.: I have the telegram here.


William Pugsley: This is the telegram *which the hon. member for Carleton sent to the secretary of the company:
Ottawa, April 28, '09.
J. -I. Winslow, Fredericton, N.B.
Before the Dominion government can give positive answer they require information as to details of proposition. They suggest that the local government pass legislation authorizing guarantee subject to conditions that the Dominion government make satisfactory agreement to operate.



F. B. CARVELL.

Oswald Smith Crocket: By whom was the member for Carleton authorized to convey that information?


William Pugsley: I have stated that that was sent after consultation by the member for Carleton with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, and myself, and the member for Carleton was authorized to send that telegram in answer to a telegram from the secretary of the company, addressed not to the government but to the member for Carleton.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have the telegram sent to me.


William Pugsley: This is the telegram dated April 27, 1909; from the secretary of the company to the member for Carleton:
' Fredericton, N.B., April 27, 1909.
F. B. Carvell, M.P., Ottawa.
We are credibly informed that local government will not introduce legislation guaranteeing bonds Valley railway unless prior assurance is received that Dominion government will operate road on completion. Would it be possible for you to obtain this assurance and wire us at once, as House rises Thursday or Friday.
J. J. F. WINSLOW, Secretary.'
The member for Carleton upon receiving that telegram saw the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, and myself, and he was authorized to send to Mr. Winslow the telegram of April the 28th, which I have read to the House. I may say that subsequently I received communications from the mayor of Fredericton, who is the president of the company, and I submitted the correspondence to the Prime Minister and also to the Minister of Railways, and as a result of the interviews I had with my colleagues I made it very plain and clear to the company that before this government could give a definite answer it would be necessary that a definite proposition should be submitted on behalf either of the company or of the provincial government. I called the attention of the company to the fact that an ofler to merely construct a road without specifying what was to be the standard of construction, what the grades, what the weight of rails, what the kind of bridges and culverts, what the equipment of the road, and without specifying these, to ask this government to agree that the road should be operated upon the basis of paying over to the provincial government 40 per cent of the gross earnings, was too indefinite a proposition for this government to consider.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would the minister allow me a question right there? Does the


Oswald Smith Crocket: minister remember the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, or himself, making any intimation to the delegation that such details as these would be required before this government would consider the proposal? Not a question indicating any such suggestion was asked by one of them. On the contrary the Prime Minister as already pointed out, described the proposal as a definite one which would have to be considered by the cabinet and intimated that an answer would be given in the course of a few days.


William Pugsley: I have not stated it was asked at the conference referred to, but I have stated that it was asked in a telegram which the member for Carleton sent, and I have also stated that it was asked distinctly and clearly in the letters which I wrote to the secretary and president of the company. These letters I wrote not only upon my responsibility as the minister representing the province, but also after a conference and also a full understanding with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that no legislation was introduced into the New Brunswick legislature by the provincial government, and no proposition has yet been made by the provincial government in response to the suggestions made by the member for Carleton and which were afterwards made by myself in the letters to which I have referred.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to ask the minister if the government took the proposition that they would not consider the proposal until it was put in the form of a statute.


William Pugsley: Not at all. I hope I made myself clear to the hon. gentleman. What I stated was that before this government would consider the proposal as to whether or not the Intercolonial would operate this railway upon the basis of paying over to the province 40 per cent of the gross earnings, they must know the character of the road which it was proposed to build, what would be the grades, what the description of bridges, what the weight of the rails, and what the equipment, in order that they might determine intelligently whether or not the road could be operated upon the percentage basis proposed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: One other question: Has not the government of New Brunswick asked for a conference with a .sub-committee of the Council to discuss these matters to which the minister has referred?


William Pugsley: I may say that the government of New Brunswick has not directly asked for a conference, but the railway company has written to me asking that I would arrange for a conference. I have written back to the president of the company to say that I was authorized by my colleagues to state that when a definite proposition along the lines which I have indicated was submitted to the government, I would be most happy to arrange the earliest date possible for a conference, but that until a definite proposition was submitted, I was unable to see what would be the advantage of a conference.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 17, 1909.