1909-01-28

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 17) to amend and revise the Immigration Act-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 22) respecting the hours of labour on public works-Mr. Verville.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 18) to amend the Animals' Contagious Diseases Act.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Would the hon. gentleman make a brief explanation?


Mr. FISHER.: This is but a short Bill for the purpose of remedying a misarrange-ment of this Act in the revised statutes and to restore the provisions as they were in the old Act before the statutes came into force.


Robert Laird Borden: Were they changed in any important particular in the revised statutes ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, there was a transposition from one clause to another of the limit of the valuation of where compensation should be paid in case of slaughter, thus changing the amount fixed. This re-

stores the amount to that provided for in the old Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 19) to amend the Post Office Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman explain ?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: 
Mr. HENDERSON.: May I ask the minister if he proposes to make any reduction in the postage on drop letters in rural districts which was referred to last session?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well I have just explained the objects of this Bill. We may have occasion to discuss later on the question which my hon. friend is raising now.


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

Hon. GEORGE  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 20) to amend the Government Railways Act,


Mr. HAGGART.: Explain.


Mr. GRAHAM.: It will be remembered by those who were present during last session that an amendment was made to the Government Railways Act to make the procedure for the collection of damages for loss of any kind more in conformity with that provided for by the General Railway Act. I find that two or three clauses were left out of that amendment last year that should have been embodied in it in order to make it more in harmony with the General Railway Act. This is to remedy that difficulty.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does the Bill give the Exchequer court jurisdiction to deal with such cases against the railway?


George Perry Graham: The old Act gave the Exchequer court full jjower in that regard.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What I meant to ask was, if the Bill gave the courts of the provinces jurisdiction in such cases?


George Perry Graham: That is a large question and one that involves the principle of whether the Crown shall forfeit its right to have certain cases tried before the Exchequer court. We are not dealing with that in this Bill; we are simply trying to make the Act of last year clearer.


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

Hon. GEORGE  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals), moved for leave to introduce (Bill No. 21) to amend the Railway Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Please explain.


Mr. GRAEIAM.: This Bill is intended to place the water-powers, the development of which is being largely increased, particularly along the Trent Valley canal, under government control in respect to rates to be paid by the public to the lessees of the government. There is a clause in the Bill providing that any disputes as to these rates shall be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. LANCASTER.: That is not government control.


Mr. LENNOX.: Is that confined to the Trent canal?


George Perry Graham: I mentioned the Trent Valley canal because the situation there was the special reason for introducing the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it to apply to all government canals?


George Perry Graham: The Bill is general in its terms.


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


Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked :: 1.	What was the number of '(a) permanent employees, and (b) temporary employees respectively in .the service or employment of the government upon or in connection with (a) the Intercolonial railway, and '(b) the Prince Edward Island railway upon (a) the first day of each month, (b) the 15th day of each month, and (c) the 31st day of December, all in the year 1908?
2.	What was the total amount of the pay-roll
of each of the said railways for each of the said months ?	_
3.	Were salaries or wages raised or lowered for either permanent or temporary employees during the said year upon the said railways or either of them ?
4.	If so, on what occasions and to what extent on each occasion?


George Perry Graham: This is a large question and we have to get our information from Moncton which takes a little time. We have asked for the information.


THE INSURANCE COMMISSION
Air. MACDONELL asked :: 1.	Why was not .the evidence of British actuaries taken by Mr. Shepley in England in the Insurance Commission not included in the printed evidence of the commission?
2.	What did this evidence cost the country P
3.	Why was not the evidence or the report of Mr. Dawson, actuary of the commission, included in the printed evidence?
4.	Was the evidence above mentioned placed on the table of the House last year together with the printed volumes of evidence? If not, why not?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (for Minister of Marine).: 1.	No evidence of British actuaries was taken bv Mr. Shepley in England in connection with the Royal Commission on Life Insurance. During the adjournment of the Commission in August, 1906, Mr. Shepley, then in London, invited with the approval of the Commisioners British actuaries to give expressions of opinion on matters relevant to the inquiry. A shorthand report of these verbal opinions, not given under oath, was taken, and the extended notes, together with a written memorandum subsequently submitted by one of these actuaries, constitutes exhibit No. 668, in the record of the evidence returned to Parliament. Exhibit No. 668 is now in the possession of the Clerk of the House of Commons. These opinions were read before the Commissioners and were made an exhibit (Volume 4, p. 3211 of the printed evidence). The practice adopted by the Commission in this case of incorporating expert opinion in the record by exhibit had previously been fol- * Mr. GRAHAM.
lowed in at least one somewhat similar instance.
2.	The cost of obtaining these opinions was $62.85. This is exclusive of any charge made by Mr. Shepley for his services in eliciting these views. Inasmuch as Mr. Shepley was paid a general fee for all services it is not possible to state what sum, if any, is applicable to this particular service.
3.	Mr. Dawson, actuary to the Commission gave no evidence before the Commission. He acted altogether in an advisory capacity, and gave the Commission information and advice on such actuarial matters as were referred to him. Such information and advice formed no part of the records of the Commission.
4.	Answered by the foregoing.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES AT TRURO.

Mr. STANFIELD asked:: How many men, not on the regular staff, wore employed at Truro ou the Intercolonial Railway during the months of September, October, November and December, 1908, respectively ?


George Perry Graham: We have to send to Moncton for the information to enable us to answer such a question as this, and often the officials at Moncton have to send to the outside stations, all of which requires certain time. When I ask any of these questions to stand it does not mean that we have not taken steps to get a reply.
Question to stand.



ROYAL MINT.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	What is the amount of gold, silver and copper coius manufactured by the branch of the Royal Mint in Canada and the amount of said coin not disposed of since it commenced operation up to January 1, 1909?
2.	How much silver in its crude state has been offered for sale to the management of the Royal Mint from Canadian mines to the year 1908, and what quantity has been accepted?
3.	What reason does the government give for not purchasing all the silver in its crude state that is offered?
4.	What is the system used in deciding from whom to make purchases?
5.	How many Canadian mines have sold silver to the government and what are the names of said mines and the quantity purchased from each?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: I have been asked by the Finance Department to ask my hon. friend to allow this question to stand as a notice of motion.
Question to stand as notice of motion.



THE ROSS RIFLE.

Mr. NORTHRUP asked:: 1.	How many Ross rifles were accepted by the Militia Department in the year 1908?
2.	How many were returned to the Ross Rifle Company in that year?
3.	How many Ross rifles have been accepted up to date?
4.	How many have been issued to the (a) permanent corps, (b) militia, (c) mounted police?
5.	How many Ross rifles are there now in store ?
6.	How many of these have never been issued ?
7.	What is the total amount of the payment to the Ross Rifle Company to date?
8.	What claims for damages have been sent in for injuries reoeived through the use of the Ross rifle ?


Hon.   S@: I have had to send to Quebec for the information; I think I will have it on Monday.
Question to stand.



G.T.R.-MADOC AND ELDORADO BRANCH.

Mr. NORTHRUP asked:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps to secure the re-opening and operation of the railroad between Madoc and Eldorado and that it should be completed and continuously operated ?
2.	Has the government taken any steps to recover from the Grand Trunk Railway the bonus of over $2,000 paid to it on condition that the line of railway between Madoc and Eldorado should be completed and continuously operated?


George Perry Graham: 1 and 2. No.



WIRE FENCING.

Mr. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Did the Department of Railways and Canals call for tenders for 144 miles, more or iess, of wire fencing during the summer or fall of 1908? If so, were the tenders asked for by publio advertisement or by circular?
2.	How many tenders were received and from whom?
3.	Was the contract let, and at what price and to whom ?
4.	What quantity of wire fencing was purchased by the Department of Railways and Canals during 1908, either by tender or otherwise, and what were the prices paid per mile?


George Perry Graham: This is somewhat a large question; there is no objection whatever to answering it, but I would ask my hon. friend to let it stand as notice of motion for a return.
Question to stand as notice of motion.



GOVERNMENT DEPOSITS IN BANKS.

Mr. MACDONELL asked:: 1.	In what bank or banks in Canada does the government deposit its moneys?
2.	If the government deposits in one bank, or in a limited number of banks only, what is the reason for such discrimination, and what advantage does the country derive from such preference to such bank or banks?
3.	Have all the chartered banks doing business in Canada, an opportunity of receiving government deposits, and doing business with the government, on the same terms as the bank or banks with whom the government deposits and does business aforesaid?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (for the Minister of Finance):: 1.	Montreal, British North America, City and District Savings, Commerce, Dominion, Eastern Townships, Hamilton, Hochelaga, Imperial, Merchants, Molson's, Nationale, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ottawa, Provinciate, Quebec, Royal, Standard, St. Stephens, Toronto, Union of Canada, Union of Halifax.
2 and 3. By order in council of the 27th October, 1885, it was declared not desirable that the number of banking accounts should be extended. Since that time no new accounts have been opened with any bank.



DRY DOCK SUBSIDIES ACTS.

Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Have any new subsidies been arranged for under section 3 of the Dry Dock Subsidies Act of 1908? If so, to what companies and where are docks to be constructed?
2.	HaVe any additional subsidies been arranged for under section 4 of said Act? If so, with what companies and at what points?
3.	What will be the annual expenditure under each head?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1,	2 and 3. No.



PROHIBITION OF CIGARETTES.

Mr. BLAIN asked :: Will the government at this session pass legislation -to prohibit or restrict the sale of cigarettes ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is not the intention of the government to introduce this session any legislation in amendment of the legislation of last session on this subject.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-STATION FREIGHT CLERKS.

Mr. MACDONELL asked :: 1.	Has the award of the board of investigation appointed under the provisions of the Lemieux Act to determine upon the disputes between the station freight clerks and the Intercolonial railway ever been accepted by the government or the management of the Intercolonial railway? If so, when? If not, why not?
2.	If accepted, what has been done to enforce the terms of the award with respect to the classification of employees, wages, &c?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes. On October 10, 1908.
2.	As the award implies a reduction in the staff, instructions were forwarded to the general manager, asking him to submit list of names with full particulars as to date of employment;, salary now paid, date of last increase and amount of same, and record of capacity of each man. The general manager is engaged in preparing the same.



SECURITIES OF CORPORATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SIFTON-by Mr. Turriff-asked :
1.	What is the total amount of valuable securities held in (the custody of the government through the Finance Department, of any branch thereof, which are deposited under any statutes or regulations for the purpose of furnishing security in -respect of the operations in Canada of institutions and -corporations incorporated -by Canadian, British or foreign authority ?
2.	What is the amount of such securities which are issued by a government -in Canada or municipal or other corporations domiciled in Canada?
3.	What is the amount of such securities which are British?
4.	What is the amount of such securities which are issued by a government in the United States or -municipal or other corporations domiciled in the United States?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (for the Minister of Finance) :: 1.	$46,241,635.71.
2 $42,412,475.43.
3.	$2,275,653.33.
4.	$1,480,000.



OWEN SOUND POST OFFICE.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO asked :: 1.	What was (a) the original, (b) the present estimated cost of -the Owen Sound post office building, (e) wh-at was the cost of -the site, (d) from whom -was it purchased?
2.	What are the names of the contractors for the various trades in connection, the nature of the work to be performed by them and the contract price therefor, respectively ?
3.	Which, if any, of such contracts were let by public tender, and i-n what -manner were same advertised?
4.	(a) By whom were the -plans and specifications for said -building -prepared, (b) who is now in charge of construction thereof, (c) -and what -is -the -remuneration -being paid such person therefor?
5.	Has any change been made with -respect to the position of architect or person at Owen Sound in charge of the construction of said building? If so, -what -and why -was such change -made?
6.	(a) Have -alterations been made in the plans and specifications or the size of the said building since the contracts were let? If so, (c) w-h-at, (d) the contract price thereof, (e) the reason for such change, (f! whether tenders were called for such alterations?


Mr. MACDONELL.: 7.	If -so, what ,i-s the name of the successful tenderer, and the amount of his and other tenderers, and the names? If no tenders were called for, -why -not?
8.	W-h-as extras, if any, have been ordered or -allowed, -and the cost thereof?
9.	Is there -any provision in the contract or specifications, and -wh-at, prohibiting the use of foreign material thereon? If so, has any complaint been -made to the government or -its officers in regard thereto, and h-a-s any breach of -said prohibition taken place?
10.	What amount o-f money -has been -paid on account of said building to date ?
11.	Has any caretaker for said building been appointed or recommended? If so, at what sal-airy?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Original estimated cost : $80,000, exclusive of site and additional storey; (b) present estimated cost : $90,000, exclusive of site; (c) $10,150; (d) Kilburn Real Estate Company.
2.	Contractors for building, Nagle and Mills, original contract, $68,424, additional storey, $8,950 ; contractors for heating, J.
H.	McCorkindale, $2,515 ; contractors for electric wiring and fixtures, W. J. MeLin-den, $735.
3 .Original contract for building, $63,424; by public advertisement.
4.	(a) Department of Public Works ; (b) Forster & Clark, architects, Owen Sound ; (c) 2 per cent commission.
5.	Not that I am aware of.
6.	(a) Yes, to the plans ; the specification for building holds for addition ; (b) mansard roof has been added giving an additional storey ; (c) $8,950 ; (d) to improve the appearance of the building ; to give additional office accommodation, and to provide quarters for caretaker ; (e) contractors were asked to submit a tender.
7.	Nagle & Mills, $8,950 for building. Owing to the nature of the contract, the work was such that public tenders could not be invited.
8.	None.
9.	Yes. The specifications are prepared to suit local conditions, and cement, stone and hardware are specially specified to be Canadian, Indiana limestone was used in the cornice. No complaint has been made to the department.
10.	Total amount paid to date, including site, $74,585.89.
11.	Yes ; to take charge when his services are required ; salary, $450 per annum with quarters.



GEORGE ANSON AYLESWORTH.

Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds) asked :: 
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	19th April, 1907.
3.	Yes, inspector of employment agents, but from 12th December, 1907, to 28th March, 1908, he was engaged to deliver a series of lectures in England.
4.	$100 per month, paid monthly, yes.
5.	(a) $2,040; (b) $734.53.



THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.

Mr. PAQUET asked :: 1.	Has the government taken into consideration the petition with 450,000 signatures, with reference to the employment of Frenchmen equally with Englishmen in the province of Quebec, on works of public utility, under the direct or indirect control of the government?
2.	Have the representatives of the railway, telegraph and telephone companies and others' been consulted as to the provisions of the Lavergne Bill (No. 85) brought before parliament on the 28th day of January, 1908 ? If so, do they favour this legislation?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce during this session, the Lavergne Bill or a similar one?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes; the railway companies have been consulted, and they have agreed to issue bills of lading in Irench and otherwise to accommodate the French speaking public making use of the railways.
3.	It is not the intention of the government.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SIFTON-by Mr. Turriff-asked :
1.	What is the total number of employees upon the operating staff of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway above the ranks of brakesmen ?
2.	Of the total number how many are British subjects, and how many are citizens of the United States?
3.	What is the total number of employees upon the engineering staff of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, exclusive of labourers ?
4.	Of the total number, how many are British subjects, and how many are citizens of the United States?
George Perry Graham: The reply to this question is not in the hands of the government, neither is the information available to the government itself. We have asked the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to give us the information.



REGULATION OF IMMIGRATION.

Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Is the order in council passed in the session of parliament of 1907-8 pursuant to chapter 33 of the Acts of that session, still in force?
2.	Does the order in council apply generally tc -all Canada?
3.	Will the hon. Minister of the Interior bring down the order and any subsequent orders dealing with the same question and lay them on the table of the House?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3 \es. There have been no subsequent orders dealing with the same question. Order herewith :



PRIVY COUNCIL, CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
At the Government House at Ottawa
Wednesday, the 27th day of May, 1908.
Present.
His Excellency
In Counoil;:
Whereas during the present session of parliament an Act has been passed repealing subsection 1, of section 30 of -the Immigration Act, chapter 93 of the Revised -Statutes, 1906, and substituting the following provision therefor:
30. The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order, whenever he considers it necessary or expedient, prohibit the landing m Canada of any specified class of immigrants or of any immigrants who have come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which they are natives or citizens and upon through tickets purchased m that country.'
And whereas it is considered expedient forthwith to prohibit the landing in Canada of immigrants who have oome to Canada otherwise than ias -set forth in -the said provision;
Therefore His Excellency -in Council is pleased to order that -from and -after the date hereof the landing in Canada shall be and the same is hereby prohibited of any immigrants who have come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which they are natives or citizens, and upon through tickets purchased in that country.
(Sgd.) RODOLPHE BOUDREAU.
Clerk of the Privy Council.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Was there an order in council passed during the session of 1907-8 by -which certain immigrants -are required to have $200 on entering Canada ?	[DOT]
2.	Wail the hon. the Minister of the Interior bring down -this order -and lay it on the table cf the House?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Yea.
2.	Yes. Order herewith :



[Stage Direction]
At the Government House at Ottawa, Wednesday, the 3rd day of June, 1908.
Present.
His Excellency .	,
The Governor General in Council :
Whereas by the order in council of the 18th January, 1908, it as -provided that in accordance with section 20 of the Immigration Act the Immigration agent at any port shall -require every immigrant, male or female, eighteen years of age or over, to have in his or her possession -money to a -minimum amount of twenty-five dollars, in -addition to a ticket to his or her destination in Canada, unless satisfactory evidence is furnished that the immigrant is going to some definite employment or to relatives or -friends already -settled in Canada, who will -take care of -such immigrant, and by -a further order i-n council of the 27th March, 1908, this arrangement is continued in force.
And whereas Canada is looking primarily for immigrants of an agricultural class to occupy vacant lands, and as immigrants from Asia belong as a rule to labouring classes, and their language and mode -of life render them unsuited for settlement -in Canada where there are no colonies of their own -people to ensure their maintenance in case of their inability to secure employment, it is necessary that provision be made so that such immigrants may be possessed of sufficient -money to -make them temporarily independent of unfavourable industrial conditions when coming into Canada.
Therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council is pleased to order that the amount of money required to be in possession of each immigrant as -a condition to his being permitted to enter Canada -shall -be and the same is hereby increased to two hundred dollars in the case of all Asiatic immigrants other than -those -with who-se countries the government of Canada has special arrangements or those concerning whose countries special statutory regulations exist on the part of Canada, the conditions as to tickets to destination to retain as at present.
(Sgd.) RODOLPHE BOUDREAU,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
The Honourable
The Minister of -the Interior.

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I desire to ask the hon. Minister of Railways if his attention has been called to an accident which occurred at a level crossing near Kingston on the 26th inst., by which two people lost their lives and a third was seriously injured; also if he is aware that some five or six years ago an award was made by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council respecting this crossing, with a view to having a subway constructed; and, if he is aware of such an order, will he call the attention of the Board of Railway Commissioners to it, with a view to having it carried into effect. I would also like to ask if, in view of the increasing number of fatalities such as Mr. OLIVER.
those mentioned in the papers of the 26th inst., it is the intention of the government to bring down legislation at this session effectually to safeguard the lives and property of the people of this country at level crossings.


George Perry Graham: In reply to the very important question of my hon. friend, I might say that this question of level crossings is one of great interest, not only in this country, but in every country where there is rapid transportation by railway. It is becoming even more important in countries where there is rapid transportation not only by steam railways, but by a network of electric railways. In reply to my hon. friend's first question, my attention has not been called to the accident referred to other than by the report in the newspapers. I know the locality very well, and I understand, as my hon. friend says, that some years ago, perhaps earlier than he suggests, a decision was arrived at by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, before we had a Board of Railway Commissioners, ordering a subway to be constructed at that point. The cost was to be divided between the county, the railway company and I think the city of Kingston. The city of Kingston objected, as the crossing is outside the city, and the county took the position that it could-not afford to bear its share of the cost. The matter has been in abeyance ever since. I know from experience, and from having passed over frequently the locality, that it is a dangerous spot. There are five or six tracks, then there is the local train from Kingston together with the trains coming over the Grand Trunk Railway, and it forms part of the railway yard, thus making the crossing a very dangerous one.
My hon. friend asked the larger question, namely, how we propose to deal with the level crossings.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the nature of the privy council order ?


George Perry Graham: I have not heard the particulars of it. It was the division of cost that attracted my attention more than anything else and the obtaining of information as to why the order was not carried out. This large question of level crossings is one that must be dealt with. There are level crossings of course where there is practically no danger, being in long stretches of level country where every one can see for miles, or at any rate for a sufficient distance in each direction to protect himself against an on-coming train. But the situation has become somewhat changed from what it was some years ago. During the past ten years at least, the speed of trains has been increased to meet the public demand for rapid transportation, not only the express but other trains as well, and the

driver in any ordinary carriage is very easily deceived in judging the time it takes for an approaching train to reach him. Many a driver is apt to misjudge the time a running train takes to reach a crossing. A running train takes a very small period to cover a quarter of a mile, when it is running at a mile a minute ; and in this connection the public are not always blameless. We grow careless in crossing railway tracks, but this other question arises that in this as in many other cases, the public ought to be protected against themselves. It does not relieve the situation at all if we say that a man was killed on account of his own carelessness. If some provision could have been made to protect his life even against his own rashness, such protection certainly ought to have been afforded ?
This question has been engaging my attention to some extent because, being familiar by travel with almost every spot in Ontario where these accidents have occurred. my interest has been excited to a greater degree than it would be if they occurred in some remote locality. I have in my mind some crossings which are very dangerous. In driving, myself, I have stopped as much as one hundred yards from the track to listen if a train were coming because I could not see it at any distance. I have had communications in a confidential way and many conversations with the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, who, for a year or more, has been gathering data in this matter. The board have asked the different railways of Canada to give a map showing the various crossings on their line, laying particular stress on the dangerous ones, and also marking out specially these where people have actually lost their lives. But after we know all that, what is to be done ? That is what my hon. friend would like to know. He would like to know what is the position of the government in the riiatter. Well, I am not absolutely in a position to say what the government intends doing ; but perhaps the House will permit me just to say a word on the question without at all intimating that we have arrived at any decision.
The question of level crossings is one that involves five parties. The one most interested of course is the family to which death has come by an accident. The general public is deeply interested in having some protection at the dangerous level crossings. Then there are the municipalities, the provincial government and the federal government, and then there are the railways. In point of liability, perhaps we had better commence the other way. There are the railways, the Dominion and Provincial governments, the municipalities and the public.


Haughton Lennox: And the railways.


George Perry Graham: Of course, they are the first on the list. The opinion of the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners is that, in a great many instances, the cost should not all be borne by the railways; and the commission has the power, under the Act, to provide, and has provided in some cases, that the municipality interested shall bear some of the cost. This much ought to be borne in mind with regard to the municipality, and I am speaking without having given that phase a great deal of consideration but only casually. The municipalities have erred possibly in having allowed the railways to establish a certain right within these municipalities themselves. One right which they have allowed to be established in many instances, and which never should have been given is the right to the water front. That having been done, the Board of Railway Commissioners have held, and not without some justice, that the municipalities which have done this ought to bear a portion of the cost. The municipalities are bound to be benefited, to a certain extent, by having the danger, which they allowed to be created, removed. Then why should the provincial government give any aid or assistance to the removal of the difficulty ? I am not trying to force the hand of any provincial government, but am merely pointing out these considerations to the House which may help us in dealing with the question when the time comes. Many of our steam railways have been constructed under provincial charters. Even when they have been taken over by the federal authorities, the beginning of the trouble was created by rights given them by provincial governments ; but outside of that, the provincial governments have the same deep interest in this matter that we all have. It will be asked why should the Dominion government assist? I am not saying that the Dominion or provincial government or municipalities ought to assist. I am merely pointing out some arguments which have been placed before me and which I think worthy of consideration. If it be held by the board, and with some reason, that the railways should not bear all the cost, somebody has to bear the balance of it. Would it not then be wise to consider carefully whether, in working out a scheme-if we want to make it a success, and not merely with the object of gaining a victory over the railway companies, and municipalities, or of their gaining a victory over us, but having for our sole object the remedying of the evil and the protection of the lives of the people-would it not be wise for us to consider the situation of the federal authority-not the government but the whole parliament-in this matter ? Would it not be worth our while to consider whether we ought not to join hands with the provinces and municipalities and create some fund out of which the expenses might be apportioned. so as to avoid quarrelling or

cavilling, or having a municipality refuse because the crossing was not in a city or because it could not bear that portion of the expense. We would then be in the position that when the Board of Railway Commissioners gave a decision ordering that so much be paid by the railways and so much by the province or municipality or Dominion, that order would be binding, and we would have this menace to public safety removed in a manner that would be satisfactory and not involve any great burden. This matter has been brought before me very hurriedly, and it is a very large question of which I am merely giving an expression of opinion in the hope that before the session closes we may come to a conclusion which will be satisfactory to all concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister have any objection to bringing down the order that has been referred to, with any information available as to the respect, if any, in which it has not been carried out, and the reasons why it has not been carried out ?


George Perry Graham: That is, the order of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


George Perry Graham: I will make a note of that and have it brought down.


Mr. BARKER.: I would suggest, also, that the minister should bring down not only that particular case, but all similar cases, in which the order has been made and not complied with. [DOT]



INQUIRY FOR PAPERS.

Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I would ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) if he will bring down the order in council in reference to the dredging. In answer to a question the minister said he would bring that down. I understood that he would be willing to do it without a motion.


William Pugsley: Yes, without a motion. OPENING OF GOVERNMENT TENDERS.
House resumed adjourned debate on motion of Mr. J. D. Reid (Grenville):
That in the opinion of this House tenders received in any department of government should be immediately placed in safe custody under seal so as to prevent any possibility or suspicion of tampering; and should he opened in public at the time and place mentioned in the advertisement and in the presence of at least three principal officials of the department ; and the persons so tendering or their duly authorized agents should be at liberty to attend at the said time and place and see such tenders opened and recorded, if they so desire.


George Perry Graham: 


William Pugsley: At the hour of adjournment yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of the affidavit, or alleged affidavit, to which my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) had referred, and which had been read by the leader of the New Brunswick government in a meeting held in the city of St. John. I stated to the House that that affidavit contained false statements of a most outrageous character, and statements which no public man ought_ to have read at a public meeting, reflecting upon the character of another person, whether that person were in public life or whether he were simply a private individual, without first having seen the person to whom the affidavit referred, inquired of him as to the fact and ascertained whether the statements were true or false. In a court of law, as every lawyer knows, even where matters of small moment are involved, before a party is allowed to read an affidavit, in ordinary cases, he is compelled by the rules to furnish a copy to the opposite party, so that that _ party may have an opportunity of answering.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not unless it is demanded.


William Pugsley: Whether it is demanded or not, the rules of the court provide that an affidavit should be served and notice given, so that the party concerned may have the opportunity to answer. But at this meeting to which I refer, Mr. Hazen, who is the leader of the Conservative party in New Brunswick, and who appeared at that meeting as leader-so that the Conservative party cannot shirk responsibility for his action-without notice to me and without having made any inquiry into the truth or falsehood of the" statements, read, upon the eve of the election, this affidavit involving a charge which, if it were true, would have damned me for ever in the eyes of the people of Canada, and, as I have said, would have driven me at once from public life. But, as I have said, the statements were absolutely false. The statement was that a public contractor, Mr. Gershon S. Mayes had, in October, 1907, after I had become Minister of Public Works, made a payment to me of $2,000, and coupled with the payment was the intimation on my part that it would be beneficial to Mr. Mayes to have a friend at Ottawa to look after his interests in connection with his contracts with the Public Works Department. Fortunately, the nature of this statement came to my knowledge almost at once, and I was able to show that, so far from my having received any money from Mr. Mayes, or having had any transactions with him at the time stated, the last money I had received from him was at a time two years before that, and long before I had become a member of this

House. It was at a time when I was acting as solicitor and counsel for Mr. Mayes, -and let me say that I had been his solicitor and counsel, advising him in important matters for a number of years before I received this payment from him. Well, as I stated yesterday, although I corrected this statement against me, and did what I could to have that correction sent broadcast over Canada (for I wished to put myself and the party to which I have the honour to belong right before the people of this country), yet-and I say this to the disgrace of the man who read that false affidavit and sought to do me that irreparable injury- he has never had the manliness to express regret for what he did; and the Conservative papers which published that false affidavit have never had the grace to express their regret for the false information they had given to the people. The reason why I asked my hon. frined (Mr. Foster)-who, let me say, has, in my opinion, done himself no credit by fathering this false affidavit and presenting it to the House-the reason, I say, why I was anxious to know whether he was aware whether an affidavit of the character he read is in existence or not is that I desired to know whether that affidavit was sworn to by the gentleman by whom it purports to be sworn to. I wanted to know whether that affidavit is in existence or not, for, if it is, it will be possible to found certain proceedings upon it, and if it is not in existence or has never been sworn to, this will not be possible. Through my solicitors, Messrs. Barnhill, Ewing & Sanford, I have made repeated applications for that affidavit. Application has been made to Mr. Hazen, who read it at the public meeting to which I have referred. He is, and was then, Attorney General of New Brunswick, and the Crown officer whose duty it would be to take action, if there had been any defrauding of the treasury of this Dominion, or any criminal offence committed, as has been suggested, by Messrs, Mayes and McAvity, or if I, as Minister of Public Works, had committed the crime so great as that charged in this affidavit. And what does Mr. Hazen say with regard to it ? He says that after reading the affidavit and making these serious charges, he surrendered the affidavit back to Mr. Gershon S. Mayes. But, though my solicitors have applied to Mr. Mayes he has declined to give it and has refused to answer letters addressed to him.
There is something further to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. For hon. members opposite have gone out of their way in this discussion, and have not confined themselves to the question whether it is or is not desirable to pass the resolution, but have dragged into this discussion matters relating to these dredging transactions in the 'city of St. John, and also matters relating to other contracts which 9
have been entered into by the Department of Public Works. And, that being so, it is desirable that I should deal somewhat more fully with this question than I would otherwise have felt warranted in doing. For, let me say, when the hon. members on the other side have read in this House the charges they have recklessly made throughout this country, when they insinuate that there has been graft in the conduct of affairs of the various departments of government, when they insinuate that the members of this government have not honestly and faithfully discharged their duties but have given favours to their friends, we are not only prepared to answer their charges but are prepared to carry on an aggressive campaign against them for their conduct in the elections through which this country has recently passed.
Now, Sir, what will be said of these extraordinary and outrageous affidavits? My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has stated that Mr. Mayes had entered into a contract with the Department of Public Works to perform dredging work in the harbour of St. John at 55 cents per cubic yard, which he intimated was more than it was really worth and more than Mr. Mayes would have been willing to do the work for. Upon that question let me invite the consideration of the House to this fact that later on public tenders were invited for work in the harbour of St. John of no more difficult character than that which had been previously awarded to Mr. Mayes and instead of tendering under public competition at 55 cents per cubic yard, which my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) intimates was too high a price, Mr. Mayes tendered at 90 cents and was the lowest tenderer, and was awarded the contract, with regard to which I understand no complaint has been made. After I had become Minister of Public Works, Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity requested me from time to time to relieve them from their 55 cent contract, claiming that the work was very hard and urging that as work had been given in the harbour of St. John to the Dominion Dredging Company also at 90 cents per cubic yard, the same price as Mr. Mayes had last tendered for in public competition, I should at least be willing to pay him for work which he claimed to be more difficult the sum of 90 cents per cubic yard. I refused to do that. I said to Mr. Mayes: You have entered into a contract and whether you gain or lose by it it is my duty to hold you to your bargain and I propose to hold you to your contract. Mr. Mayes also urged that, in addition to getting 90 cents instead of 55 cents per cubic yard, as under this contract he was getting only $5.60 per cubic yard for rock while under the new tenders, both he and the Dominion Dredging Company were getting $19.60 per cubic yard, which was claimed to be a reasonable



piice, he should at least be allowed $19.60 per cubic yard for the many large boulders which were being excavated at great expense. I refused his request and he became, as the correspondence which I produced before the electors will show, considerably annoyed, because he thought I was treating him harshly and not showing him that leniency he had a right to expect in view of the fact that contracts on easier terms had been let under public tender afterwards.
Later on Mr. Mayes came to the conclusion that he would like to get out of the dredging business and he made a proposal to me that if I would buy his dredge for my department at the price of $150,000 he would be perfectly satisfied and would abandon any claim. Associated with Mr. Mayes in this desire that my department should purchase his dredge was another gentleman very prominently connected with the Conservative party. I may say that Mr. Mayes is entitled to the credit of the virtue, if it be a virtue, of also being and having been for many years a prominent member of the Conservative party. Associated with him in this desire was his counsel, Aid. Baxter, of the city of St. John, who is vicepresident of the Liberal-Conservative Association of the city of St. John.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the hon. minister not aware that Mr. Baxter, to whom he referred, made a solemn declaration in which he denied emphatically that he had any pecuniary interest or any interest of any kind in connection with the dredge.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And that he had no interest in Mr. Mayes whatever, except his interest as his solicitor and counsel.


William Pugsley: That is entirely consistent with what I said. I said that associated with him in the desire that my department should purchase the dredge was Aid. Baxter, vice-president of the Liberal-Conservative Association of St. John. Upon one occasion, shortly before the election, 1 received a telegram which has also been made public, signed by Mr. Baxter, stating that his client was getting very impatient and urging me to close at once for the dredge, otherwise intimating that Mr. Mayes would make it unpleasant for me. I have forgotten the exact wording of the telegram, but that is its purport. That was followed by statements which were made to me by different friends, among them by Mr. Osman, a very prominent citizen of New Brunswick, formerly Speaker of that province, who came to me one day in a state of considerable excitement, because he is a true, a warm friend of mine, and has been so for many years, informing me that Mr. Mayes had told him of his desire to sell the dredge to the department, and that unless 1 purchased his dredge, disclosures would Mr. PUGSLEY.
very soon be made which would be of a most unpleasant character and would do great harm to the Liberal party and to the Minister .of Public Works. Among other things Mr. Osman told me that he had been shown a photograph of a cheque which Mr. Mayes had given in payment of this note to which I have referred, and Mr. Osman had been led to believe that this payment had been made to me after I became Minister of Public Works. When Mr. Osman told me what Mr. Mayes had said, I replied to him: Mr. Osman, did Mr. Mayes tell you that instead of getting this money after I became Minister of Public Works, I had received it from him for legal services when I was solicitor and counsel, and two years before I became a member of the parliament of Canada? He said: No, and I said: Tell Mayes to go ahead as fast as he pleases. I have nothing to fear and nothing to conceal.


John Graham Haggart: What was the year in which the minister received the payment?


William Pugsley: In 1905, nearly two years before I had become a member of the government.


John Graham Haggart: You said two years before the party swore you had received it?


William Pugsley: That is right, the party swore I had received it on the 15th of October, 1907, after I had become a member of the government and when I was Minister of Public Works and at a time when it would have been a crime, not merely a political crime but an actual crime of the worst character for me to have received money from a contractor having dealings with my department, but as a matter of fact the money had been received in October, 1905. I refused, as I said, to purchase the dredge, and the next thing which took place was that this affidavit was handed to the leader of the Conservative party in New Brunswick, who made himself the instrument of seeking to obtain vengeance for Mr. Mayes because I had declined to aCcede to his improper requests, and in the hope, as I have said, that he might do me irreparable injury. It has been said by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that it was explained that this was a typographical error. By a typographical error I understand is meant a printer's error. Would it not strike you, Mr. Speaker, as it struck the people of my own constituency and the people of New Brunswick, as an extraordinary thing that every Tory newspaper in Canada should have committed the same typographical error and that this affidavit, as it was published in all the Conservative papers throughout Canada, declared that I had received this money in 1907 after I had become Minister of Public Works. If you look at the news-

papers of that party you will find that it was discussed editorially all over Canada, and that it was intimated that the political days of the Minister of Public Works were about coming to an end. Afterwards it was stated not to have been a typographical error hut an error of the typewriter. But, as I have said, the most material part of this matter is that the Conservative party, through their leaders in New Brunswick, lent themselves to this unholy operation of seeking to destroy the character of a public man, and, put it in the best way you can, they were utterly reckless as to whether the allegation was true or false, and when it became known to them that they had done this great wrong to me, a wrong as great as ever was done a public man in this country before, they had not the manliness to express their regret for the conduct of which they had been guilty.


Mr. EMMERSON.: They did not even correct it.


William Pugsley: No, as my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) says, they did not even correct it. But, fortunately if there is one characteristic of the people of New Brunswick which stands out more prominently than any other, it is that they love truth, they love justice and they love fair play. When the people realized what a despicable attempt was being made to win victory for the Conservative party they resented the course of hon. members opposite, or rather the associates of hon members opposite, in the province of New Brunswick, and by their verdict they showed that they did not approve of tactics of that kind.
I am not here to say that I had anything of great importance to do with the result in New Brunswick. I recognize, as our friends in this House must recognize, that it was the strong personality and splendid statesmanship of the gentleman whom we are all proud to follow that did so much in New Brunswick as it did all over Canada to ensure the success of the party. But, to me who had been made the representative of the province of New Brunswick, it was a great satisfaction that we were able to come back with eleven seats out of the thirteen to which New Brunswick is entitled in this parliament. It is a great satisfaction to me that we shall no longer be able to see our friend here who formerly represented the constituency of Kings and Albert, that our friend who formerly represented the constituency of Charlotte is also absent from the place which he occupied in this House and that our esteemed friend who formerly occupied the constituency of Queens and Sunbury is absent. The result in the province, of New Brunswick not only bears testimony to the confidence which the people of that province have in our great leader, but it is also an
evidence of the fact that they admire truth, justice and fair play.
Now, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen upon the other side of the House have also, as a pretended reason for passing this resolution which has been moved by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) alleged that there has been graft and wrong-doing in connection with the receipt of tenders.
I endeavoured to show to the House yesterday why I think it is not in the public interest that tenderers should be invited to be present, at the opening of tenders. I think I satisfied the House that there is no good reason for departing from the coarse which it is admitted is pursued in the mother country, has been pursued ever since confederation in this country and has been pursued and is pursued to-day by the governments of the various provinces of Canada. I believe that every right thinking man in this House will agree that I am right in the view that if a public man, or a representative of the people, does not take the course which the people have the right to expect of their representatives, when they make insinuations such as were made here yesterday, if he does not avail himself of the opportunity of making and proving his charges before the committees of this House his allegations must be regarded as having no foundation. In this instance hon. gentlemen opposite have utterly failed to prove the insinuations which they have made. In so far as the opening of tenders for timber limits is concerned, the men who, of all others, could give the truth in regard to these tenders, proved before the committee last session that there was no irregularity in regard to them, that the tenders were received in a regular and proper manner and that the timber limits were awarded to the highest tenderers in every case. I say without hesitation, and I say it emphatically that it was proved before the committee at the last session of parliament, that it was stated in this House and that it was not denied. As far as the tenders which are received by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, by the Department of Public Works and by other departments of the government are concerned, it has not been shown that in any case there had been tampering with tenders, that any tender had been substituted for another, or that the lowest tenderers had been passed over except in special circumstances where the tenderers had been unable to carry out their contract or where they had previously failed to give satisfaction, and, as I stated yesterday, in every such case, the circumstances have }o be submitted to His Excellency the Governor General in Council and must be passed upon in council before the lowest tender can be passed over. Let me say to my hon. friends opposite that in every case where this course is adopted the reasons are set forth in the recommenda-
2C3

tion to council and it is open to the committees of this House and to any member of this House to have placed before either a committee of the House or the House itself the recommendation to council in which will be found stated the circumstances under which such a course is adopted. There is no secrecy about it ; every thing is open after the contract is once awarded and every paper can be brought down which any hon. member may desire to have brought down.
Now, my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middleboro) made a statement to this House yesterday and if he, with his eloquence, his fluency of speech and his apparent sincerity, repeated that statement from platform to platform in his own constituency, I cannot wonder why he is here as the representative of that constituency to-day because if the facts which he stated yesterday were true he would be able to make a strong appeal to the people of his constituency to withdraw their support from the government. What did the hon. gentleman say ? He said yesterday that very important dredging contracts involving large amounts had been let without tender, and that subsequently, upon complaint being made in this House, I had, instead of continuing these contracts, put them up to tender, and it had been claimed that a certain amount of money had been lost to the government by reason of doing it. That was the statement which my hon. friend made and it was an important statement. But let me say to my hon. friend that one very important matter in connection with it is that it lacks the essential element of truth.


Mr. MIDDLEBORO.: The statement I made was that that was the statement which was made by the Liberals of that riding, and if it lacked the essential element of truth it was because they had made it.


William Pugsley: I venture to say that my hon. friend's memory does not serve him as well as I would	like it to,
because I cannot conceive it possible that any Liberal member could have made that statement.	I have no
doubt that what the Liberal members stated was this: that there were certain dredging contracts which I as Minister of Public Works had the power to renew and which I had proposed renewing, but which by reason of protests made by gentlemen on the other side, Mr. Bennett among others,: and after I had given the matter consideration and remarked that the .forms of the previous advertisements rendered it somewhat doubtful as to whether the tenders were not limited to one season, I declined to renew them and again called for public tenders. I have no doubt that these Liberal members stated that as a result of calling for public tenders, in this way the


William Pugsley: country was put to an expense of two or three hundred thousand dollars which it would not have been put to had I extended the original contracts. That, I assume, is the only statement which Liberal members made and that is the only statement they would be warranted in making. I cannot conceive it possible that any other statement was made by Liberal members in the constituency which my hon friend represents. These contracts which I was proposing to extend, I may say, had all of them been obtained after public tender in the first place and after keen competition. These were the facts which were before the Public Accounts committee. The tenders were produced before that committee and it appeared in every instance that the contracts had been awarded to the lowest tenderers, and that of course is a very different state of facts from that which my hon. friend (Mr. Middleboro) has presented to the House. Some gentlemen upon the other side of the House stated that Conservatives will not tender for dredging work because they feel they will not get fair play. Sir, I have yet to learn of any Conservative contractors in this country who hesitate to put in a tender to the Public Works Department. I have yet to learn the name of a single Conservative in this Dominion who claims he has been unfairly treated in connection with any tenders he may have put in to that department. I would ask my hon. friends opposite that instead of indulging in these insinuations-which do themselves an injustice as they do injustice to the members of the government; I would ask these hon. gentlemen to do me the fairness and to do the government the fairness of giving the name of a single Conservative contractor in Canada who says that his tender was improperly passed over or that he was improperly dealt with in the awarding of contracts under tender. In the most sincere way I invite hon. gentlemen opposite to do that. In the eyes of the people of Canada they must do it before they can expect the people to take any stock in the insinuations they make. Sir, il has been my pride since I have been a member of this government and in charge of one of the great spending departments, and I believe that it has been the pride of every member of this administration, so to conduct the affairs of his department as to do justice to every Canadian irrespective of his political leanings. The records of my department, and, I believe, the records of all the departments of the government, will show that this is the course we have pursued from the day we took office.


Mr. SPROULE.: The commission did not say so.


William Pugsley: The commission says nothing to the contrary so far as I remember, and if the commission does say anything to the contrary it can give no fact

upon which such a statement could be based.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must ask the pardon of the House for having taken up so much time in the discussion of this matter. I have saidall I think it is necessary to say, but I do just want to make a reference to what has sometimes struck me as a most extraordinary thing, namely, that gentlemen in the Conservative party should think it so important that they should get possession of the reins of government as to deem it justifiable to resort to such tactics as I have described. Those of us who are charged with the duties of government have at best a hard task. Our work is not easy; our responsibilities are great; and while it is a great source of pride to be able to serve the public, yet it does seem to me that there is nothing in the position of a minister of the Crown, which should induce people to become lost to every sense of honour and of decency in order to reach that position. I have often wondered; I wondered in St. John when that false affidavit was read; I wondered the other day when the House learned that upon the eve of the election a forged telegram had been sent to British Columbia purporting to be signed by the leader of the opposition for the purpose of influencing the electors there to render a false verdict upon the issues on which the government was appealing to the country, what reason there could be to induce men to stoop to such things. It does seem that following the example of the leaders of the Conservative party in this House (and by that I mean all the members of the opposition), in indulging in insinuations and making reckless and unfounded charges of graft, their followers throughout the country were so desirous that the Liberal government should be ousted and the Conservative party come to power, that they seemed to feel that they were justified in resorting to any tactics, even to the reading of false affidavits and the forging of telegrams, to achieve their aim.
__ Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, N.B.). Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate and I would not have trespassed on the time of the House had it not been for the references which have been made by the Minister of Public Works to the so-called Mayes charges in connection with a dredging contract in the province of New Brunswick, and his further reference to the result of the elections in that province as a vindication of himself. It was to be expected that the Minister of Public Works would attempt to plume himself upon the success of the Liberal candidates in New Brunswick, but I am convinced that if the conduct of that campaign by the Liberals were fully exposed to this House and to the .public of Canada, the very unbecoming plumage with which the Minister of Public Works has adorned himself
would rapidly vanish. The great boasting of the Minister of Public Works about the results of the elections in New Brunswick would, I am satisfied, give place to chagrin and dismay if the truth were known in connection with the conduct of that campaign by the Liberal party. The fact is that the campaign as conducted by the Liberal party in the province of New Brunswick was one of the most discreditable that has ever occurred in that province. One of the first moves in that campaign was the purchase of two of the daily papers in the city of St. John, the Daily 'Telegraph' and the Daily 'Times' and the muzzling by that means of the entire press of the metropolis of New Brunswick. That consummation, I may add, was accomplished, I understand, by Mr. George McAvity and Mr. John E. Moore, two bosom friends of the Minister of Public Works, Mr. George McAvity being the very gentleman who got away with the $36,000 rake-off in connection with the contract that has been discussed on this motion. Mr. John E. Moore, I may say, is also now a contractor with the Public Works Department, and is, I understand, receiving under his contract fabulous prices for dredging in the province of New Brunswick.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him what are the prices which he says are fabulous?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Minister of Public Works knows what the prices are.


William Pugsley: I know they are not fabulous; I know they are reasonable.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is no doubt that these gentlemen acquired the St. John 'Telegraph' on behalf of the Minister of Public Works. Perhaps the hon. minister will deny that he himself was associated with both of these gentlemen in the purchase of that newspaper property.


William Pugsley: I will say that they are very excellent newspapers.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That was, as I have said, one of the first moves of the Liberal party in connection with the campaign in the province of New Brunswick. Then, we had the Minister of Public Works himself making the most reckless promises that were ever made by a Minister of Public Works throughout the province of New Brunswick. He promised, as I understand, in one speech in the city of St. John, to dredge out practically the whole of Courtenay Bay at a cost to this country, as was shown, of $5,000,000. That was only one of the promises which the Minister of Public Works made to the city and county of St. John. We had also the race and religion cry worked in the province to an extent that was unknown in the previous political history of that province, and in connection with the circulation by the Liberal party of

the pamphlet which has already been referred to in this House, entitled, 'The Duty of the Hour.' There were also employed in several, I will not say all, of the constituencies of the province of New Brunswick, the hugest corruption and bribery funds that were ever used in the constituencies of that province. In view of these facts, there is very little for the Minister of Public Works to boast of in connection with the result of the voting in New Brunswick. But, aside from the facts that I have mentioned, can that result be accepted by this House as a vindication of the Minister of Public Works with respect to this charge, or the many other serious charges which have been made against him in that province? What does he say as to the result of the voting in the city of St. John, where this affidavit and the counter affidavits were read?


William Pugsley: Would you allow me to answer ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the Minister of Public Works deny that his colleague upon the ticket in St. John, Mr. Pender, was defeated, and that the seat for the city of St. John in this House is now occupied by our honoured friend Dr. Daniel ?


William Pugsley: With a reduced majority of about 800.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But a majority nevertheless of the electors of the city of St. John, and notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative party had not one single newspaper in that city to put before the electors the issues of the day, and notwithstanding the promises which i have already mentioned of huge appropriations for public works in such a constituency, which we all know has for years been looking for such appropriations for the development of its winter port.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Where was the 'Daily Standard' ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: My hon. friend knows very well what the 'Daily Standard' was-a little poster that was published by the Liberal Conservative party, printed in a job office, and distributed throughout the city -a paper which of course could not get its matter before the electors as effectively as the old established newspapers. Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything in the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works with respect to the significance of the voting in New Brunswick, I think it is up to him to account for the verdict of the city of St. John, which went unmistakably against him.


William Pugsley: In the city of St. John I obtained a majority of something like 300 or 350.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not able to speak as to that, because I have not examined the returns particularly ; but I do know that the Minister of Public W'orks appealed to the electors of the city of St. John to elect Mr. Pender, his colleague, and on one occasion he said that his vindication would not be complete if Mr. Pender were not elected with him. Mr. Pender was defeated, and the inference is that the verdict of the city of St. John was against the Minister of Public Works. Now, that is all that I think it is necessary for me to say in connection with the result of the elections in the province of New Brunswick.
With respect to the charges themselves, I do not intend at this time to go fully into them, because it seemed to me that this matter was rather suddenly precipitated into this debate, and perhaps rather irrelevantly. Such a matter cannot obtain in a debate of this kind the attention which its importance demands. It seems to me, however, that with such serious charges, characterized as serious by the Minister of Public Works himself, hanging over the hon. gentleman, it is the duty of this parliament to institute some sort of an investigation ; and when that investigation is had, the details can be discussed more profitably than at the present time. I want, however, to refer to the manner in which the Minister of Public Works has treated the question. It seems to me that he has passed over entirely the gravamen of the accusations which have been made in Mr. Mayes' affidavit. He has devoted practically the whole burden of his speech to an error in date which appeared in that affidavit. I wish now to call the attention of the House to the paragraph in the affidavit or solemn declaration of Mr. Mayes in which that error appeared, and I take this from the columns of the St. John ' Globe ' a Liberal newspaper.


William Pugsley: A what ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the Minister of Public Works say it is not a Liberal newspaper ?


William Pugsley: I do not say any thing about it, I am asking you ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I notice at all events that it figures in the Auditor General's Report for quite a respectable sum. Here is what Mr. Mayes says in his affidavit :
On October 15, 1907, I received a telephone message from Dr. P.ugsley, asking me to call and see him the next day, which I did. He said: Mr Mayes, I am in meed of money, and it would be nice if you could help ime.
I do not know whether that allegation is true or untrue.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: I say it is absolutely false.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It has however a very characteristic sound :
I said, doctor, what for? You know that I have paid you some $1,300 in my second case against Conolly which you have in a way offered to pay me back because you have said that Mir. Emmerson was so slow in bringing up the matter, and I have not the funds. I am carrying a'big load and am paying large amounts to the Bank of -Montreal for over-drawais. Just then -Mir. Geo. iM-cAvity came in, and Dr. Pugsley said that Mr. Mayes' business was getting on so well that a little money would be very acceptable. I again said I was carrying a big -back load and that I could not eee why Dr. Pugsley should -ask me for money. 1 said: what do you want it for-a loan ? Well said Dr. Pugsley, you see it will be nice to have -some one who could do something -for you in Ottawa, there was always something -to he done, and if I could not give him a cheque, that I could give him a note for three or four months. I asked him how -much, and he said: Oh, about $2,000 or $2,300. I said, that is too much, but I suppose I will let you have a note for four -months for $2,000. Dr. Pugsley then made the note -and I signed it. He said he felt sure he would give -me good -return for it or pay it back?


William Pugsley: What is the date of that ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: As printed, the date is October 15, 1907,


William Pugsley: After I was a minister. What is the actual time, do you say ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I intend dealing with that. I have read the declaration with respect to the giving by Mr. Mayes of his note for $2,000, and I have read it as the declaration is printed. Mr. Mayes did not state in that declaration, as the Minister of Public Works endeavoured to lead this House to believe, that it was given to him when Dr. Pugsley was Minister of Public Works ; but there is no doubt in the minds of any one in the province of New Brunswick "that the date was an innocent mistake. I want, in this connection, to call attention to a subsequent declaration which Mr. Mayes made on the 14th of October, and which was widely published in the press, with respect to this alleged mistake, the House will then be able to judge what justification there was for the attack the hon. minister has seen fit to make on the honoured premier of New Brunswick. In a second declaration, sworn to before Mr. Beverly, R. Armstrong, signed by Mr. Mayes on the 14th of October last, Mr. Mayes says with reference to the date of this alleged interview :
I further say -that up to four o'clock iu the afternoon of the 12th instant, I had not given, or oau-sed to be given, to any member of the Conservative parity, any intimation that I was about to -make the declaration I did. During the afternoon I obtained an appointment with Mir. J. D. Hazen, to whom i submitted the matter, I further say -that when Mr. Hazen
read my declaration at the Queens rink, on the evening of the 13th, he turned towards m*, when reading the date '.16th October' and hesitated at ' 1907,' I called out ' 1905,' and he read ' 1905.'


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question ? If it be true that Mr. Hazen's attention was called to the error in the date, how does my hon. 'friend reconcile that statement with the fact that Mr. Hazen read in public this affidavit, which appeared in the morning paper and was spread broadcast throughout Canada, with a false date in it ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does my hon. friend hold Mr. Hazen responsible for the printing of the declaration in the minister's own party papers ?


William Pugsley: I do under these circumstances.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. minister makes the statement that Mr. Hazen read that declaration with respect to this interview, in which the interview is stated to have taken place on the 16th of October, 1907, but surely Mr. Hazen, when he, in his reading, corrected the error, is not to be held accountable for the error which appeared in the papers the following morning. I think that the House will be able to judge pretty Well as to the value of the whole statement of the Minister of Public Works, with reference to the matter of these charges, by the manner in which he has dealt with this error in the date. He attacked the Premier of New Brunswick and the whole Conservative party for having entered into a heinous conspiracy to make this charge against him, as of a date when he was Minister of Public Works, and he said yesterday that there was not a Conservative newspaper in New Brunswick which had corrected that error. Let me say that there was not a Conservative newspaper in New Brunswick which I have read with reference to this matter, in which I did not see, the very day after the declaration was read, mention of the error which had been made, I also saw that it was corrected in the Toronto 'News', the ' Montreal Star ' and ' The Mail and Empire '. In every paper which I saw. I read of the mistake in the date which had been made, so that it looks very much to me as if the Minister of Public Works were endeavouring to draw the proverbial red herring across the trail. What I ask the House to bear in mind is the statement I have read as applying to the month of October, 1905. The Minister of Public Works says that this is the most infamous charge ever made against a public man in Canada. Perhaps in that statement he is correct, but does he say that the charge is very much less infamous as applied to him in October, 1905 ? He was then the Attorney

General of New Brunswick ; and if the statement of Mr. Mayes was correct, the Minister of Public Works was getting a rake off from a contract with the department of which he subsequently became a minister. That charge having been made -and I am not here to say whether the charge is true or not-as a member of this House and a citizen of this country, I am very much astonished that the Minister of Public Works should be content to rest under the accusation for four or five months without having instituted proceedings of any kind for the punishment of Mr. Mayes, who, he says, has done him*such a grievous wrong and whose charge, the minister himself says, if proved, would damn him for ever and drive him out of public life.


William Pugsley: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said that if it were true that I, after having become Minister of Public Works

Some. hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: Yes, that is what I said. If after having become Minister of Public Works and at the date given, October, 1907, I received moneys from a contractor having business with my department, I should be at once driven from public life-I should not be worthy to remain.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And I would ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), and I would ask also the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), if these charges made in this affidavit with the date corrected are true, is it proper that the Minister of Public Works should be retained in his position? This charge has never been retracted, with the exception of the correction of the date, it stands un-withdrawn; Mr. Mayes still insists upon it. And surely the Minister of Public Works who is one of the best lawyers in the maritime provinces and perhaps in the Dominion of Canada, ought to know that if Mr. Mayes, made a false statement in a solemn declaration, he is liable to prosecution for perjury.
_Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes, if you can get at his declaration; if you can find that which he has concealed and refuses to produce.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am aware that the Minister of Public Works endeavoured to give the House the impression that the reason he took no steps in the prosecution of Mr. Mayes was that this declaration, as published in the St. John press, did not appear to have been signed. But has the minister the slightest doubt that Mr. Mayes signed that declaration? Was there not read in this House, yesterday afternoon, a letter by Mr. Mayes, addressed to the minister speaking of this solemn declaration as his affidavit ? Yet with such a letter in his hand the Minister of Public Works would still endeavour to Mr. CROCKET.
create the impression that he was unable to follow Mr. Mayes with a criminal prosecution. Furthermore as an able law-yer,-one of the ablest, as I have said, in the Dominion-he knows that Mr. Hazen, having read this declaration in a public meeting, if that statement were false, if any of these statements were false, he not only has an action against Mr. Mayes for perjury, but he has an action against Mr. Hazen for libel. Yet we have not heard, down to the present time, of any steps having been taken by the Minister of Public Works, or by anybody on his behalf, looking to the punishment of these gentlemen who have done him what he has characterized as the most grievous wrong ever done to a public man in the Dominion of Canada. The minister's course in this matter is in marked contrast with the course which he is alleged to have advised his predecessor in the cabinet from the province of New Brunswick to take in relation to certain other charges which did not involve that hon. gentleman's conduct in the administration of his department. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works has profited by the lesson which he taught his predecessor on that occasion.
Now, this allegation with reference to the giving of a note to the Minister of Public Works, when he was Attorney General of New Brunswick, in connection with this contract, is not the only serious allegation in that declaration. There is, to my mind, a more serious allegation than that, an allegation that more directly involves him as Minister of Public Works. The declaration states that, after the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) had become Minister of Public Works, after he had assumed control of this and all other contracts of the department, he sought to, and did, hold up Mr. Mayes in the interests of Mr. McAvity and the payment of this graft.


William Pugsley: I desire to say to my hon. friend (Mr. Crockett)-and I say it in the strongest manner possible-and I am going to ask him now to accept my statement as a member of this House-that that is absolutely untrue, that I never held up Mr. Mayes, but that just as soon as the estimates of the engineer were put into the department in the ordinary course, and after the ordinary delays, the payment due to Mr. Mayes was made. The only exception was an amount of some $4,000 or $5,000, held back because Mr. Mayes had not performed his contract for cleaning out certain berths in the city of St. John which he had agreed to do in the contract with the city and for which my department had agreed to be responsible. With that exception, there was no holding back of Mr. Mayes' money. I will ask my hon. friend to accept my statement and not to read what I say is a false affidavit or persist in his statement.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I hope the hon. minister has not understood me as stating that this statement is true


William Pugsley: But, Mr. Speaker, an hon. member of this House cannot read a statement concerning another member which that member says is false.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The statement of the Minister of Public Works, as a member of this House, must be accepted.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand that. And I do accept it. I have no wish to do otherwise. But the question before the House is


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: As to that, I may say that I have allowed considerable latitude. I allowed the minister to speak a second time on a point of personal explanation. I do not wish to interrupt the hon member (Mr. Crocket) but I hope he will not go too far from the question before the House.


Oswald Smith Crocket: As I stated, I rose simply to refer to certain statements which the Minister of Public Works had made in connection with this matter, and would not have risen had it not been for the speech that the hon. gentleman was permitted to make in this behalf. I have no hesitation in saying that I do accept-I must accept as a member of this House-the statement he has made. I do not wish any hon. member to suppose that I am reading this declaration as vouching for the truth of it. I am answering the statement and argument which the minister has made with reference to the whole transaction, and especially the excuse which he sought to make for not taking the proceedings, which I think that he, as a member of this House and minister of the Crown, should have taken for the punishment of those who were guilty of what he has characterized as a malicious and scoundrelly -I think that was one of the words he used-falsehoods.
But when the Minister of Public Works sought to create the impression in the House that the whole gist of the charge with reference to himself related to this question of the date, October, 1907, he was considerably in error. I iwas about to point out what is to my mind more serious and what directly involves him as a minister of the Crown, the statements that I referred to and which the Minister of Public Works has denied. The Minister gave as a reason for not taking the proceedings which he would have the House believe he was so keen to take the fact that he was not satisfied that the affidavit was sworn to, for the reason that, as published in the papers, it did not purport to be signed by Mr. Mayes. I have already referred to the fact that the Minister has in his possession a letter from Mr. Mayes admitting that he had signed it. More than that, I have here
a copy of a solemn declaration as publicly made by Mr. Mayes in which he reiterates with greater detail the charges made in the first declaration and which does bear his signature and which was sworn to before a Commissioner for taking affidavits, to be read in the Supreme Court of New Brunswick.


William Pugsley: Will my hon.friend tell me, because I do not remember, does what purports to be the second declaration contain any reference to myself?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Reference to yourself?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is full of them.


William Pugsley: Does the second affidavit repeat the statements about payment to me of moneys? I have not seen it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will read some statements contained in the second declaration. Among the statements that are contained in it and that I think involve the Minister of Public Works in a corrupt transaction, assuming they are true, are these:	This
is a conversation which Mayes alleges he had with the Minister of Public Works and these are the words of the Minister as alleged by Mr. Mayes:
Now Mr. Mayes, I want you to settle up with. Mr. MeAvity and when that is done I will give you the balance.
That is one statement.


William Pugsley: I want to state to my hon. friend that that statement is entirely untrue. My hon. friend cannot read here an affidavit which a member of this House says is false unless he makes it his own, and he must be responsible for it. He cannot bring false affidavits and spread them on the records when a member of the House states the allegation is untrue.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is not permissible under the rules of the House to contradict a statement of a member of the House by an affidavit from another party.


Oswald Smith Crocket: You heard the minister ask me if the affidavit contained statements in reference to him?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) said it was false and the hon. member (Mr. Crocket) must accept his statement, and cannot contradict it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I do. I am not discussing the question of the truth or falsity of the charge, I am discussing the minister's pretext for not prosecuting Mayes for uttering that false statement. If that statement is not true, as the minister has alleged, why has he not proceeded against Mr. Mayes for making it? That was the very point I was discussing. Furthermore, if the minister would like any other ex-

tracts from the affidavit I would be glad to read them.


William Pugsley: What I would say is that I do not think it is right, I do not think it is conducive to the dignity of the House or to good feeling in the House, that a member should read statements the truth of which he knows nothing about, particularly when another member makes the statement that what he has read is not true and I do unhesitatingly make the statement that what my hon. friend has read is absolutely untrue. It does seem to me my hon. friend should accept the statement.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: He has accepted it for that, but there are others.


George Eulas Foster: You had better read the other statements and get the minister's denial of them.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I accept the minister's statement, and the emphatic denial he has given this afternoon is the very reason why he cannot excuse himself for lying down under such serious accusations for six months and then attempting to convince the parliament of Canada that the reason he did not take the proceedings he should have taken was that there was no affidavit that purported to be signed. The affidavit from which I am quoting does purport to be signed, and the minister saw it published in the papers in St. John. He was fully aware of all the statements made in all these declarations. I do not think that
f1Sn1Si^ej^m.e en^er into a discussion of all the details of this transaction and it is not my purpose to go over them, but I would like the House to bear in mind the very concise statement which was made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. h oster) yesterday afternoon, setting out the salient points of Mr. Mayes' charges points which have not only been so solemnly affirmed by Mr. Mayes but which have never been denied down to the present time. Leaving out any question of error in the date of these affidavits, I ask the members of this House if they think it is m the interest of Canada that public business should be allowed to continue on such a basis as that exposed by Mr. Mayes' statement. Mr. McAvity has himself made a solemn declaration in connection with these _ matters and notwithstanding that there is no denial of the gist of the charges which have been preferred by Mr. Mayes,- and indeed I may call attention to the agreement which is in existence and a copy of which was annexed to this declaration, and which was signed by Mr. McAvity :
And whereas, the said George McAvity is to receive moneys out of the performance


Henry Robert Emmerson: Order.


George Eulas Foster: What is the matter with that?


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: If no one else takes the point of order, I think it is time we got back to the resolution. I am within my rights in raising the point of order and I think there should be some recognition of the dignity of the House with respect to the discussion of a resolution.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think, with great deference to the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), that he is rather late in rising to a point of order. He sat there following with the greatest interest and I thought with admiration-


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) started it.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, no, he didn't ; it had quite a long run before I got at it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will not be much longer.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. member insists on the point of order, it will suffice to read the motion to indicate what the subject is. I allowed considerable latitude because it was a subsidiary question. The Minister of Public Works was allowed to speak a second time on the score of personal explanations and I hope that the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) will go back to the subject before the House.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I must bow to your decision but it is hard to reply to the hon. gentleman without being able to deal with the very question raised by the hon. gentleman opposite.


George Eulas Foster: Does it not strike Mr. Speaker and the members as well that if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) is to be allowed to make those very strong assertions with reference to the hon. Mr. Hazen, Mr. Mayes and others, that it is rather hard, when the other side of the case is put, as it is being well put by my friend from York (Mr. Crocket), that he should be cut off? We ought I think to have some little thought for people who do not have places on the floor of this House. I would not object if the very strong assertions had not been made by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley).


William Pugsley: I was defending myself.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman accused Mr. Hazen and Mr. Mayes of conspiracy, which is even worse than the accusation that was made against him,-certainly quite as bad. Now, when it ,is attempted to show the other side of the case in the interest of Mr. Mayes and Mr. Hazen it seems a little unfair that the person who is doing it should be cut off. I think that Mr. Speaker might allow the hon. member for York, N.B., to present this side of the case and then rule straight down on anybody else following afterwards.


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: It would rather seem to me that the position is this: The hen. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in his speech, introduced this utterly irrelevant matter personal to the minister, and the minister ought in reason to have the opportunity, which he was allowed, to reply to that. But the whole irrelevancy was largely introduced by the hon. member for North Toronto, and if it is irrelevant 1 think it should be cut off here.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, you have had an ex-Speaker of the House, a gentleman who is not now the Speaker, make a statement before you to-night, which statement, I am bound to say, is not in accordance with the facts.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am in the judgment of the House as to that.


George Eulas Foster: The member for North Toronto did not start this question. I leave that to you, Mr. Speaker; I leave it to 4 Hansard.'


William Pugsley: Who did?


George Eulas Foster: I would like the late Speaker of the House to take back that statement.


Wilfrid Laurier: This question was introduced upon a motion made by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid).


George Eulas Foster: We all know that.


Wilfrid Laurier: We all know that and we all know also that it was the hon. member for North Toronto who introduced this affidavit, if my memory serves me aright.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: It may be true, as my hon. friend says, that I introduced the affidavit, but why was the affidavit introduced? Because the matter had been started beforehand and discussed and it was necessary for the affidavit to be introduced.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With the indulgence of the House, I will explain why my point of order is taken.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member spoke to the point of order and we will have to settle it first.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to make a personal explanation.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The point of order has to be settled first. Rule 19 provides that:
iNo member shall . . . speak beside the question in debate.
The question in debate is contained in the motion and in the amendment thereto. I have allowed considerable latitude, and I
think we have had a fair statement of both sides of this case. There is another way of bringing up this Mayes matter before the House, there is another procedure which ban be adopted, and in the meantime I think we should adhere to the question before the House.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Speaker, I must, of course, bow to your ruling, but as I stated before I rose to discuss the statements that were made by the hon. Minister of Public Works in connection with this matter and to discuss them alone. It is somewhat surprising that the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) should have sat through the speech of the hon. Minister of Public Works, to which he listened with such intense interest and admiration, without this point of order occurring to him, and that he should first be heard from in connection with points of order when I sought to rebutt some of the arguments which were addressed to this House by the Minister last evening and this afternoon.
I must say, however, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, that I thought this matter was somewhat irrelevantly precipitated into this debate and as you have decided that it is not relevant to the motion which is before the House, any further observation I have to make I must, of course, confine to the question of the motion. I do not think it is necessary for me to say that I will very heartily support the resolution that has been moved by my hon. friend from Grenville. I think that instances have been given in this House, instances have been proved in the various committees which show the absolute necessity of some further safeguard being thrown around the reception of tenders and awarding of contracts. I have been somewhat surprised at some of the' statements which have been made by some new members who were not of these committees and by some old members who were of these committees, to the effect that there had been no instances in which there was any ground for suspicion in connection with the awarding of public contracts. But, it is not necessary now to rehash those instances. I am firmly convinced that the experience of the last eight or ten years has shown that there is an absolute necessity for greater care being exercised along the lines that are proposed in the resolution of my hon. friend from Grenville. I shall therefore have very great pleasure in recording my vote in favour of the resolution, and I know it is a vote that will be cordially approved by the people whom I have the honour to represent.


Mr.   W.@: 0. SEALEY (Wentworth). Mr. Speaker, in connection with the matter of doing public business it seems necessary to trust somebody to a moderate extent, and it would seem that the people of Canada have decided on the 26th October last to trust the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and

the able cabinet by which he is suround-ed. The amendment to the motion would seem to imply and provide for the least possible trust that could be imagined. That trust should be placed in the ministers in charge of the various departments, who are directly responsible to the department and who have been elected for the express purpose of assuming charge of public affairs. To entrust this duty to the minister and the chief officers of his department would seem to be as safe a plan as we could possibly adopt. It' would seem to be a practice along the line of British institutions generally as well as being in accordance with our system in Canada. But the motion, if I understand it aright, is intended to substitute the United States method of dealing with tenders whereby three officers of the department are present together with bidders or their representatives, or as many of them as care to be present. While the proposition of the hon. member who moved the resolution and of the other hon. gentlemen who support it may have the appearance of fairness, in actual practice what do we find? There is no place on the face of the earth where there is more newspaper or verbal complaint against the unfairness of the system and the generally unsatisfactory conditions of things that exist in the United States. It is true that in the United States tenders are opened by three officials of the department and as many bidders or their representatives as care to be present. But one of the officials generally attending is an office boy who cuts the paper envelope with a knife, another is an office boy who removes the bid from the envelope and another is a higher official who reads and announces the bid. After this is done the business generally lies in abeyance for about ten days. During that time the bidders are cognizant of whom their opponents are, and in many cases there are several bids in the same interest.
At the back of every bid there are about fifty conditions as to formality and if the powers that be should not award the contract to the lowest bidder it is returned to him marked 'informal.' I am satisfied that if _ the supporters of this motion could realize the millions of dollars that this system is costing the United States they would not be so enthusiastically in favour of it. So many are the conditions that there is scarcely any bid that cannot be thrown out by reason of informality, and if thrown out for informality, the securities are released and the_ bidders are relieved from the loss of their deposit or of their security to carry out the substance of their bid. The supporters of this motion are therefore trying to substitute for the British method which has worked so satisfactorily in this country, a system which has proved so iniquitous in the United States and which has been very costly to the government of that country.


Mr. SEALEY.: I might say that the United States system encourages the practice of the bidders being represented by what are termed bidders' agents or bidders' brokers who earn their livelihood by that means, and whose conduct has led to grave irregularities. If the motion before the House were calculated to safeguard the public interest in any way it would be worthy of our support, but as the experience in the United States has proven that it is the very reverse I feel it is in the best interests of the country that I should support the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie).


Mr. DUNCAN H. McALLISTER (Kings and Albert).: Little did I expect that I should address the House so early in my first session here, and necessarily I am but little acquainted with the procedure of parliament; but as the representative of Kings and Albert in the province of New Brunswick I must strongly resent the statements made here to-day by my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket). I tell you, Sir, I was ashamed of him-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: Yes, I was actually ashamed of him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: I tell you, Sir, that when he referred to the last campaign-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Some indulgence must be given to a new member.


Mr. BOYCE.: When he says he is ashamed of another member.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we must adhere to the rule which Mr. Speaker has already laid down in the case of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket).


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: I was about to say-


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon friend (Mr. McAllister) be good enough to take his seat for a moment. I did not protest against your rule, Mr. Speaker, because undoubtedly the debate had strayed from the point, although perhaps it might have been better to have allowed my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) to have continued his remarks. However, I do not dissent for a moment from your judgment, but that rule having been laid down it must be adhered to and the rest of this debate must conform to the motion before the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I had intended calling the hon. member (Mr. McAllister) to order, but he had not exactly reached that stage when it was necessary for me to interfere. The hon. member will have to confine himself to the motion and the amendment before the House.


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: If I have made any error I apologize for it and I will take it back; but I do say that if I heard that remark made outside the House I would be ashamed of my hon. friend from York. I have been quite accustomed to that sort of campaign-


Robert Laird Borden: I beg to invite your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the question before the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have ruled that hon. members cannot discuss anything outside the motion and the amendment before the House. A discussion on the recent elections is irrelevant.


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: Well, Sir, I will have to postpone the remarks I intended to make, but I shall never rest easy until I have that question discussed in the House. I wpuld like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not at all in favour of the resolution of the hon. member (Mr. Reid), for I do not think it would improve matters in any shape or form. I believe that the manner in which tenders are opened at the present time is good enough for Canada and that the people are well satisfied with it. On the 26th day of October last, when that affidavit was brought up against-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Paterson: How do know what affidavit he is going to speak about?


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: When that affidavit was brought up against the Minister of Public Works-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: It is a shame to interrupt a new man.


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: I hope those gentlemen over there won't get excited; their colleague got pretty well excited all through the campaign. I am not accustomed to parliamentary procedure, but the hon. gentleman from York (Mr. Crocket) had made certain statements and I thought it my duty to answer him. I think that when we have a man as worthy as the Hon. Wm. Pugs-ley


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Paterson: That is not out of order.


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: When we have a man as worthy as the Hon. Wm. Pugsley in the position of the Minister .of Public Works I do not think we can have any better guarantee that the department will be well conducted. I am sure he will take the responsibility and whatever responsibility he takes is good enough for any of us. I seem to be affording hon. gentlemen opposite a certain amount of amusement, and
as I have not come here for that purpose I shall resume my seat.
Mr- W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up more than a very few moments of the time of the House. It seems to me that the real difference between the resolution and the amendment is whether the minister of a department is to be one of a number to open the tenders for the great works of this country. If any great corporation had a great work to be done and called for tenders, it seems to me that it would be reasonable that the president or managing director of that corporation should be_ present and see the tenders opened. Upon him is the responsibility for the proper management of the corporation's business. In the same way it is the duty of the minister, who is the responsible bead of the department, and in whom the confidence of the people has been placed, to be present and see that the tenders are opened in the regular way. Let me ask the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution: Do the Conservative Premiers of the Dominion of Canada ask that their representative heads of the several departments shall not be present as one of a number to see the tenders opened? Does Mr. Hazen in the province of New Brunswick say that the Commissioner of Board of Works shall not be one of a number to be present when tenders are opened? Does Mr. Roblin, does Mr. Whitney, does Mr. McBride, ask the legislatures of their several provinces to pass legislation that the minister, the head of the department, forsooth, shall not be present when tenders for works in his department are opened? It seems to me that the motion of my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) is simply a motion of want of confidence in the government of the day; and surely, before he makes such a motion, he should ask his friends who lead the Conservative party in the several provinces what they are doing in this regard. It does seem to me that our affairs are quite as safe in the hands of the reresponsible heads of the different departments. My hon. friend said that there were not safeguards. Does he name a case? Is it insinuated that in the case of the Mayes contract, for example, there was tampering with the tenders? Such an insinuation, I understand, is not made, and therefore that particular ease is not relevant to the matter before the House, and cannot be pointed to as a reason for passing the original resolution instead of the amendment. In fact, had the original resolution been effective when that tender of 56 cents of Mr. Mayes and another for $1.25 from a firm in Ontario had been considered, no other result could have happened than did happen, namely, that the contract should be awarded to the lowest tenderer.

Now, I want to say only a word about the second clause of the resolution, namely, that the public should be present, or, if you like, those who tender should be invited to be present, when the tenders are opened. There may be something to be said in favour of that; yet there is another side to the story, and I think the Minister of Public Works was quite right when he said that it was possible that collusion might occur and that the interests of the public would not be safeguarded if that were done.
I have heard much to-day about the expenditure on public works in the city and county of St. John; but let me say for my own county that all contracts for public works there have been awarded to the lowest tenderer. Not only has this been the case with contracts for great public - works; but not one mail contract, during the four years that I have represented the county, has been awarded except to the lowest tenderer. I have a case in my mind of a tenderer for a mail contract who came to me and said, ' Can you tell me who has put in the next tender to mine, which is the lowest?' As I was not familiar with the ruling of the department, I asked the question on behalf of my friend. What reply did I receive? This, Mr. Speaker:
' It is against the rules of the department to announce the tenders until the contract is entered into.' My friend, I suppose, had an object. He and his brother had put in two tenders, and he was anxious to know whether his brother's came next to his or not. If it had and he had known of it ahead, would the lowest tender have been effective? No; he would have withdrawn it, and the contract would have gone to the next tenderer. There are cases of that kind, and, as the Minister of Public Works has stated, sometimes the next tender is a hundred per cent above the lowest one. 1 have in mind another case in which a wharf was built recently in my county, and in which a gentleman not from my county was the lowest tenderer at $19,000 in round numbers, and a gentleman from my county tendered at $34,000 in round numbers, nearly a hundred per cent difference. But, as I have said, in this as in every other case the lowest tender has been accepted. This is an evidence that the interests of the people are safeguarded under the rule embodied in the order in council.
An hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House has said that the fact that this order in council has been passed is an evidence that something was wrong, but that is not necessarily so. I am aware that hon. gentlemen on the floor of this House during the last session did, by insinuation, by innuendo, declare that there were irregularities, but they failed to substantiate their charges in the Public Ac-Mr. LOGGIE.
counts Committee. So far as I am concerned, I want to say that I am perfectly satisfied that the interests of the public are fully safeguarded if we leave the matter in the hands of the ministers of the several departments and an official, or, in the case of the absence of the minister, two high officials. It seems to me that the resolution is simply a motion of want of confidence in the ministers who have just come from the people with an overwhelming majority.


George Taylor: I merely want to ask my hon. friend a question for the purpose of removing a rumour which may or may not be correct. My hon. friend has advocated very strongly the continuance of the present system. I would ask him if since he became a member of this House, he and other members of his family have become an incorporated company, and if he has, in the name of that company, tendered for contracts in the Department of Militia or the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and been given contracts


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: My ruling of a moment ago applies to anything outside this motion or amendment.	.


Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: I merely propose making but a few short remarks, as I do not wish to take up the time of the House. The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) suggested, in his opening remarks yesterday, that some method ought to be adopted to shorten the sessions of this House. In that I quite agree with him. I do think that some method might properly be adopted which will get us away from here in less than seven or eight months, but I do not think it was consistent with this suggestion that the gentleman should immediately have proceeded to take up the time of the House in discussing a suggested remedy for an evil which is purely imaginary. In my opinion the mode of letting contracts by tender is much the same to-day as it has been since confederation. The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart), who was formerly a cabinet minister himself, says that when the Conservative party were in power, no evil resulted from the method then followed. The Minister of Public Works tells us with equal earnestness that no evil exists and no wrong has resulted from the continuance of just the same method by the party now in power. It seems to me that we are bound to accept the statements of these two gentlemen until some proof be brought forward that they are not well founded. If there were that measure of evil resulting which is complained of by our hon. friends opposite, if the allegation of the hon. member from North Grey (Mr. Middleboro) be true that no Conservative contractor or

business man will tender to-day for government work, surely we would have heard of many complaints from them on that score. I observed, however, this afternoon that when the Minister of Public Works challenged our friends opposite to mention a single instance in which a Conservative had ceased tendering or abandoned what had been his business formerly, not one accepted the challenge. It may be true that there are complaints but from whom do they come? They come entirely, Mr. Speaker, from Conservative politicians, and not from business men. True my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) gave one instance of a Liberal candidate having returned to his riding and told his people during an election campaign that he had been influential in getting for a local firm a certain portion of a public contract in that constituency, the member for Sault Ste. Marie stating, by the way, that it had not got as large a portion as it was entitled to. Surely we cannot, in all fairness, accept that as sufficient evidence in support of this motion. It is no doubt natural that political candidates should endeavour to secure all the credit they can for public works done in their constituency, and perhaps have, in some instances, an exaggerated, if not an erroneous, idea of the credit to which they are entitled. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), in support of his contention that evil exists and that bad results flow from the present system, which is a continuation of the old system, cited the case of the Mayes contract. Well, I shall not refer in any objectionable way to the declaration of Mr. Mayes, which has been discussed in this House, but I do not understand that in the declaration or any of the correspondence it has been shown-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Henry Horton Miller: I am simply referring to the question of tenders and to what might have happened had other methods been in vogue. I say that no attempt has been made to show that Mr. Mayes received any advantage.


Mr. STAPLES.: The hon. gentleman is out of order. You, Mr. Speaker, are generally fair to both sides, and I ask your ruling.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: My ruling would apply to any hon. member when he goes beyond the limits of the motion and amendment.


Henry Horton Miller: be necessary for the minister in charge of a department to make further inquiry as to the ability of a given tenderer to carry out the contract. Oftentimes it would not be wise or proper, in fact, it would be most unbusinesslike, to award the contract to the man who puts in the lowest tender. The very fact that his tender is exceedingly or absurdly low would, of itself, be sufficient evidence that he would not be able to carry out and properly complete the contract. I remember a case in which tenders were called for a certain work. There were two tenders. But one of these tenders was so ambiguously worded that it was not certain whether the price did, or did not, include the heating for the building that was to be erected. If it included the heating, it was the lowest tender, but if it did not it was not the lowest tender. In such a case, I consider that the proper thing to do-and the thing that was done in the case I have referred to-was to get in touch with the man who put in the tender that was not understood and ascertain whether his tender did or did not include the heating. And, in fairness to all the parties who tendered, it was very important that the figures of the different tenderers should not, in the meantime, be made known to any one.
It will be remembered that the hon member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said that all business must rest upon the trust that men have in men. But the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said that he was afraid that if we had such abundant faith in men, we would not, in the ordinary affairs of life, do our business very successfully, but would have to use a greater degree of caution. That, perhaps, is reasonable. I think that the hon. member for North Toronto may well set it as a gauge- that each of us may set it as a gauge-what would a man do in such a case if he were engaged not in public business, but in his own private affairs? A trustee, as I understand it, is expected to act as a prudent, intelligent, and honest business man would act if the circumstances were the same and he was handling his own affairs. Applying that to the matter before us, I would ask whether there are not many members of this House who have been members, it may be, of a church trustee board, of a school board, of an hospital board-and has any member of this House ever known any such case where tenders were called for and the tenderers were admitted when the tenders were opened? I have never known it to be so; and I do not think it is the custom for a man, in his own private business, when he has asked for tenders, to ask the tenderers to be present when tenders are openeed.
Some one has mentioned dredging. I had thought that, after the obiections made by an hon. member in this House last session, to the matter of dredging, our friends on the other side would not again have mentioned the subject. But I find that my hon friend Mr. MILLER.
from North Grey (Mr. Middleboro) a gentleman for whom I have a great deal of esteem, refers to a certain dredging company in the north part of my own county and within his own riding. According to yesterday's ' Hansard,' the hon. gentleman said :
In my own constituency, the north riding of Grey, as you know, we have representing us in the local house the hon. A. G. MJacKay, leader of the Liberal opposition in the province of Ontario. It may he a coincidence, but it is so, that that gentleman is also president of the Owen Sound Dredging and Construction company; it may be a coincidence that, although the assets of that company are worth anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000, he and the relatives of the late Liberal member in this House, ofn all the stock of that company except three shares of $300, and that these three shares consisting of $100 each are distributed nominally among three other persons for the sole purpose of constituting the necessary five in order to be incorporated as a dredging and construction company. That is the company about which there was so much examination in the Public Accounts Committee.
Now, I do not think that my hon. friend added anything to the debate in these remarks, or that he proved anything by his statement. Does it prove that the present method of letting contracts by tender is a bad method, that a man who happens to be engaged in political life, and happens to be a Liberal member of a provincial legislature in this Dominion, may get a contract? Do our friends suggest that some method of letting contracts should be adopted under which no man who is a Liberal could obtain a contract? If they do, the resolution of my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Beid) does not go sufficiently far. If my hon. friend from North Grey endeavoured to injure the reputation of Hon. A. G. MacKay by this reference, I think he has failed in that also. I do not think it is right, or fair, or kind, to introduce into this House unnecessarily the private business of other persons. I maintain that Hon. A. G. Mac-Iiay has just as good a right as any other man in Canada to own an interest in a dredge, and to put in tenders for dredging contracts, provided that he does it honestly, openly aiid above board, and that contracts are given to him only if he puts in the lowest tender.
The name of a lady is dragged into the debate, the widow of the late Dr. Horsey, who in his day was a member of this House.


William Sora Middlebro: Who dragged it in?


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. member for North Grey Mr. Middleboro).


David Henderson: Not at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read the ' Hansard.'


Henry Horton Miller: I am asked to read the 'Hansard.' I will:

In my own constituency, the -north -riding of [DOT]Grey, as you all know, we have representing us in the local House the Hon. A. G. MacKay, leader of the opposition in -the province of Ontario. It may be a coincidence, but it is so, that that gentleman is also president of the Owen Sound Dredging and Construction Company; it may -be a coincidence that, although the assets of tha-t company are worth anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000, he and -the relatives of the late Liberal member in this House, own all the stock of that company except three shares of $300.


William Sora Middlebro: Where is the name ? Who brought the name in first? The hon. gentleman himself.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman might just as well have mentioned the name as to say: the relatives of the late member.
On motion of Mr. Miller, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the House adjourned at six o'clock.

Fbiday, January 29, 1909.