1909-04-14

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Canadian Medical Association.-Mr. Roche, by Mr. Daniel.
Bill (No. 132) respecting certain letters patent of Franklin Montgomery Grey.- Mr. Rankin.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRADBURY-By Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	When was the work at or near Hunter Street Bridge, in Otonahee River, Peterboro', commenced, what is the total amount paid up to date on this work, and what amount is still unpaid for which estimates have been sent in?
2.	What is the total number of yards dredged, and has anything been paid for same? If so, to whom, and how much per yard? Or if by day, how much per day was paid or allowed for the dredge, tug or scow?
3.	Is anything still due for dredging? if so, what amount?
4.	When will the work be completed, and what is the estimated total cost?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) 27th October, 1905; (b) $35,979.60; (c) $894.00.
2.	(a) 63,564 cubic yards. (b) Yes. (c) From 1905 to 1907, the dredge which performed this work was loaned by the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Public Works paying running expenses and maintenance. During 1908, the dredge was hired from Conroy Bros., at the rate of $6 per hour. The tug was paid for at the rate of $10 per day, which included fuel and crew, and was hired from Geo. Lipsett.
3.	Yes, $894.00.
4.	The Resident Engineer reports that to complete the turning basin would require an expenditure of $5,000, and that the work should be done within three or four months after date of commencement.


CHICOUTIMI WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GIRARD-By Mr. Brown-asked:
1.	Has the government been obliged to expropriate Cote Boivin and Company of Chicoutimi before the commencement of the works for the extension of the wharf at that place? If so, why?
2.	What price has the government paid to these gentlemen for the site of this wharf, as well in money as in rights reserved by them?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) The company insisted on reservation to have free use of wharf after completion.
2.	The sum of $3,000 was paid for wharf property, the company reserving for themselves 40 feet of land from the north side of the extension of their warehouse and the whole length of their frontage, this portion to be filled in with earth by the department.


RIVER SAGUENAY BOOM.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GIRARD-By Mr. Brown-asked:
1.	What companies have asked the government to construct booms on the River Saguenay?
2.	In what year was this request made and in what year did the government accede to this request?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	A request was made by the Chicoutimi Pulp Company for themselves and on behalf of all the other lumber merchants of the district, viz.: Price Bros. & Co., Battle Island Paper Co., Alf. Godbout & Co., and La Societe Industrielle de Chicoutimi.
2.	(a) In 1904. (b) Construction of booms commenced in 1905.


SAGUENAY RIVER BOOMS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GIRARD

by Mr. Brown-asked:
1.	What amount is due the government by the Pulp Company of Chicoutimi, year by year, since 1903, for right of way for timber through the booms of the Saguenay, and for contribution to the maintenance of these booms?
2.	Does the government not think that, in justice, it should force the company to pay this unquestionable debt?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: Contribution Tolls.	to
1.	Maintenance
1903	
Nothing.	Nothing.1904	
"	"1905	
"	"1906	
$1,116 92	"1907	
1,801 00	$2,446 321908	
1,533 30	3,578 66Totals	$4,451 22	$6,024 98
Matter now in the hands of the Department of Justice.


RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Blain-asked:
Is it the intention of the government to increase the salaries and other remuneration of railway mail clerks in Canada? If so, has the scale of increases been decided upon, and when will it go into operation?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: The matter is under consideration.


NIPIGON RIVER DREDGING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Was any money voted by parliament during the session of 1908 for the dredging, done at the mouth of the Nipigon river and Nipigon hay in Lake Superior, by the Great Lake Dredging Company, Limited, under contract dated 9t'n October, 1908? If so, when was such amount voted, what was the amount, and what is the item in the estimates which authorises the expenditure?
2.	If there was no appropriation, by what authority was the contract let to the Great Lakes Dredging Company, Limited, for the work, and out of what moneys was the sum of $5,459.45 paid in 1908, and out of which moneys is it proposed to pay the balance of <?50,012.25, alleged to be due for work done under the said contract during the year 1908?
3.	In what newspapers were the advertisements for tenders inserted, and between what dates?
4.	When did the work cease in the season o* 1908?
5.	Was any effort made to obtain any other tenders than that of the Great Lakes Dredging Company, Limited, which was the only one submitted?
6.	What was the date of the tender of the Great Lakes Dredging Company, Limited, and on what date was it received at the Department of Public Works?
7.	What were the respective dates of payment of the moneys aggregating $57,459.25 paid on account in 1908, and what, if any, further moneys have been paid to the contractors since the last-mentioned payment?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	No. '
2.	Payment already made has been taken from appropriation ' Dredging, Ontario and Quebec,' granted in 1908, and it is proposed to pay the balance from appropriation of the same name in the supplementary votes of present session for 1908-9.
3 and 5. It was intended to include the name of Nipigon river in the advertisement calling for tenders for dredging required at Bowmanville, Green Shoals, Jackfish Bay, Leith, Newcastle, Rainy River and Spanish River, which was published in the newspapers between the 3rd and 17th of July, 1908 (list of newspapers annexed). But the Mr. PUGSLEY.
name was inadvertently omitted, and, as soon as this was discovered, the following letter was sent to Messrs. W. L. Horton, A. F. Bowman, Manley & Co., W. E. Phin, Weddell & Co., the Canada Construction Company, Limited, the Canadian Dredge and Construction Company, Limited, the Randolph Macdonald Company, Limited, the C. S. Boone Dredging and Construction Company, Limited, the Penetanguishene Dredging Company and the Windsor Dredging Company, Limited, who are the only contractors, to the knowledge of the department, doing dredging in that part of the country:
Ottawa, July 10, 1908.
Gentlemen,-I inclose herewith advertisement for dredging in the province of Ontario, tenders for which are to be received up to the 17th instant. Please consider Nipigon river as added to the list of places mentioned in the advertisement, where dredging is to be done.
I have the honour to be, &c.,
(Sgd.) R. C. DESROCHERS,
Assistant secretary.
4. 5th December, 1908.
6.	(a) 16th July, 1908.	(b) I7th July,
1908.
7.	(a) October 16, $27,459.45; December
22, $30,000.	(b) None.


DREDGING, ONTARIO. ADVERTISEMENT DATED JULY 3, 1908.
[Stage Direction]
Algoma county:	Dredging at Spanish
river-
Copper Cliff, 'Courier'; Gore Bay, Mani-toulin, 'Reformer;' Little Current, Manitou-lin, 'Expositor'; Thessalon, 'Advocate' ; Bruce Mines, 'Spectator'; Sault Ste. Marie, 'Express'; Sault Ste. Marie, 'Star'; Sault Ste. Marie, 'Telegram'; Richard's Landing, St. Joe, ' Herald.'	;
Durham county:	Dredging at Bowmanville, Newcastle-
Bowmanville, 'Statesman'; PoTt Hope, 'Guide'; Millbrook, 'Mirror.'
Grey county: Dredging at Leith-
Clarksburg, 'Reflector'; Flesherton, 'Advance'; Massey, 'North Shore News'; Thornbury, 'Union Standard'; Meaford, 'Monitor'; Meaford, 'Express'; Owen Sound, 'Sun'; Owen Sound, 'Advertiser'; Ayton, 'Advance'; Chatsworth, 'News'; Durham, 'Grey Review'; Hanover, 'Post'; Holstein, 'Leader.'
Russell county:	Dredging at Green
Shoals, eight miles below Ottawa.
No papers on list for Russell county. Ottawa, 'Free Press'; Ottawa, 'Le Temps'; Ottawa, 'Danebrog'; Ottawa, Dominion Presbyterian.'
Thunder Bay and Rainy River: Dredging at Jackfish Bay, Rainy River-
Fort William, 'Evening HeTald'; Fort Francis, 'Times'; Keewatin, 'Enterprise';

Port Arthur, 'Chronicle'; Port Arthur, 'Herald'; Rainy River, 'Gazette'; Wabigoon, 'Star.'
Three insertions in dailies; two insertions in weeklies-
Toronto, 'Star'; Toronto, 'Globe'; Chatham, 'The Canadian.'

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	From whom were tenders received for (a) groceries, and (b) flour, for the current year for the batteries at Kingston?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded, and at what prices for the several articles to be supplied ?
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	(a) Tenders for groceries &c., were received from Messrs. Andrew McLean, Jas. Redden and Company, John Gilbert and Jas. Crawford.
(b) Tenders for flour received from Messrs. Andrew McLean, Jas. Redden and Company, Jas., Crawford and R. Carson.
2.	The contract for groceries and vegetables was awarded to Jas. Redden and Company, and for Strong Baker's flour to R. Carson. The contract for corn flour was awarded to Jas. Crawford who declined to undertake it; whereupon the next lowest tender, R. Carson's, was accepted.
Messrs. Redden and Company's prices were as follows:
.	Cts. per lb.
Bacon, breakfast	15	"
Bacon, green	10
Potatoes	
1	"Beans	
3J	"Jams, pure	10	"Jams, compound	
6J	"Butter, in 1 lb. lots, creamery	27	"Butter, in 25 lb. lots, dairy 20	"Cheese	12i	"Split pease	
2f	"Sugar	
41	"Salt	
Oi	'*
Coffee, Mocha and Java,
pure	22	"
Coffee, Santos	15
Tea, choice Ceylon	22
Tea, China	17	"
Pepper, pure	15
Pepper, compound	10
Fresh vegetables	 li	"	-
Lard	13
Yeast, Fleisehmann's .. .. 30 Mr. R. Carson's prices for flour were: Per sack 98 lbs For Strong Baker's flour $2 65 For corn flour	 2 40	"


COAL FOR KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Were tenders called for supplying Kingston penitentiary with coal for the ensuing
year?
2.	From whom were tenders received, and the price per ton in each case?
3.	Who was awarded the contract, and at what price?
4.	Who had the contract last year, and at what price?
5.	How many tons of coal weie used by that institution last year?
Hon A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Ye3, for 1909-10, for coal screenings only. Other kinds not required.
Per ton.
2.	Hammell & McLaughlin, Toronto $2 65
P. Walsh, Kingston	
2	70Crown Coal Company, Toronto.. 2 41 Frontenac Lumber and Coal Company, Kingston	
2	41J. W. Peacock, Port Hope	
2	40G. Plunkett, Cobourg	
2	40James Sowards, Kingston	
2	24R. Crawford, Kingston	
2	19
3. R. Crawford at $2.19 per ton.
4.	Chestnut and egg coal, 1*. Walsh, at $4.94 per ton.
Screenings, R. Crawford, at $2.43 per ton.
5.	4,920 tons.


KINGSTON PENITENTIARY-COST OF GUARD.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	How many prisoners were confined in Kingston penitentiary on the 31st of March in each of the years from 1900 to 1909, inclusive?
2.	How many guards and keepers were employed at the said institution on the date in the years mentioned?
3.	What were the salaries of the guards and keepers in 1900, and what are their present salaries?
4.	What are the hours of service of the guards and keepers at present?
5.	Does the government contemplate any increase in the salaries of these officials or any increase in the number?
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice):: 1.	552, 525, 477, 452, 447, 449, 464, 458, 488 and 569 respectively.
2.	Including industrial keepers, who are police officers, watchmen, who are night guards, and temporary guards: 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 64, 66, 66, 63 and 65 respectively.
3.	From 1900 till 1906 keepers were paid $600 per annum and guards $500 per annum. Since 1906 keepers have been paid $700 per annum and guards $600 per annum.
4.	Day staff, in summer, (15th March until 14th October), from 6.30 a.m. until

6 p.m. In winter, (15th October until 14th March), from 6.30 a.m. until the prison closes at sundown, except a few guards who remain in charge until 6 p.m., at which hour the night staff take charge. Night staff, from 6 p.m. until 6.30 a.m., every night.
5.	The salaries are now the maximum allowed by the Penitentiary Act. Any question of increase in the number of police officers will depend upon the population.



KINGSTON PENITENTIARY-SUPPLY OP POTATOES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	How many bags of potatoes were purchased last year for the use of the Kingston penitentiary and at what prices?
2.	Prom whom were they purchased?
3.	Were tenders called for? if so, from whom received and the price in each case?
['I think the railway mail clerks are as much entitled to an increase as the other civil servants. Their work is of a dangerous character and they require to be clerks of a superior class. It is some six or seven years since they have had an increase, and I think they are now entitled to a flat increase of $150 or at least $100 a year. I would ask the minister to consider their case before he brings in a Bill.\nResolution reported, read the first and the second time and agreed to.\nMr. LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 136) to amend the Post Office Act.']
Hon A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice):: 
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 



Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM (Huron) asked:: How much public money has been expended during the past twenty years by the Dominion government on public works in the territory now constituting the constituency of West Middlesex?


Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works.) $69,271.87.


SIDEWALK AROUND CHARLOTTETOWN POST OFFICE.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Eid the government construct a concrete sidewalk around the post office in Charlottetown, P.E.I., in the year 1908? If so, was seme let by public tender or by contract, and who was the contractor or contractors?
2.	What was the measurement of the work, and from whom were the materials purchased?
3.	What was the cost of labour, sand, cement and other materials, respectively?
4.	What was the total cost, and to whom paid, and when?


Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works:
1 and 3. Yes. A price was asked from J. P. Nicholson, city engineer of Charlottetown.
2.	6,383 sup. feet concrete walks
at 24c	$1,531 92
2,315 sup. feat gravel walks at 10c	 231 50

4.	(a)	$1,763.42; (b) J. P. Nicholson;
(c) October 6, 1908.
G. T. R. Co.-PRIOR LIEN ON ASSETS.
Mr. PERLEY asked;
Is it the opinion of the law officers of the Crown that the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company is a prior lien or charge on the assets of the company ahead of the first, second and third preferred stocks, as set forth in the answer to a question on March 31. 1909?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):: 


Geo.   F.@: Shepley, K.O., was charged by the Minister of Justice with the settlement of the proposed bill and of the mortgage which is scheduled thereto. The foregoing question was accordingly submitted to Mr. Shepley by the Deputy Minister of Justice. The following is the conclusion of his formal opinion ' with which,' the Deputy Minister of Justice states, 'I quite agree.'
'The Bill introduced to provide for the loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company empowers the Grand Trunk Rail-

way Company to become a party to the mortgage or deed of trust scheduled to the Bill, and to enter into the contract of guaranty which the third section of the Act makes one of the securities to the government for the repayment of the proposed loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
'The guaranty referred to is fully set out in the mortgage or deed of trust, and is an unconditional contract under seal by the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the prompt payment of the principal and interest of the bonds secured by the mortgage or deed of trust.
'The second section of Article 4 of the deed of trust expressly constitutes the guaranty in question a liability of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in priority to all the share capital of that company, whether guaranteed stock, preference stock or ordinary stock.
'It is not, I think, strictly accurate to speak of either preferred share capital or the guaranty as creating a lien or charge upon the assets of the company. The preferred share capital is, under the statutes relating to it, an obligation on the part of the company towards the holders of it. Similarly, the guaranty is an obligation the non-performance of which would make the company a debtor.
'It is perfectly clear, in my opinion, that the terms of the proposed Bill and of the mortgage or deed scheduled to it, make it impossible for the company to pay dividends upon the preferred capital in priority to any debt that may arise out of the nonperformance of the guaranty. In this sense, the obligation created by the guaranty has priority over the obligation existing in respect of preferred share capital.'


LITTLE ST. PIERRE RIVER-DRAINAGE.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to refer briefly to a definite matter of urgent public importance. Under subsection 3 of rule 37, I would state that the matter of urgent public importance is the immediate drainage and sanitation of the valley of the Little St. Pierre river. I have mentioned the matter to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), and if I have the necessary support of the House, I will state as briefly as I can what is urgently needed in this matter. Mr. Speaker, if this had not been a matter affecting largely the public health of the city of Montreal and its vicinity, I would have deferred the discussion until the question might be brought up in the regular course on the discussion of the estimates. But I deem it such an urgent matter and of so
much importance that I have decided, with the consent of the Minister of Railways and Canals, to bring it at once to the attention of the government and the House.
As most of the members of this House are aware, the government in building the Lachine canal, so placed that important work as to interfere materially with the drainage of an area extending from Lachine down into what was then only the outskirts of the city of Montreal. The canal follows the bank of the St. Lawrence river from one end to the other of the Lachine rapids. On one side is Mount Royal, and this canal constitutes, in reality, a kind of dyke which prevents the flow of water from a very large area, extending between the mountain and the river, to the river to which these waters would flow naturally. The effect of this was to cause, even at the very beginning, yearly floods in that part of the district of Montreal. The government, from the first, recognized that it had there an obligation of drainage, which, from time to time, it has endeavoured to satisfy, but in an imperfect manner. The administration that preceded the present one executed a work of considerable magnitude, at a cost, I believe, of over $100,000, to drain the upper part of the area just referred to. That drain was constructed in the early eighties, and it was constructed because the government recognized that the building of the canal prevented the regular flow of waters across the district. Of course, at that time the drainage and sanitation of the area was not of very great importance, because the section was very sparsely settled. There were a few farmers there, but the government arranged with many of them by paying them indemnities after arbitration on account of these periodical overflowings and the prevention of drainage. At times, I believe, the government constructed one or two conduits under the Lachine canal for the surface water; and even to-day that mode is still open to the government of preserving this area from yearly inundation lasting for a considerable time in the spring. At this time, and for a few years past, a great number of municipalities have sprung up within the limits of the undrained area, and a very large number of houses have been built, making this question of drainage and sanitation one which calls for immediate solution on the part of those who are bound to see to it that the obstacle in the way of drainage is removed. The government of Canada, either before 1896 or since that date, permitted the municipality of Lachine to empty its drainage into a main drain which started from the the upper part of Lachine and came down a considerable distance and emptied into the St. Pierre, a little Tiver which flows between the Lachine canal and the mountain, through the municipality of Notre Dame de Grace and into

the city of Montreal, and through a part of that city to the St. Lawrence. At that time the municipality of Lachine, which to-day has a population of nearly ten thousand souls, was, comparatively speaking, a small village, and the government at that time did not think it a matter of very great importance that the drainage of that village should be allowed to flow into this main drain. But since that time, as I have said, a number of important municipalities have sprung up within a short distance of this area or within its very limits. There are the municipalities of Westmount, Boulevard St. Paul, the rural municipality of Notre Dame de Grace, the municipality of Montreal West, and probably others which I am omitting. All these municipalities desire to drain into the river St. Pierre, or, if not that, to drain as far as the St. Lawrence, they are obliged to cross the Lachine canal, which is a matter of very considerable inconvenience, even if at all possible. As I have stated, the government has recognized on many occasions its share of responsibility in regard to the drainage of that area.
The provincial board of health, since more than five years, has had this question under its particular observation, and time and again has brought to the notice of the municipalities and the government the absolute urgency of draining that area in particular and the very grave objection which exists to the sewage of Lachine-a town of considerable extent and daily increasing-passing into the River St. Pierre, all along that river, and into the city of Montreal, thus forming an open drain over an extent of some 5 or 6 miles. Last year the grave danger which thus threatened these municipalities and the city of Montreal itself, induced all these municipalities, as well as the board of health, to send a delegation to interview my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals regarding the best means of putting an end to this nuisance and daily peril. To use the words of Dr. Lachapelle, the president of the provincial board of health, who formed one of this delegation, the state of affairs existing constitutes a fever nest which is a source of daily danger for nearly 400,000 people who inhabit the island of Montreal, not only in the vicinity of this exposed area but throughout the whole city and island. At any time this drain may generate fever among our population -among the poor people and also those in better circumstances who live in that immediate vicinity, whence it may extend over the city.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Where does the River St. Pierre enter the St. Lawrence?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It passes through St. Gabriel ward in the city of Montreal below the canal. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways, who understood perfectly the gravity of the situation, made the suggestion, which was accepted by all the mayors and the representatives of the boards of health, and the delegation generally, that if the government had some responsibility in the matter, there was also a responsibility upon the municipalities which drained into that river or desired to do so, and that consequently all should share in the expense of devising some plan which would be submitted to the interested parties, after which a determination would be arrived at as to what should be the basis of contribution by each. That suggestion was accepted by the delegation. That was about a year ago. The government named as its expert engineer, Mr. Chipman of Toronto; the city of Montreal named Mr. Janin, superintendent of water works; and the other municipalities joined in suggesting, as their representative, Mr. Fellows, engineer of the muncipality of Westmount. It was admitted by all that the danger was immediate and increasing, and that it was absolutely necessary to proceed without delay to remove it. But that view does not seem to have been acted on by those who were charged with the preparation of plans and the devising of the best means of overcoming the difficulty. This year that area is inundated by the overflow of the St. Pierre river with all its affluent sewage and I was moved to find out what these three experts had done. In so far as I have been able to ascertain, they held one or two meetings and selected the engineer in charge of the canals of the province of Quebec to prepare some plans, and the suggestion was made that some young engineer should be employed to take levels. In order to do that some money was necessary. The municipalities contributed $600, Montreal contributed $600, the government gave $600, and a fund was constituted, and I understand that this young engineer is busy from time to time taking levels and doing some preliminary work. The object of my rising to-day is to urge my hon. friend and the government to hasten the work of these experts. My hon. friend might say that that is not more the concern of the government than of the other parties interested. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the mayors of these municipalities would take a lively interest in this work. They cannot act without consulting their councils and without consulting among themselves, and the best proof that action on their part is difficult is shown by the fact that nothing has yet been done

practically to overcome this grave condition. On the other hand my hon. friend the minister has under his control the means of hastening the preliminary operations. His deputy is fully conversant with the situation. He has all the plans which have been made and the claims for damages, which from time to time have been produced and settled. My hon. friend has also in the canal office in Montreal the superintendent of provincial canals under his control. That gentleman is thoroughly conversant with the situation.
At any rate, whether this is more particularly my hon. friend's business or that of the other interested parties to whom I have referred, I would ask my hon. frierfd, in view of the danger attending the situation, in view of the urgency, to bring all possible pressure to bear upon these experts in order that they may finish their work and lay before the' government their report, their plans, their suggestions as to the best means of overcoming this serious difficulty without delay. My hon. friend's department, or, at any rate, the government, has undertaken very considerable work in St. Johns, in view of the rising of the St. Johns river and the flooding of the district in that vicinity. It was urged, as I understand, upon the government, that the canal there was one of the principal causes of this flood. But the district was, if I understand it aright, interested as a rural district. This is a question of doing justice to the farmers and it is a question of importance, I admit. In the instance I am now bringing to the notice of the House and of the government it is a question of the health of a very large multitude of people who undoubtedly stand in great peril of suffering and who at present suffer because the population is becoming more dense all the time. To children playing on the shores of this little river the danger is continuous, and the prevalence of fever there has been most marked. Under these circumstances I think my hon. friend should take the matter in hand, and I have no doubt that if he brings pressure to bear upon the experts I have named he will have the report without delay and that the work will be undertaken immediately, because once that report is before my hon. friend and the interested parties there will undoubtedly be an agreement as to the proportion of the cost of the work to be borne by each. I agree with the suggestion that I have heard more than once made during the present session in this House that it is during the time of depression that public works should be executed. There is no doubt at the present moment we have in the city of Montreal, as well as in other large cities of this Dominion, a very large number of unemployed people. They could not be better employed than this. The only thing that is necessary is to make the ex-134
perts understand the urgency, the gravity of the situation, as depicted to us by the provincial board of health, call for tenders and have this work executed without delay. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, the question of public health is a paramount one, one that deserves the attention of this House and I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I understand the importance of the question he has discussed. Some months, or perhaps a year ago, this matter, as outlined by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, was brought to my attention and steps were taken along the lines indicated by him. But this much ought to be remembered, that this is not a government work. My hon. friend rather assumes the position that the government has undertaken the drainage of this section of Montreal. That is not the position. The question of public health lies wholly with the, provincial and municipal authorities. If this government be liable for any act it ought to be prepared to meet that liability. It was along the lines of sympathy for the grievances of the residents in this locality that the question was approached. It was asserted that the government had become responsible to a certain extent by allowing the sewage of Lachine to pass through a certain sewer. The conditions at that time were altogether different. We did not have any of these smaller municipalities that have grown up in that particular locality. In discussing the question, feeling the responsibility and the gravity of any situation that would militate against the health of the people, I felt that it was the duty of this government, if it had any liability, to meet it in reference to the matter. I agreed readily on the part of the government to appoint an engineer to associate himself with the engineers that the municipalities and the province might appoint to look into the matter, but, mark you, the Department of Railways and Canals did not assume this as a government work. The work, if carried out as it ought to be, and the protection of the public health, lie wholly in the hands of the provincial and municipal authorities themselves under the board of health regulations and under the provincial Municipal Act. As a party, if it be a party, the government is prepared to do its share towards the remedying of the grievance. Just what the engineers have done I am not prepared to say, as my hon. friend's note was just handed to me a few minutes ago. The city of Montreal surely is the party really interested. These smaller municipalities in which this state of affars is said to exist, certainly form the community that is really interested, but the pro-



vincial board of health, having charge of the health of the people, is certainly deeply interested, and if this government is prepared to pay any share of the liability that may appear as belonging to it and to perhaps act generously in that regard, certainly, it is doing all that it is called upon to do. We are prepared to do that and perhaps to be a little generous along that line, but I would not like my hon. friend to retain the idea that this government ought to undertake it as a public work. It is a purely local or municipal work for the protection of the public health. As far as we are liable this government and this parliament ought to meet that liability and we will gladly do so. I will call the attention of the officers of my department to the remarks of my hon. friend, and I will see in what position the report of this board is, what they have done and what they have placed before the department as the result of their labour.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, I am pretty thoroughly acquainted with this question, as the circumstances which have been alluded to occurred when I was managing the Department of Railways and Canals. The liability of the government in reference to this particular affair is that we, in constructing the Lachine canal, rendered it almost impossible for the people of Lachine to drain that municipality without passing the drain under the Lachine canal. The liability of the government with respect to that was assumed long ago. We built a drain along the Lachine canal, built works under the Lachine canal for the purpose of draining this particular locality, and I think we deepened the St. Pierre river from the Lachine canal down to_ the city of Montreal. The extent of the liability of the government is confined to this: How much more difficult have we made it for the people to drain that municipality for the purposes of sanitation than it was before? It was nearly impossible for the people of Lachine to drain under the mouth or entrance of the canal. There was no way but by building a ditch alongside of the Lachine canal and putting culyerts under the canal for the purposes of drainage. The government, rightly or wrongly, assumed that work and allowed the people of Lachine to drain under the canal; in fact, it was built for no other purpose than for draining the village of Lachine. When we got under the canal we found that we were lower than the bed of the St. Pierre river and we were obliged to deepen the St. Pierre river from the Lachine canal down to Montreal. When we built the Lachine canal we made it impossible for those on the north side to have drainage without a drain underneath the canal, and for that reason the government is bound to see that all reasonable and safe facilities are


George Perry Graham: given for drainage purposes. This river is
simply an open sewer, it is a disgrace, it is a menace to the health of the community, and the government some day will have to take measures to abate the nuisance. To what extent the government is liable must be a question of arbitration between them and the different municipalities.
Motion (Mr. Monk) negatived.


NEW BRUNSWICK CENTRAL RAILWAY -REPORT OF PROVINCIAL COMMISSION.
Mr. GEO. E. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to ask the First Minister a question, in addition to the one I put to him yesterday, and that is, as to whether he has yet received any copies of the report of the New Brunswick Commission, and if when he receives them he will lay one upon the table of the House, so that it may, if the House thinks proper, be printed foT the information of the members of the House.


Right Hon.   S@: In regard to the latteT Tequest of my hon. friend, I have no hesitation in stating that I do not think we are called upon to lay the document upon the table of the House and to have it printed. I may say to the hon. gentleman that I this morning sent to the library to get a copy of that report and I received it about twelve o'clock.


William Pugsley: May I be allowed to make just one remark: What has been printed is only a part of the report. I think the report must mean the evidence and the documents. It is only when these are printed that one can understand what the report really is.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. OUTSIDE SERVICE-PAY OF LETTER-CARRIERS, &e.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act and the Civil Service Act and to provide as follows:-
That in the outside division of the Post Office Department the salaries of messengers, porters, letter-carriers, mail transfer agents or box collectors shall, in Grade A he at the rate of $1.75 per day, in Grade B at the rate of $2.00 per day, in Grade C at the rate of $2.25 per day, in Grade D at the rate of $2.50 per day, in Grade E at the rate of S2.75 per day; that the salaries of the fourth-class clerks shall, on appointment, be $500 with annual increases of $100 up to $700 ;

and that if the salary of any stamper and sorter or fourth-class clerk is at present less than $500, it shall forthwith be increased to that minimum.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to give a very brief explanation of this resolution. The salaries of letter-carriers are fixed by the Post Office Act and the salaries of the fourth-class clerks by the old Civil Service Act so that both will require to be amended. Since I took office, and during many years previously, representations have been made to the Postmaster General and to the government, by commercial bodies, by municipal councils and other representative institutions, not to speak of members of parliament on both sides, asking that the salaries of the letter-carriers should be increased. In 1902 Sir William Mulock, then Postmaster General, increased the salaries of the letter-carriers to some extent. Two years ago, the commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Service included in their report the following recommendation:
Your Commissioners find that a few years ago the laws regarding the employment of letter-carriers were considerably altered. The letter-carrier was changed from an official drawing a yearly salary to an official drawing a daily salary, and in cases of absence through sickness or otherwise, deductions of pay were enforced. No doubt in the best interests of the service these laws require to be rigidly enforced. Nothing comes so much into the daily life of the community as the delivery of the mail. It is a service requiring prompt and efficient action. In certain places favouritism is alleged on the part of high officials towards certain letter-carriers who were allowed leave of absence with pay, but others of the same euass were fined. Your Commissioners do not, however, think this worthy of attention, but they are of opinion that it would be desirable as far as possible to bring the services of letter-carriers to an eight-hour a day service. They would also suggest an additional week's leave of absence be allowed this branch of the service, and on consideration they recommend that at least the schedules of salaries laid down by Mr. Ross, Superintendent of Post Offices, should be adopted. Mr. Ross has filed an extensive memorandum which is to be found appended to his evidence.
I -may say that the resolutions now before the House are based on the report made by Mr. Ross chief superintendent, and a higher official of the Post Office service. The present scale of salaries paid to letter-carriers is provided for in sections 39 and 40 of the Act, and the same scale prevails in the smaller cities as well as the - larger cities, wdierever the system of free delivery exists. Briefly, the scale of salaries is as follows:	In grade A, on entermi	i
ing the service, during a probationary period of one month, a letter-carrier is paid $1.25 per day. If the man is found sufficiently well equipped, intellectually and morally, at the expiration of the probationary month, he is immediately put into grade B at $1.50 per day.


Samuel Hughes: That is for week days only?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. We have no Sunday work in this country. Afterwards he goes into grade 0, where he receives during two years time $1.75 per day; and from grade C he goes to grade D, where he is paid at the rate of $2 per day. If he is an exceptionally good letter-carrier and performs a longer or more difficult service than others, he is promoted to grade E, where he gets an additional 25 cents a day, together with a leave of absence every year of two weeks with pay and may also be granted an additional leave of absence with pay for a period not exceeding ten days in each year or a bonus at the rate of two dollars for each day of such additional leave.


Samuel Hughes: Do they all get that leave of absence?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. Some of them do not avail themselves of it, because they are anxious to come under the exceptional grade of $2.25 per day. Let me refer, by way of comparison, to the salaries paid to letter-carriers in the United States. For the first year letter-carriers in the United States receive a salary of $600; in Canada only $469.50. In the second year, in the United States, $800; in Canada, $469.50. In the third year, in the United States, $900; in Canada, $547.75. In the fourth year, in the United States, $1,000; in Canada, $547.75. In the fifth year, in the United States, $1,100; in Canada, $626; after which, for the performance of work of a specially arduous and responsible nature, a letter-carrier may be promoted to grade E, where he receives $704.25 per annum. I may say that in New Zealand, the smallest colony in the British empire, the salaries of ietter-carriers are a little higher than the salaries paid in Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Who pays for the uniform?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Post Office Department furnishes uniforms, boots and helmets. In addition, in the large cities we give letter-carriers in uniform free transportation on the street cars, for which we pay a fixed sum to the Street Railway Company. Under the proposal before the House, if the resolution carries, letter-carriers, during their first month, the probationary period, instead of receiving $1.25

per day, will hereafter receive $1.75; after their probationary period, in the first, year, instead of $1.50, they will receive $2" per day. In the second year, instead of $1.50, they will receive $2 per day. In the third year, instead of $1.75, they will receive $2.25. In the fourth year, instead of $2.25, they will receive $2.50, or, for specially arduous duties or specially long runs, $2.75 per day'. The rate of pay attached to each grade is proposed to be increased 50 cents per day. But the great advantage, in my mind, is that a letter-carrier, from his entrance into the service, receives sufficient for the maintenance of himself and his family in a fairly adequate manner. I need not refer to the representations that have been made to the government and to the members individually by the letter-carriers and their many friends in the country. I freely admit that under the old system they did not receive enough to maintain themselves properly, with the increase in the cost of living during the last ten years, and even during the last five years.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In the various post offices of the country there are postal officers looking after the work of the Customs Department, and these men are simply scandalously paid. I think something should be done for them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course under section 142 of the Post Office Act, every postal clerk is deemed to be employed for the prevention of smuggling and for the enforcement of the revenue laws of Canada. But the special class to which the hon. gentleman refers comes under the Customs Department.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. minister tell his colleague the Minister of Customs?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will take a note of my hon. friend's suggestion. This increase in the pay I consider a reasonable increase. It will be an inducement to our letter carriers to serve the public better and besides will give us better men, though, generally speaking, we have a good class of men working for the department. In our cities they give really very good service.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: Does the scale of increase cover those who are under the old Civil Service law?


Rodolphe Lemieux: When Sir Wm. Mulock introduced his amendment to the Post Office Act by which he brought letter-carriers under the grade system and increased their pay, many of the old letter-carriers refused to come under that /system although they received less pay under the former one. The object of the amendment Mr. LEMIEUX.
was not only to increase the pay, but to obtain better service. Under the old Act many of the letter-carriers were subject to malingering or simulation of illness. They knew they would be paid in any event, and frequently were indisposed much to the detriment of the service. But under the grade system a man is paid for every day of work. If absent he is not paid unless he satisfies the authorities that he has been the victim of an accident while on duty or was really suffering under serious illness contracted in the service. We thus put a brake on what was really an abuse, and we notice that to-day we have, practically speaking, no more absentees. The letter-carriers are scarcely ever absent and avail themselves of the annual leave of twenty days with pay. On three different occasions Sir Wm. Mulock extended the delay given the old letter-carriers to come undeT the grade system, and nearly all of them did so. But about 75 or 80 have refused up to date, and in order that they may benefit by the new increase we shall have to make further amendments.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Will they be given the opportunity of coming under the grade system?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Act under which they have been appointed has been repealed and we cannot amend it. I am glad, however, that my hon. friend has called my attention to this matter, and will look into it, as I do not wish to take advantage of the disadvantageous position under which these letter-carriers agreed to remain since many years.


Mr. JOSEPH BUSSELL.: Does the hon. minister really think that $1.75 per day is sufficient pay for these men when they start in? In our city $2 per day is about the smallest wage a common labourer gets. If you would increase the minimum to $2 per day and the other grades by 25 cents per day, that would be none too much, considering the extra cost of living. Civil servants were under a certain schedule for many years and no doubt when this increase is made fit will remain in force a number of years to come. It would not be unjust to give these men $2 a day to start with, as no man with a family can save much on that wage and live in decency and comfort.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is easy to suggest that the letter-carriers should receive $2 a day at the start instead of $1.75, but the present increase will cost the country $200,000 per annum in round numbers, so that we must be careful. I shall, however, take a note of what my hon. friend has said. No doubt some other hon. members will argue in

favour of a larger increase, but the money is not my own, but that of the people, and whilst I would be pleased to give $4 or $5 per day to every man employed in the departments, yet I have to keep within limits. On the whole, the letter-carriers are satisfied with the increase given them at present. Judging by the' deputations I have received since I have been in office, this amount is considered as fairly adequate to the exigencies of the present day.
To come to the fourth class, the stampers, sorters and other lower grades, their pay is governed by the old Civil iServiee Act, which was wiped out from the statute-book as regards the inside service, but still Temains as regards the outside service. According to the Civil Service Act, the fourth-class clerks are treated as follows:
The minimum salary attached to a fourth-class clerk, the lowest clerkship in the service, is $400 per annum
The fourth-class clerk enters the service at $400 a year, and by annual increases of $50 reaches a maximum of $700 a year. We found that young men entering the service under these conditions remained a few months, perhaps a year or so, but, when they had become fairly efficient clerks, they left the service. This was rehearsed every year in that class of our employees. The fourth-class clerks are not sufficiently paid when they enter the service, and therefore they almost invariably leave when they find an opportunity. We believe that they should receive from the beginning a salary of not less than $500, and should reach their maximum by annual increases of $100 instead of $50.
Now, as regards stampers and sorters- and this class must be differentiated from the fourth-class clerks-I recommend that they should receive, at the beginning, $500 a year, instead of $360 a year, as at present, and should receive annual increases of $50 instead of $100, because their functions are of the simplest nature so that they are not to be considered as of the same degree of usefulness as are the fourth-class clerks. Their maximum should be $600 per annum!. When they reach this maximum they will be eligible for promotion at once to the position of fourth-class clerk, beginning in that class at a salary of $600, at which they leave the class of stampers and sorters. That is, let us say, a stamper comes into the service in Montreal at $500; after two years he reaches
his maximum of $600. If he has given good service, he is promoted to the position of fourth-class clerk at a salary of not less than $600, and goes on by annual increases of $100 to the maximum of that class, $800.
Such are the changes I propose in these resolutions. I may say, in conclusion, that these increases will affect the salaries of 1,500 men in round figures, throughout the length and breadth of this country, and that the amount involved in these increases is estimated at $217,880.50.


George Eulas Foster: That is, for the first year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. I have statements showing how many letter-carriers there are in each city and the number that will be affected by these increases, also how the total of increases is made up.
Summary.
18 4th class clerks and stampers
and sorters at	$170 per an.
94 4th class clerks and stampers k
and sorters at	450
68 4th class clerks and stampers	n
and sorters at	400
2 4th class clerks and stampers	r<
and sorters at	392
1	4th class clerk and stampers k
and sorters at	360
Amount required to bring salaries up to $1,00 per annum, $12,396.
10 letter-carriers or grade men
and labourers at	$2.50 per day.
426 letter-carriers or grade men	w
and labourers	at	2-5
22 letter-carriers or grade men	o
and labourers	at	2.00	"
2	letter-carriers or grade men
and labourers	at	1.85	"
185 letter-carriers or grade men
and labourers	at	1.75	"
553 letter-carriers or grade men
and labourers	at	1.50	"
115 letter-carriers or grade men __	^
and labourers	at	1.25	"
Amount required to increase per diem pay by 50 cents per day $205,484.50.
Total number of employees on salaries less than $500 per an., 183
and increase	$ 12,396 00
Total number of employees per
diem rate of pay,	1,313
and increase	 205,484 50
1,496 $217,880 50

Statement of the number of Fourth-Class Clerks and Stampers and Sorters receiving less than $500 per annum and of Letter Carriers and Labourers receiving a per diem rate of pay and the amount required to raise the former to $500 per annum and to give the latter an increase of 50 cents per day.
Office.
Number of employees and rate of pay.
Amount required to give $500 per annum to fourth-class clerk3 and stampers and sorters.
Amount required to raise letter carriers and grade men 50 cents per day.
$ cts. $ cts.
cts.
Barrie	
Berlin	
Brandon	
Brantford____
Calgary	
Charlottetown


Edmonton ...: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux? on having rendered justice, to a certain extent, to the Post Office employees. Their claims have been neglected for a very long time. I do not know of any class of public employees-judging by those in Montreal- who perform their duties more creditably or under greater hardship. People generally do not realize what a difficult business is the carrying of letters in a city like Montreal. The loads they have to carry are heavy, they have to face the weather whatever it may be, and, owing to the number of tenements in the city, they have to do a great deal of climbing. In view of the nature of their work, I think they have been, up to now, insufficiently paid, and my hon. friend is rendering them a bare act of justice in this increase. But I wanted to support what was stated by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. A. C. Macdonellj a moment ago. I think that a man who fulfils carefully the duties of a letter-carrier in a city like Montreal ought to begin with the remuneration of not less than $2 a day. It seems to me that, in that regard, my hon. friend the Postmaster General might well make a distinction between large cities like Montreal and Toronto, and smaller cities in which free delivery is carried on. The Postmaster General stated in the House the other day that any town that gave the government a postal revenue of $20,000 and Bad a population of 10,000 was entitled to free delivery. It is evident that in a town of ten thousand inhabitants, the cost of living is very much less than in a city like Montreal or Toronto. As soon as you begin to live in one of these cities you must face at once a heavy item of expense in rent and taxes. For this reason, it seems to me, a beginner in a big city who carefully fulfils the duties of this position should receive an indemnity of at least $2 a day. Without dwelling on the matter at length, I would urge my hon. friend to consider whether, in these larger cities, $2 a day ought not to be the minimum to the beginner. A man who has a family, and is in a position of trust of this kind and has so much work to do, ought not to have less than this sum. Another point to which I wish to call attention was referred to by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell). I do not think that the government ought to penalize those who have availed themselves of the option given to them by Sir William Mulock, to remain under the old Act. Representations have been made to me by several of these employees in Montreal. I regret that I have not their letters with me. They remained under the old Act, and therefore are not graded. They are receiving $400, $500, or $600 a year, being paid
by the year and not by the day. There was nothing wrong about their availing themselves of the offer of Sir William Mulock. I am sure my hon. friend will find some way of getting over the difficulty, because these employees have performed their duties as well as the graded employees have done, and surely they are entitled to the same increase. I hope my hon. friend will be able, particularly in regard to that class, to render justice, and put them in the same position as the others


Angus Claude Macdonell: Like the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), I am glad to see this measure, though belated, brought down by the Postmaster General. It deals with a class of employees, who, in the past, in my opinion, have had very insufficient pay. Their duties are arduous; it is unnecessary to dilate upon them, because I think the Postmaster General has a thorough appreciation of their duties. The scale of increases is not large, though it is certainly a great improvement on their present position. I do not think, however, in considering what they are justly entitled to, that it is fair to consider only what they have been receiving in the past. What they have been receiving is but a modicum of what they are entitled to. I think it would be fairer to have regard to the services they perform, and to the compensation which men of their education and competency receive in other avenues of life. I certainly concur in a remark made a few moments ago that no person, no ablebodied man, educated and intelligent as a postman must be, should receive less, when he is permanently employed, than $2 a day. I trust the Postmaster General will consider that point before the Bill is brought down, and that he will treat them, having regard, not to what they have been receiving already, but to what in all human decency they are entitled to receive. I would also emphasize the remark of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), that men in large cities like Toronto and Montreal, performing the duties of postmen, are entitled to a higher rate of pay than men living in small places where the expense of living is much less than it is in large cities. We should also keep in mind that the duties of postmen in large cities are much more arduous than they are in a village or town. In the first place they have to be men of high intelligence in order to find the location of people to whom the letters are addressed, and they have to carry a class of letters generally of more value, registered letters, and they are consequently burdened with greater responsibility than postmen in country places

where they usually carry only ordinary correspondence.
Now with regard to what I mentioned a moment ago, namely, letter-carriers who are under the old Civil Service Act, I trust the minister will take this opportunity, not only of doing justice to a class of men who are now discriminated against, but also of simplifying and making uniform the entire letter-carrier service of the country. At the present time, I am informed there are only 80 letter-carriers who are under the . old Civil Service Act, and as long as they remain under that Act you will have a dual system.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They would not join the new system.


Angus Claude Macdonell: They were given an opportunity of either joining the new system or of taking their status under the old system. An hon. member well says that the door ought to be still left open for them to join in the new system. I think they should be given another opportunity now, and I apprehend the minister will afford these men an opportunity, if they so desire, of coming in under the new grade system. There is a special reason for it now. Some men are receiving 50 cents a day more, and having regard to their changed condition, it would be fair, in my opinion, that those men who are under the old Civil Service Act should be given another opportunity of coming under the grade system. I am informed that the maximum those men now receive is $600 a year, that no man under the old Civil Service Act can receive more, or earn more, than $600 a year. Now these men who are under the old system are old men, old in the service, they have proved their competency by many years of faithful service, and I think they should be given an opportunity of coming into a class with the graded men. It would certainly seem to be in the public interest to have uniformity with regard to the employment of civil servants in this department. I hope that before the Bill is brought down the minister will be able to make such changes as will, if not reduce all men to a uniform and simple basis, at least give the men who are under the old Act an opportunity of being graded with the other men.-


George Eulas Foster: On the second reading of the Bill we will be better able to take up a number of these matters, and at that time I shall have something to say with reference to the system by which they enter the service, the system of grading, and promotions, and the lie of that." Not only ought we to try to keep our Civil Service on the pay basis, to make them fairly independent, but we ought also to surround them with such safeguards that they may not be led to look to what we call political Mr. MACDONELL.
pull for the maintenance of their position, or for preferment. I would like the minister to think that matter over. We will also discuss the case of those men who, having twice had an opportunity of making their choice, have not all made it, and I am sure the minister will arrange that the door may still remain open, and that they may have another opportunity in that respect.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I would like to add a word of encouragement to the Postmaster General to treat with greater generosity as well as justice the class of men who are under consideration. Certainly we are all agreed in recognizing that they are entitled to better treatment. I would like to join the hon. members who have preceded me in urging upon the minister the importance of considering whether the minimum wage for letter-carriers should not be somewhat increased. Speaking for my own city of Montreal, I think that anybody who sees the work these letter-carriers have to perform, and who realizes the degree of intelligence they must possess in order to perform their duties- satisfactorily, must agree that $2 a day is very small compensation in view of the responsibilities which rest upon them. I have the advantage of knowing a large number of this class of employees in the city of Montreal, and particularly in my own constituency, I have observed the diligence with which they perform their duties, and I desire to commend them to the most favourable consideration of the Postmaster General when he arranges the scale of salaries in this Bill. I hope he will see his way to make the pay at all events somewhat larger than is proposed.


Mr. CROTHERS.: I would like to add my expression of appreciation of the proposals made by the Postmaster General. The only suggestion I would like to make is one that has already been mentioned by other hon. members, that is, that the minimum should be $2 per day instead of $1.75. I understand the Postmaster General proposes to pay $1.75 for the first year, $2 the second year and $2.25 for the third. Now, rather than place them at $1.75 at the start I would prefer that they should receive $2 per day from the beginning, and that it should remain at that for two years, and that the increase should not commence until the third year, rather than restrict them to $1.75 the first year. I quite agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken that $2 a day is the very lowest that any one could undertake to live upon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend unavoidably makes a mistake there. At present the letter-carrier, during his probationary period, receives $1.25 a day. That lasts one month and then he receives $1.50 per day. Under the proposed scale he will receive, during his probationary period of

one month, $1.75 per day and then he will receive $2 per day.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: When is it proposed that the increase shall date from?


Rodolphe Lemieux: When the House prorogues.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is only one month of probation instead of one year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who gets the gross sum-but we are gradually eliminating this system because of the grave complaints against some of the postmasters. However, it is a matter which requires departmental action and not legislation. The attention of the government has been called to it by several of the members who happen to represent some of those cities which are under the semi-staff system and action will be taken in due course upon the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: One month of probation.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Will the minister tell us what the estimated increased cost to the department will be and whether he has taken into consideration the clerks that are under the postmasters in different towns? I have called attention on several occasions to the small salaries that are paid to clerks who are under the postmasters in small towns and I would like to ask the minister whether he is making any provision for these clerks?


Rodolphe Lemieux: As to the increase in the cost of the service I gave to 'Hansard' a moment ago a statement which I did not read, but, in round figures the annual expenditure involved in this increase is $217,000. That will affect the salaries of about 1,500 employees. As to the other question brought up by my hon. friend and as to the condition in some of the cities where they have the letter system but where they are on the semi-staff basis, I may say that the letter-carriers will benefit by this increase just as the letter-carriers in the larger cities will. The clerks in these offices will not be affected however. My attention has been called, especially by the hon. member for Essex and by the hon. member for Brant, to the subject. The question is now before the department. No legislation is needed to bring these offices under the general rule and to place them on the Civil Service list. It is departmental action that is required in each case.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Which offices is the hon. gentleman speaking about?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I mean offices like Brantford, Windsor, Fort William, Sarnia, offices in cities where they have a population of not less than 12,000 and a revenue of not less than $20,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does not this Bill aply to those letter-carriers?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. The letter-carriers in these cities will benefit by this increase. But my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) referred to clerks in these offices. The clerks in many of these offices are hiTed by the postmasters.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who gets the gross sum?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understand there is no exception in regard to letter-carriers, that this Act will apply to all?


Rodolphe Lemieux: All come under the same rule.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As to the matter which my hon. friend has mentioned, I rather agree with my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) that the system in some of these post offices where the postmaster gets the gross sum and pays what he likes to the clerks is not fair to them. They naturally do not want to complain and lose their positions and yet they do not know what their rights are and do not get their rights. I know that a great many are underpaid and I believe that something should be done to see that these postmasters who get the gross sum are at least required to pay according to some rule so that there will be some check upon the amount they pay these men who do all the work in these offices. In most cases the postmaster does nothing but the bossing and the receiving of the salary. The laborious part of the work is done by these men who have to take what he chooses to give them or else give up the work entirely.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am satisfied that if the Postmaster General will investigate the conditions in the towns having a population of 5,000 and up to 12,000, he will find in many instances that the clerks who are working in these offices get a mere pittance for the amount of labour they do. I would ask the Postmaster General, when he comes to discuss the Bill in committee, if he would be good enough to explain why the cost of the delivery of the mail and of general postal facilities in the Yukon was $127,000 while the income from all sources apparently in that country only amounted to about $14,000 and whether the increased amount will be paid to the civil servants in that part of the country. I would also ask him to be good enough to explain, when the Bill is in committee, why it is that in the city of Montreal the contingent expenses last year amounted to $52,000 and in Ottawa to ' $60,000, while in Hamilton they only amounted to $4,000, London $5,000, Halifax $2,000, Quebec $5,000, Toronto $29,000 and Winnipeg $17,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Without going into details, but speaking from memory as regards the Yukon, from the beginning of . the establishment of the postal service in that far away district, the amount has always been the same. The revenue is somewhat limited, more limited now than it was during the rush period because the population has decreased as my hon. friend is well aware. But the reason why it costs so much money is on account of the distance and the difficulties in performing the service. We have to pay what I call an enormous amount of subsidy to one railway company. That railway company practically ties the hands of the government because it has the only railway between Whitehorse and Skagway. Between Skagway and Dawson again there is only one steamship company on the lakes in summer and in winter that same company performs the sleigh service. If the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) were in his seat he would inform my hon. friend that what can be purchased for one dollar in this section of the country costs $5 or $6 in that district. My hon. friend referred to the amount paid for contingencies in the Montreal post office, for instance. We have been obliged to employ a somewhat greater number of men in Montreal than in Toronto, although the revenue of the Toronto post office is higher than that of Montreal. In Montreal the ocean mail is made up for the different parts of the country and as there is more mail for the west than for the east we require a larger force there. My hon. friend may rest assured that we do not overload the service in Montreal. On the contrary,
I resist as much as possible demands made by the Montreal postmaster and by his very able assistant.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That should not apply to Ottawa.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, hitherto men have been presumably employed in the Ottawa post office and paid out of contingencies when as a matter of fact they were working in the inside service. That of course would be remedied by the new Act.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Are the railway mail clerks affected by this Bill?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. This is a year of retrenchment and we must provide for the most-I will not say the most deserving- but we must provide for the most appealing cases first. I freely admit that the railway mail clerk performs very arduous duties and has many difficulties to encounter especially that of securing insurance owing to the hazarduous nature of his employment. He enters the service at a salary of $400 per year for the first six months and then he gets $500 a year in addition to his mileage of one cent per mile in the night time and half a cent per mile in the day time. He increases Mr. ARMSTRONG.
rapidly until he gets $1,200 salary in addition to his mileage. That is a fairly good salary. I do not say it is an extraordinary salary or that the railway mail clerk is not deserving of more, but in view of the retrenchment we are practising this year I thought we should take the most deserving cases first. I have received several delegations from the railway mail clerks during the last two or three years and I may say that they have my warm sympathy. When the proper time comes I will see that they receive not cold justice but warm justice.


Joseph Russell: How long is it since the railway mail clerks had their salaries increased?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1903, when Sir Wm. Mulock was Postmaster General. My hon. friend must remember that they reach a maximum of $1,200 a year in addition to their mileage so that some of them receive $1,800 a year. I recognize however that they have to perform difficult and arduous duties.


Mr. BARR.: What has the population of a town got to be so that the clerks in the post office are paid directly by the government and not by the postmasters out of their revenue? In many cases these postmasters put boys and girls into the post office and give them hardly enough to live on. In many of these small towns the postmaster receives quite a large income out of which he has to pay two or three clerks but he gives them so little that he cannot secure persons capable of doing the work and consequently the public service suffers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no fixed departmental rule but the custom of late years has been to put on a semi-staff basis the offices which have approximately an annual revenue ranging between $20,000 and $25,000. In some cases places with a small population will contribute more to the postal revenue than others where the population is larger so that population cannot be taken as a test, I have received representations on this matter, especially from the membets from Essex and the member for Brant and it is under the very serious consideration of the department. Some postmasters are really not acting as they should, because they receive a very nice salary and they under pay their clerks. The representations under that head have been so strong that the department intends to put an end to the grievance.


John Barr: I hope the hon. minister will not forget that matter, because it is very important and very urgent. In many cases postmasters who receive a large enough salary to enable them to pay their assistants a fair remuneration, pay them as low as $200 a year and sometimes less. The

result is that the public is not served as it should be. The government should look into that matter without delay.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I want to congratulate the minister on bringing down this Bill and doing this measure of justice, even though it is a little late. I wish to draw his attention to the fact that the cost of living in a city like Winnipeg is at least 25 per cent greater than it is in a city like Ottawa, and I ask him if he is making any provision for giving the Manitoba letter-carriers a greater increase than those in Montreal or Ottawa, so as to put them on an equal footing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We do recognize the fact that the cost of living is higher in the west than in the east, and every year a provisional allowance is voted and paid pro rata to all our employees in the west, including Winnipeg.


George Henry Bradbury: One other point I wish to refer to. There are in Winnipeg a number of men who do not come in under the old Act, and I think it would be a great hardship if the door were now closed upon them, and they were prevented from coming in under the new classification.


Joseph Russell: I think the railway mail clerks are as much entitled to an increase as the other civil servants. Their work is of a dangerous character and they require to be clerks of a superior class. It is some six or seven years since they have had an increase, and I think they are now entitled to a flat increase of $150 or at least $100 a year. I would ask the minister to consider their case before he brings in a Bill.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and agreed to.
Mr. LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 136) to amend the Post Office Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Mr. LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 137), to amend The Civil Service Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John city).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I deem it my duty to bring before the House a subject which is of great importance, one in which a great deal of interest has been taken and which has excited a great deal of curiosity as to what was to be the outcome. I refer to statements which were made in October last publicly in the city of St. John, in an affidavit of Mr. Gershon
S. Mayes, a contractor of that city. That affidavit was read by the premier of the province of New Brunswick in a very large and crowded mass meeting, of citizens during the election contest then taking place.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I understand that_ this question has been discussed already in a; previous sitting, and I am not quite sure| whether the hon. gentleman can bring it up now without reviving a previous debate^


John Waterhouse Daniel: When this matter was referred to in the House before, you distinctly stated, Mr. Speaker, that it was out of order. If it was out of order then, surely it is in order now.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am not saying that it is out of order. I am simply asking the House whether it can be discussed now without reviving a previous debate.


George Eulas Foster: What is your ruling?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I want to see in what way it is to be brought up.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I propose to offer a resolution, and one that I think will be quite in order. I had hoped that the government itself would have thought this matteT to be of sufficient importance for themselves to have taken it up in the same way that they took action in the Hodgins matter last year. In order to refresh the memory of hon. members, I may state that on the 24th day of April, 1908, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister stated in this House that he had received from Mr. Parent, the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the following papers, wmch he desired to lay before the House. The first was a letter from Mr. Parent, addressed to the Prime Minister, in which Mr. Parent says:
A letter from Major Hodgins, lately our district engineer in northern Ontario, has been given wide publicity in the press, namely, by the Manitoba 'Free Press and the Ottawa 'Morning Citizen/ where it was o( mmented on. There are insinuations and statements in it that should not be allowed to nass unanswered. Without laying any specific charges. Major Hodgins makes vague, general accusations that are absolutely groundless. It is plain that the object in liew is to cause us annoyance'without any regard to truth or public interest.
Then, Mr. Parent goes on and concludes as follows:
In conclusion the commissioners would respectfully request, as they do not wish to remain under the aspersions which such reports pass on them, that the whole matter be referred to and looked into by a committee of the House and that Major Hodgins be assigned to appear before the same and repeat his charges in a specific manner in order to substantiate them if he can.
The action taken by the right hon. the Prime Minister on that letter consisted in

his moving the following resolution on the 27th of April, a few days later:
That the memorandum of the chairman of the Transcontinental Commissioners to the Prime Minister dated 23rd of April and laid on the table the 24th of August and the papers accompanying the same be referred to a special committee of five members with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned and that the said
committee be composed of	and that they
have power to send for persons, papers and reports.
They were afterwards given power to examine witnesses under oath. That is the action which I thought the government would have taken in this case, for it appears to me that the two cases are on all fours, with this exception that what Major Hodgins did was simply to write a letter containing statements which Mr. Parent thought -were not true, reflecting on himself and his co-commissioners, and therefore should be investigated. In that case there was simply a letter written by Major Hod-gins, but in the case I am now referring to we have the solemn declaration or affidavit of Mr. Mayes.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend assert that there is an affidavit and has he got it?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Yes, I have it.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend be good enough to allow me to read it while he is speaking.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I propose to read it and then have it laid before this committee.


William Pugsley: If there be an affidavit, 1 shall be glad to have it laid on the table.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I shall read it. It is as follows:
I, Gershon S. Mayes, of the parish of Lancaster, in the city and county of St. John, in the province of New Brunswick, contractor, do solemnly declare:- That on the 1st of September, 1905, on the advice of the Hon. Wm. Pugsley, then Attorney General of the province of New Bi unswick, and now Minister of Public Works of Canada, I had a conversation with Mr. Geo. McAvity, of the city of St. John, in the said province, merchant, relative to tenders for dredging which was then to be dene in the harbour of St. John by the Public Works Department of Canada, of which the Hon. C. S. Hyman was then minister. Mr. McAvity proposed that I should go to Ottawa on Monday, the 4th of September, as he was going, and he would meet me up there at the Kussell on the 5th inst. We did meet according to appointment. Mr. McAvity wrnted to know what price I wanted. I told him I had tendered in June for 50 cents per cubic yard. He said, why not ask 55 cents and give him (McAvity) 5 cents per yard or 10 per cent. I said, why not do as we talked of at St. John, which was that he should go in


John Waterhouse Daniel: with me and take one-quarter or one-half the cost of the dredge and receive his proportion of the profits. He said, yes, he could do that when he got home and might put $10,000 to $20,000 into it and perhaps get some friends in it with him, but for the present he would go in on a percentage basis and would see Hyman right away. Well, I said, what would I do about financing it and what was he going to do to help me. Oh, he said, you can easily arrange with the banks; no trouble at all when you have got the contract. We went to see Mr. Hyman at 2.30 p.m. McAvity went in and I stayed outside. I had told McAvity to arrange if possible to have at least 400,000 yards to dredge. Mr. McAvity came out and got me to go in, and I explained to Mr. Hyman the difficulty of bringing a big plant and only dredging a small quantity. Mr. Hyman agreed to see that if I got the contract- that is if I was the lowest tenderer-I should receive 400,000 yards. Afterwards McAvity said I had better arrange an agreement. I said why not wait until we get back to St. John to hear whether my tender has been accepted or not. He said he had a copy of the agreement all ready. I said, how did he get it? He said, oh, they were all ready here. I then read it over and told him it was all one-sided; I was to do the work, he was to get the profit. Well, he said, what do you want me to do? I told him I still thought he should be financially interested he and his friends, to the extent of some $20,000 or $30,000 at least, that it was a long back load for me to carry. Oh, he said as before, the banks would help me and wait until I got home. No, I said, I have got to go right to Boston and close a contract with the dredge-owners. Well, he said, better sign the agreement. No, I said, he should be bound to do something. He said for me to write something at the bottom and he would sign it. I said I was not a lawyer. Oh, go ahead, he said, and I wrote what came to me and he signed it.
The next day I was informed by Mr. Hyman that my tender was accepted, and months afterwards I learned that mine was the only tender received. The engineer of the department wrote me a letter giving 400,000 yards to be done, and I left for Boston via Montreal and afterwards secured a dredge and brought her to St. John.
I want now to say


William Pugsley: Better go on reading the affidavit.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I want to say specially to the Minister of Public Works


William Pugsley: I'd sooner you would read it just as it is.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This affidavit as typewritten had '1907' in it. That was a mistake, and I will put it as it ought to have been, * 1905.' I may say that I was present at the meeting at which this affidavit was read by Mr. Hazen. He read it as he had it before him, the figure being ' 1907.' But he evidently saw that the date was wrong, as he turned to Mr. Mayes, who was sitting behind him on the platform-I myself being on the same platform only about

ten feet from both of them, and asked Mr. Mayes: 'What is that date?' Mr. Mayes told him it was 1905, and repeated it. Mr. Hazen then read it '1905.' As I have said, I was present and know exactly what I am talking about.


William Pugsley: All I am asking is that the affidavit shall be read as it was sworn to.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am going to read it exactly as it is now, as that figure has since been changed, and the whole affidavit resworn to. So, I intend to read it as Mr. Hazen read it on the night of October 12. It was re-sworn to on March 24 last.


William Pugsley: Some four months after it was read at the meeting.


John Waterhouse Daniel: On October 15, 1905, I received a telephone message from Dr. Pugsley, asking me to call and see him next day, which I did. He said, ' Mr. Mayes I am in need of money, and it would be nice if you could help me.*


William Pugsley: I desire now formally to take objection to my hon. friend reading any statements reflecting on myself


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: One moment, please. I invoke the rule of order which was invoked by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) not many days since in this House. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), as hon. members will recollect, made the statement ' I have never had anything to do with the manipulation of trust funds.' My hon. friend from North Toronto took that as an intimation that, at some time or other, he had been charged with manipulating trust funds, holding it to be a reflection upon his character or as something unpleasant and offensive with regard to him, and that being the ruling of Your Honour, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister very properly withdrew the observation he had made-or, rather, the question he had asked. Now I was perfectly willing that my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) should read the affidavit as it was read by Mr. Hazen at the public meeting previous to the election in St. John, and as it was published throughout the Conservative press of Canada. But an affidavit purporting to reflect upon me, which was made months after that affidavit was read at the public meeting, being, as the hon. gentleman said, altered and resworn to-that affidavit I do object to being read as relating to myself. If the hon. gentleman will read the original affidavit as it was read at the meeting, I am more than willing. I have asked for it, have inquired for it in different directions, but have never been able to have it produced.


Mr. SPROULE.: Before you rule upon that point, Mr. Speaker-if you must give a ruling upon it-I would draw attention to the fact that the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) objects to this affidavit because it comes from outside and reflects upon the honour and integrity of a member of this House. But if we suppose-and I do not know as to this-that the reading of this ends with a direct charge, that charge must be substantiated by some evidence, and, even though that evidence comes from outside, it is allowable here, and it is within the right of a member to read it and make the charge.


William Pugsley: With the permission of the House, I would speak one word in reply. If my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) or any other member of this House desires to make a charge against me, and to take the responsibility of making it, he is at liberty to do so, and I shall welcome any such charge. But he must take the responsibility as a member of this House, and must take the consequences which devolve upon a member-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: But, by the rules of this House, which, as I have said, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) invoked the other day, and invoked successfully, the hon. member (Mr. Daniel) cannot read a statement, whether made under oath or otherwise, by a person outside of this House reflecting upon a fellow member


John Waterhouse Daniel: Before you decide the question, Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted a word. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has just stated that he is perfectly willing that I should read this affidavit as it was read by Mr. Hazen on October 24. I may tell you, Sir, that that is exactly what I have been doing and am doing. Under these circumstances, I consider that you have nothing to decide, for there is no request for me to do anything other than I am doing.


William Pugsley: What I said I was willing to have done was that the hon. gentleman should read the affidavit as it wa3 sworn to by Mr. Mayes


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Pugsley: Yes, as sworn to by Mr. Mayes. It is the affidavit read by Mr. Hazen and published throughout Canada that I want read, if any is to be read.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) remember that some time ago in this House I was proceeding to read that affidavit, as it was published, and he objected.


William Pugsley: Not at all. In that case, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) did

not profess to have the affidavit, but read from the newspaper report.


Oswald Smith Crocket: On that occasion, I was asked by the minister to read from these newspaper publications, and I proceeded to do so, but, when I reached some statements that, if true, involved the minister in a corrupt transaction, he took objection to it, and I was stopped from reading, notwithstanding that my first reading was-


William Pugsley: Very properly so, too.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I presume it will be admitted by both sides, that, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Daniel) intends to conclude with a motion asking that certain matters be referred to a committee for investigation, it is perfectly regular for him to read the document in question.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: What is the motion? We should know.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have not seen the motion, but I take the hon. member's word for it that he will conclude with such a motion. Would the hon. member (Mr. Daniel) have any objection to my seeing the motion?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Certainly not; I have much pleasure in sending it to you, Mr. Speaker. I maintain that I am in my right in reserving the reading of the motion-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I took the hon. gentleman's word for it, and in asking if he would let me see the motion, I was only seeking to clear up the misunderstanding.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have no objection, (reading):
On October 15, 1905, I received a telephone message from Dr. Pugsley


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I believe I am quite in order, (reading):
-asking me to call and see him next day, which I did. He said, ' Mr. Mayes, I am in need of money and it would be nice if you could help me.' I said


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There is an expression of opinion. ' That in the opinion of this House.' I think there is a misunderstanding of the matter. The motion reads:
Tnat in the opinion of this House, in view of the serious character of the matters aforesaid, the allegations contained in the said solemn declaration and all relevant matters touching the said dredging contract ought to be referred to a committee of this House to inquire into, to investigate the same and to report thereon in order that the truth or falsity of the said allegations may be determined; and that any public moneys improperly paid out in connection with the said dredging contract, may he recovered and restored to the public treasury.


William Pugsley: Of course, that is not making any charge against the Minister of Public Works. I have turned up the journals of the House of 1891 where I find that the then member for Montmorency, Mr. Tarte, made a chaTge against the Minister of Public Works at that time, but he made it on his responsibility as a member of the House. So I do not think, under the circumstances, that the hon. member can read the words of the affidavit on this motion, though I am prepared to hear further remarks on that point.


George Eulas Foster: All my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) is doing is what has been done a multitude of times in this House, and will be done a multitude of times hereafter, that is, after having gathered certain information, having that information in hand, believing that information is vital, in the exercise of his public duties, he wishes to bring that information before the House and ask that a committee be appointed by the House to investigate it. That is what he is doing, and what he has a perfect Tight to do, and it seems to me that there is no possible rule of order that can keep him from doing it. Upon what does he form his request for a committee? If he had got up and said nothing and asked that a committee be appointed to investigate nothing, it would be perfectly absurd. He has to "lay a basis for his demand that a committee be appointed, and that basis is this affidavit, with numerous other circumstances which he is bringing in, and upon which he is forming his motion, that is the foundation. Do you mean to say, Mr. Speaker, that he cannot bring in these affidavits, these statements, these facts that have come to him, and upon which he wishes to formulate his motion? He must have something upon which to formulate his motion. I think, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the Chair, that there is a vital difference between his position and the position of a man making a charge against a minister. What we are asking for to-day is a committee of this House to investigate what we declare to be certain facts. These facts are made up of various ingredients, amongst them is what is contained in the affidavit of Mr. Gershon S. Mayes; therefore, we are simply doing what we" have done a hundred times in this House, and, what I think we will do a hundred times yet. The idea that I cannot make a motion, cannot lay my information before this House and ask that a committee be appointed, is new to me in parliamentary practice; I cannot see any Teason in it at all. Now, the Minister of Public WoTks says that this is a matter which reflects upon himself. That can hardly be avoided. If he, whether as Minister of Public Works or not, has been a person in connection with the business that is referred to in this affidavit

	.


William Pugsley: This was two years before I was Minister of Public Works.


George Eulas Foster: That makes no difference. .If it was two years before the hon. gentleman was Minister of Public Works or became a member of this House, then it is all the more reason for saying that there is no reflection upon him as a member of this House. But what is my hon. friend going to move; what is he going to read? He is going to read from that affidavit of Mr. Gershon S. Mayes. Mr. Mayes says, and he swears to it, that in 1905 he met the Hon. Wm. Pugsley, who at that time was not a member of this House, that certain conversations took place between him and Mr. Pugsley. Does that reflect upon the Minister of Public Works? The affidavit goes on to say that he asked that a sum of money be given to him. He then replies that he does not owe him any money. Then he says that in 1905 the Hon. Wm.'Pugsley said to him: ' It would be nice for you to have some one at Ottawa.'


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I ask the bon. gentleman to take back that statement which he has made.


George Eulas Foster: What do you want me to take back?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is taking advantage of his position as a member when he professes to give what is contained in this affidavit, this re-written this revised affidavit. Before your honour has Tuled that that affidavit itself can be Tead, he is professing to give what is in the affidavit before the affidavit is read. His language certainly does reflect upon me, because he is proceeding to make a statement that I wanted money; that in some way. in connection with Mr. Mayes, I asked for money. Now, if that is 'not reflecting upon me, why does he want a committee to investigate whether that statement is true or false? Because this committee is asked to investigate all the statements of this affidavit, not those which relate merely to the dredging contract, but as to what took place between Mr. Mayes and myself, when Mr. Mayes was my client, when I was his counsel, and when relations between us were confidential.


George Eulas Foster: I had no intention whatever of being unfair to my hon. friend. I have not been unfair to him, and I am sure when he thinks it over he will not say that I stated that he asked for money. The question before the House is as to what may be read. The trouble is that the Speaker proposes to give a ruling on an affidavit which my hon. friend wants to read before he has read it.


William Pugsley: But he is telling what is in the affidavit.


George Eulas Foster: I am trying to elucidate the point by saying that what is to be read from the affidavit is what I have stated.


William Pugsley: That you cannot do.


George Eulas Foster: Why not ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The question is whether the affidavit should be read or not, and as long as that question is in issue, the hon. gentleman cannot be allowed to state what is in it.


George Eulas Foster: Then you are asking the Speaker to rule as to whether an affidavit may be read or not when the Speaker does not know what it is, . and no body else knows it.


Wilfrid Laurier: The question is whether a motion is in order which asks for an investigation, and whether this affidavit can be read into the motion. If the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) has done what has been done in previous cases, taken the responsibility of making a charge against the Minister of Public Works, there could be no question at all. But he has not done so; therefore, it is a question for the Speaker to decide.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for St. John has the floor.


Samuel Hughes: It is always in order to raise the point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for St. John wishes to answer the remarks of the Minister of Public Works.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I can hardly understand the objection which the Minister of Public Works makes to this affidavit being read, even though, as he states, it accuses him of something of which he is absolutely guiltless. The very resolution which we are asking for to appoint a committee to investigate these things will give that gentleman an opportunity of showing the falsity of these things and of sending the information in regard to them all over this country. Certainly, if the minister wants anything I should think he would want to have himself absolutely cleared of these suspicions. If there is one gentleman in this House


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. DANIEL-who ought to ask for a committee of investigation is is the hon. Minister of Public Works. It is a small matter to me, Mr. Speaker. I ana sorry to have to be the one to bring this up but some body has to bring it up. I am well acquainted with and I am friendly with every one who is interested in this matter and I would much rather that the duty had fallen upon any body else to bring this

matter before the House than myself. But, you, Mr. Speaker, will have to decide this matter. I believe I am absolutely in order in reading this affidavit which has been spread broadcast through this country.


William Pugsley: It was not. It was spread broadcast in another form altogether.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am making no charge against my hon. friend-none whatever. The charges, whatever they are, have already been made. I am presenting this to the House. The Prime Minister presented the statement of Major Hodgins to this House as if that were a subject to be investigated. I say this is quite as important a subject to be investigated.


Mr. CONMEE.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule in favour of this matter going on.


Samuel Hughes: In discussing the point of order I would like to say that the hon. tiie Speaker has pointed to a case that occurred some years ago. A thousand cases occurring on the same basis as that which Mr. Speaker has cited would have no bearing on this case whatever. The mere fact that Mt. Tarte, at that time member for Montmorency, made a specific charge against a member has no bearing on this case whatever. The two cases are on an entirely different basis. It is moved that an inquiry into the Public Works Department should be extended to the public works of this country, to the misspending of public money and if the present Minister of Public Works, then not a member of this House, has been brought into it in any way, no statement that can be made in this affidavit can in any sense reflect upon the present Minister of Public Works in his capacity as Minister of Public Works or as a member of this House, and as far as I understand no objection can be taken by the minister on the ground of the reading of this affidavit. This is merely an inquiry the same as the inquiry which took place not long since into the Department of Marine and Fisheries along similar lines.


Mr. LENNOX.: I think it would be wise that we should thoroughly understand this matter before we have your ruling upon it, in order to see just exactly what it involves. There is a good deal more at issue than the mere question that appears on the surface at this moment. It is the conduct of public business in this House. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is responsible for that more than any body else. I listened to what he said a few moments ago about a charge being Mr. DANIEL.
made against a Minister of the Crown or against a member of this House. I do not understand that the hon. gentleman who brings forward this matter is making any charge whatever against the conduct of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley). I do not understand it so and I have some reason to know about the situation of this matter.


William Pugsley: Why should he read false paragraphs in an affidavit regarding
myself?


Haughton Lennox: If the hon. gentleman will possess his soul in patience for a moment or two I will endeavour, as far as I can, to show why he should read the affidavit and why it is the duty of the members of this House to present such matters before the House and have them investigated. At the city of St. John a solemn declaration was made and was read at a public meeting-a solemn declaration having the force and effect of an oath. It made grave reflections against a minister of the Crown-not, as I understand, against his conduct while he was a minister of the Crown here, but against him as a public man.


William Pugsley: The affidavit as sworn to reflects upon me as a minister.


Haughton Lennox: That became known to the public, At the time that the affidavit was read the minister says that it contained the date 1907. Put it that way and read it that way and much more reason is there for having the matter investigated because it would then contain an explicit charge against a minister of the Crown. We have a statement of the hon. gentleman who is about to move this resolution as to what the facts were at that time. We have a solemn declaration-it matters not whether it was read as 1905 or 1907-which reflects very gravely upon the conduct of a public man in the city of St. John.


William Pugsley: I will ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Haughton Lennox: I cannot withdraw it.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman must withdraw it.


Haughton Lennox: I cannot withdraw it.


William Pugsley: No member of this House has the right to say that an affidavit is about to be read which reflects in the gravest manner upon a member of this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has a perfect right to say so.


William Pugsley: It is as offensive a statement as possibly can be made with regard to a member of this House and I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Haughton Lennox: I like to fight my own battles out. I have made no reflection upon a minister of the Crown.


William Pugsley: I ask you to withdraw.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) knows the rule.


Haughton Lennox: Certainly, I know the rule.	.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Rule 19 provides that no offensive words may be used against another member. The rule contains these words
Nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.


Haughton Lennox: We do not need the rule, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Mr LENNOX.: If. I had used any offensive word against any minister of the Crown or against any member of the House,
I would be willing to withdraw it.


William Pugsley: I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Haughton Lennox: I never made that statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Haughton Lennox: If the Speaker says that I have made any offensive statement reflecting upon the minister I will immediately withdraw it but I shall want to know what the words are that I am to withdraw.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not think that I understood the words of the hon. member.


Haughton Lennox: I have not made any reflection whatever upon the minister in any shape or form. I accepted as a fact the statement which the minister has repeated time and again in this House that the affidavit or solemn declaration was read in the city of St. John. I am telling you, as a matter of fact, that the solemn declaration was read at a public meeting in the city of St. John, and I am telling you as a fact, as the minister has told you time and again, that that was put forward as a statement against him.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend pardon me for a moment, what I said was that the affidavit as read in St. John by Mr. Hazen at this public meeting, and which was circulated throughout Canada, charged me with having, ini the year 1907, when I was Minister of Public Works, received certain moneys from a contractor. Now, then, the hon. member for St. John
(Mr. Daniel) said that he wa3 going to read a new and revised affidavit and what the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) said was that he was about to read an affidavit which reflected in the gravest possible manner upon the Minister of Public Works. That is the statement of the hon. gentleman. Those are the words he used. My hon. friend must see that he is offensive.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I might remark, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution before you.


William Pugsley: I ask that the statement be withdrawn.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I ask that the hon. gentleman withdraw those words.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. gentleman has used offensive words I think they would be withdrawn.


Haughton Lennox: If Mr. Speaker will tel. me what offensive words I used I will be most desirous to withdraw them.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The words complained of, as I understand, referred to an affidavit which has not yet been Tead to the House, but which it is said reflects on an hon. member.


Haughton Lennox: The statement I have made


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. member denies having used the words that is an end of it.


Haughton Lennox: I certainly say I made no reflection on the minister.


James Conmee: That is evading the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Haughton Lennox: I took the statement of the minister himself.


James Conmee: Why not have the words read?


Haughton Lennox: I took the statement of the minister himself that there was an affidavit read in the city of St. John in reference to a transaction which is said to have taken place in 1907.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: And that a declaration had been made and was read at a public meeting in the city of St. John, and that declaration which was presented at that time is here in the House of Commons today.


William Pugsley: No; it i3 a new one altogether.


Haughton Lennox: That declaration that wa3 read in St. John that night is here in the



House of Commons to-day, and the date has been amended and it has been resworn.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong about that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I am asking my hon. friend now to withdraw the statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I have the floor.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is customary to allow a Minister of the Crown to explain to the House anything that the House has an interest in knowing.


William Pugsley: I am sure the hon. gentleman from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) misunderstands me. What I did say was that the declaration as read at a public meeting at St. John, and which declared that in 1907 I received moneys from a contractor, did reflect upon me as Minister of Public Works.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is all he says.


William Pugsley: No, that is not what my hon. friend said. That declaration has been changed. My hon. friend says it has been re-sworn. That makes it a new declaration. Now, what my hon. friend says is that the declaration which the member from St. John is about to read reflects in the gravest way upon a minister.


Haughton Lennox: No.


William Pugsley: That is what the hon. gentleman said, and I ask him to withdraw it,


Haughton Lennox: You are begging the question.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend says he did not say that, then it is another matter.


Haughton Lennox: I say I did not say it, and I am surprised that the minister thought so. Now let me proceed. The fact is that the minister states a declaration was made and a declaration was read which reflected upon him, and it is proposed now to lay that declaration before this House.


William Pugsley: To lay another declaration before the House.


Haughton Lennox: You can read the date as 1907 or you can read it as 1905, which ever you like.


Mr. TALBOT.: It makes a big difference. Mr. CONMEE. It is an accommodation.


Haughton Lennox: It is neither an accommodation train nor an express train.


An hon. MEMBER.: It is a special.


Haughton Lennox: 


James Conmee: Mr. Speaker


Haughton Lennox: Order.


James Conmee: I rise to a point of order in regard to the hon. gentleman's remarks. The hon. gentleman has made reference to a special train and an election train.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Conmee: Now, if the hon. gentleman will say that he did not intend his remarks to refer to me-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Haughton Lennox: I did.


James Conmee: If he says he did not refer to me I can perhaps allow him to proceed.


Haughton Lennox: I intended my remarks to refer to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee).


James Conmee: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he did intend his remarks to refer to me?


Haughton Lennox: Yes.


James Conmee: Then I want him to withdraw them. Some hon. gentlemen in this House, and he is not the first, have been rather amused about a special train.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


James Conmee: Excuse me I have the floor and I know when to stop.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for Simcoe has the floor unless the hon. member for Rainy River rises to a point of order. Do I understand the hon. member for Rainy River to ask that certain words be withdrawn?


James Conmee: Yes, I have asked that.


Haughton Lennox: I will be very glad to have the Speaker's ruling on the matter.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not see that the words used are unparliamentary.


James Conmee: Well


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I repeat the ruling I
gave the other evening; the words may be open to an inference but I cannot draw the inference.


James Conmee: But, Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Conmee: Just one moment please.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Make him explain what he meant.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: We should try to proceed with some dignity-


Haughton Lennox: I think so too.


Wilfrid Laurier: For my part I do not believe that my hon. friend from Simcoe intended to be offensive to my hon. friend from Rainy River, but if he did I would ask him to withdraw.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker has ruled upon that question so that the right hon. gentleman is out of order. Now, what I wanted to say in reference to this matter is, that there is no attempt by any hon. gentleman on this side of the House, so far as I know, to make any insinuations or reflections upon the Minister of Public Works either as a private citizen or as a public man. But I do understand that a grave reflection-probably wrongfully-has been, by a certain declaration which the hon. minister refers to, cast upon a public man in the Dominion parliament, namely the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: And which was admitted to be false.


Haughton Lennox: No hon. gentleman on this side, so far as I understand it, will hesitate if we get fair-play upon this side of the House, to take the statement of the minister as to a matter of fact, but in the meantime a grave public scandal has been circulated in reference to a Minister of the Crown, and the object of my hon. friend, as I understand him, in moving this motion is that that matter being a matter of public interest shall be investigated. And what we want to know is: does the First Minister desire or does the Minister of Public Works desire that this thing shall be throttled and shut out, or shall we have a public investigation?


William Barton Northrup: It seems to me wre are wandering a little afield in this lengthy discussion. The motion before the House is that Mr. Speaker should leave the chair for the House to into committee of supply and there is no better understood constitutional principle that on such a motion the people should have a right to air their grievances and that the members of this House have the right to say anything within the bounds of parliamentary propriety at such a time. Whether or not a motion is to be made is a matter of utter indifference. It is true that in this case the hon. gentleman who intends to make a motion has put the motion in the hands of Mr. Speaker, but that after all is a matter of private courtesy between the member and Mr. Speaker. The question is whether or not the hon. member who had the floor was out of order when the point of order was raised by the 136J
Minister of .Public Works. In fact two points of order were raised, one by the Minister of Public Works and one by the leader of the House. The point taken by the Minister of Public Works, as I under stand it, is, that there was something that would contravene rule 19, not in what was about to be said but in what had been said by the hon. member. I submit that rule 19 has no application to the future; it applies only to the present or the past. If a member uses objectionable language, he can be called to order after he has used it; but there is no power of foresight given to the Speaker or to a minister to enable him to foretell what a member is about to say. Therefore an objection, to be in order, must have reference to something that has already been said. The right hon. gentleman who leads the House raised the point whether or not an affidavit could be read.
I venture to think that the right hon. gentleman would hardly discuss that question. Every member of this House will admit that an affidavit can be read. It might be of such an utterly improper character that it should not be read, and a member might be called to order for reading it; but that it could be read is, I submit, beyond question. What is the rule to which reference has been made?
No member shall use offensive words against either House or against any member thereof.
That is plain language. It is along the same lines as the law that forbids individuals outside of this House under the pains and penalties of the law to use offensive language against their fellows, for fear it might lead to a breach of the peace. So in this House members are not to use offensive language towards each other for fear that, not a breach of the peace, but a breach of decorum might ensue. What is the meaning of offensive language? Let us assume that a judge sitting on the bench had solemnly given utterance to a judgment which reflected most severely on a member of this House or on a minister. Surely in such a case it could not be said that a member of this House was using offensive words against the member or minister in question if he merely, in the face of the House, read that judgment. Words uttered by a member of this House, as expressing his opinion of another member, would be offensive and out of order; but if a member quoted from a judgment of a judge of the Supreme Court, it is clear that he would not be using offensive words within the meaning of the rule. The only question would be whether he was quoting truly or not. Mr. Justice Cassels in his report, reflected in very strong terms on the administration of several departments, and we know that the head of each department is responsible for the admin-

istration of his department. Any member of this House who quoted from the report of Mr. Justice Cassels was, according to the opinion of the Minister of Public Works, using offensive language towards the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


William Pugsley: The report was before parliament.


William Barton Northrup: What difference does that make? The question is the construction of rule 19, and it says nothing about anything being before parliament. In one sense every word uttered in this House to show that hon. gentlemen opposite are not doing their duty may be considered offensive to them; but surely that is not what is meant. If the ruling of the Minister of Public Works now asks for were sustained by the Chair, what would be the result? No judgment or report of a Royal Commission, or a judge could be referred to in this House by any hon. member except under pains and penalties. Therefore, I submit that when the hon. Minister of Public Works raises the point that the language which the hon. member for St. John was using was out of order, his objection could only apply to the particular words or clause then read, because any objection of that kind must be taken in-stanter, or it does not hold. The Speaker can only deal with the particular words uttered, and as soon as they are disposed of, the hon. member for St. John can proceed to read the next clause of the affidavit, and the objection to each clause must be threshed out in that way; unless the Speaker decides that there is something in the affidavit which would be improper to be read, and therefore does not allow it to be read.


James Conmee: I think the House understood the hon. member for St. John to state that it was his intention not only to read the affidavit, but to present a motion to the House. The reply from the Chair was to the effect that if it was the hon. member's intention to follow the reading of the affidavit with a motion, the affidavit might be read. But when the motion went to the Chair, my recollection is that the Speaker's words were that it was not a motion of the character to which the hon. member had referred.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no. .


James Conmee: There is where the issue stands at present, as I understand it. The motion contains no charge; it is not a motion of the character which the hon. member for St. John stated that he was going to place before the House, and therefore if he read the affidavit, he would read it misleading the House as to the character of the motion he intended to introduce. That is the exact position he is in.


William Barton Northrup: 


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Will the hon. member for Rainy River tell the House what motion would be of such a character as to warrant the reading of the affidavit, if the motion in the hands of the Speaker is not?	.


James Conmee: The records of thi3 House show a large number of such motions. One of them was referred to here to-day. Mr. Tarte made a motion charging the then Minister of Public Works on his responsibility as a member of the House. Mr. Edgar made a similar motion; Mr. Worthington and Mr. Lister made similar motions. Each one was made specifically by a member on his responsibility. They were of the character of a motion which any hon. gentleman opposite must take the responsibility of making if he wants to bring a charge against any member of this House. That is his privilege.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that your ruling was


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have not ruled. I have only applied to the House, to the old parliamentarians here. I understand that the long standing custom is that no member of this House should lay any charge against a fellow member without assuming the responsibility for it. An affidavit may be read in the city of St. John, but it is a very different thing to read that affidavit in this House without assuming the responsibility therefor. It is on that point that I ask the advice of the House before giving my ruling.


Mr. DEVLIN.: Mr. Speaker, as the matter stands now before the House, it would seem that the whole question is this: The hon. member for St. John wishes to place on record a certain document which he has in his possession purporting to be*an affidavit of a certain individual in the city of St. John


Oswald Smith Crocket: And which the Minister of Public Works asked him to read.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I will come to that in a moment. That affidavit, from what know-lege we have been able to gather concerning the incident, deals with certain transactions between a certain Mr. Mayes, and the present Minister of Public Works, not as a minister nor as a member of parliament, but simply as an individual citizen of the city of St. John. The hon. Minister of Public Works tells us further that the affidavit deals with a case between himself and Mr. Mayes, who was then his client. The point to consider, it seems to me, is how far this parliament has the right to go into the conduct of individuals in this country, and to deal with them in this House. I can readily understand that this House would have the right to deal with

a motion calling for a committee to investigate the conduct of a member of parliament or a minister of the Crown. But I think that this House has no right to inquire into the conduct of individuals before they become members of parliament. It may be argued that even if a man has committed some crime, he may afterwards lead an honourable life.


Some hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Suppose, for argument's sake, that hon. gentlemen opposite who are always finding something criminal, who are always ready to cast insinuations


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Hon. gentlemen opposite are always ready to call order when we speak of the insinuations they cast at their political opponents. In my opinion the matter now before the House is altogether out of order, and this House has no power to inquire into anything any hon. member may have done before he became a member of it, any more than we have a right to inquire into the conduct of any private individual.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to mention the fact that we have had several commissions of inquiry appointed on the basis of allegations read in this House regarding what took place outside of it. We always did that with regard to any member's right to sit in this House, when we desired to refer any such question to the Committee on Privileges and Election. In such cases, there were allegations made outside the House, on the strength of which we asked for the appointment of a commission to investigate and decide whether they were true or false. If they were true, the member in question had not the right to sit in this House. If they were false, he ought to be exonerated and his character vindicated. On exactly the same principle we are asking that a committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations made so as to determine whether they are true or false.


Oswald Smith Crocket: No hon. gentleman can seriously claim that it is not competent for this parliament to express an opinion on a matter which has become a grave public scandal. If the point of order raised by the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) should be sustained by you, Mr. Speaker, that would mean that the House of Commons had not the right to express an opinion upon such a matter as the one just referred to. We have heard the statement frequently made by hon. members that if a member of this House has any charge to make, he should make it from his seat. Does the Minister of Public Works claim there has not been a specific charge solemnly made against him as Minister of the Crown ?


William Pugsley: I say this; I say that at a great Conservative meeting held in the city of St. John, just before the elections, a charge of the gravest character was made against me. That charge was that I, when Minister of Public Works, had received money from a contractor. That charge was published broadcast throughout Canada, but it was afterwards withdrawn. What however the hon. member for St. John proposes to do is to read a new affidavit altogether, which professes to divulge certain things that took place between my client, Mr. Mayes, and myself, two years before I became a member of this House. I heard what my hon. friend began to read, and I declare that the statement he is making is false and he is bound to take my word that it is. Surely, it is absurd to say that no member of this House can rise in his place and make reflections on the character of another member with respect to circumstances dating back two or three years before he became a member, and yet maintain that he can do the same thing by reading the affidavit of some one who is not a member of this House ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Minister of Public Works has admitted that there was a grave charge made against him in St. John as Minister of Public Works


William Pugsley: And withdrawn since.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. minister spoke of a mistake in the date of a certain interview he was alleged to have had with Mr. Mayes, but is he not aware that that affidavit in addition to that statement also alleged


Some hon. MEMBER.: Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am asking the Minister of Public Works a question. I am asking him if he is not aware that that affidavit, in addition to the statement


Some hon. MEMBER.: Order.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. I have said that I will make no objection to having the affidavit read, word for word, as it was read at that public meeting in St. John. I am quite willing that the original affidavit should be read.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then I will go on with the affidavit.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Do I understand that the point of order is not insisted on ?


William Pugsley: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: That is what I have been trying to do the last half hour. If the minister were as anxious to have that -affidavit read as he says he is, we should have been through with this matter half an hour ago. I hold in my hand the very affidavit wtiich was read by Mr. Hazen-the original affidavit


William Pugsley: What date? The affidavit sworn to in October, 1908, is the affidavit I want read.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He said: 'Mr. Mayes, I am in need of money

*
member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) does not move me in the slightest.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I want to know your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I want to know your honour's ruling, and to submit to it. Do I understand you to rule that this affidavit, on the conditions before you, can or cannot be read?


James Conmee: What is the date ?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would call the attention of the hon. member for St. John to rule 19: 'No offensive words can be uttered against a member of the House.' If the words the hon. gentleman proposes to read are offensive they will be out of order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not know. Here is
this affidavit, which was read the 12th of October last. The Minister of Public Works says that it contains serious charges against him and yet he has been willing that those charges should hang over him from that time to the present, without his taking a single step to vindicate himself.


William Pugsley: They were withdrawn.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If they were so little offensive to him that he took no action, they cannot be offensive if I read them now.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If every word which is offensive is taken out of this amendment, it will be in order. Otherwise it is out of order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How am I to know what is offensive to the minister and what is
not ?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have declared that no offensive word may be read or spoken in this House against any hon. member. That is rule 19.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand you to rule, Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am in order, and I will not be put down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) asks an explanation; he did not hear my ruling. I have ruled that, under rule 19, no offensive word may be either spoken or read in this House against any hon. member.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not the point.


Haughton Lennox: Hear the judge.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have a perfect right to be heard, and the sneering of the hon.


William Pugsley: 


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The affidavit has not been read. But if the affidavit contains any offensive language, it cannot be read.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit that it cannot be read.


Mr. R. F. SUTHERLAND.: The point of order, after all the various discussions that have been had, it seems to me narrows down to this: There was a declaration made, it, appears, which apparently reflected upon the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). The original declaration made a statement to the effect that a certain event had taken place in 1907, that is after the Minister of Public Works became a member of this House. That was objected to by the minister. The date has since been changed, I understand, to read '1905,' which was before the hon. minister became a member of this House. Now, there is a clear distinction between what the House can investigate and what the House cannot investigate as regards a member of this House and as regards a private individual outside this House, and that is plainly laid down by the high authority, May, at page 81:
Libels upon members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity; and as is explained on page 274

And this is the pertinent principle.
-the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Aspersions upon the conduct of members as magistrates, or officers in the army or navy, or as counsel, or employers of labour, or in private life, or otherwise than in relation to parliament, are within the cognizance of the courts and are not fit subjects for complaints to the House of Commons.
The moment it appears that this is a charge having reference to something that happened during the private life of the Minister of Public Works, and that the statement about to be read contains grave reflections upon him-and that has been stated by two members of this House-it is taken without the scope of this House and relegated to the courts and is not a fit subject for inquiry here.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I might agree, in what has been so well said by the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland), if we both knew what was the motion to be brought before you. But I have as much right to assume that this is a motion to take steps to get back money that was wrongfully obtained from the public as the hon. member has to assume that it is a motion against the Minister of Public Works. I gather-I do not know whether from something read by you, Mr. Speaker, ot from some words spoken by hon. members-that the main object of the motion is to get back money that belongs to the people. If so, I imagine you cannot prevent it by drawing the herring across the trail by saying that the character of a member of this House is involved. It is a serious question, one which


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) will allow me; it would be perfectly in order to ask by this motion for an investigation into such a matter. But what is not allowed is to use offensive words in support of the motion, unless the hon. member from St. John city (Mr. Daniel) assumes to make a direct charge in the usual way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I quite agree with what has been said in that respect, but I am going to point out what it may lead to. No hon. member of this House can expect members to vote for a motion for an investigation without giving some evidence in support of his motion. If he brings that evidence before the House in the form of an affidavit duly sworn to, is he to mutilate that document by cutting out certain words or by changing certain words of the deponent? Is he to say: I have evidence showing that money has been wrongfully obtained from the people by somebody, but, in presenting that evidence as given under oath, I must garble it? Because the reputation of some particular person is involved? We must be practical. If we have the right to get a committee appointed to see whether money belonging to the people has been wrongfully obtained by an individual and should be paid back, surely that right cannot be denied simply because my character or that of anybody else in this House is involved?	,


James Conmee: Then, why have not you the courage of your convictions and make a specific charge?


George Eulas Foster: Before you make a ruling,
Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: I desire order, Mr. Speaker. Before you make a ruling, I wish to put in this plea: As I understand the ruling, it is that no language can be read
or spoken in this House which is offensive to any member. If I am wrong, I hope you will correct me, Mr. Speaker. Now, I want the House to think about that for a moment as to the absolute revolution in parliamentary practice it may involve and the powers the House of Commons will possess hereafter if that becomes the permanent rule of this Chamber. For instance, suppose that, in carrying out my duty as a member of parliament, I make an investigation into some branches of the Marine and Fisheries Department, and suppose I find that there has been malversation of funds, the paying of bonuses, the taking of presents-suppose that I find that a dozen things that are wrong have been done. And suppose that I get affidavits to prove this. And suppose that one of these solemn declarations sets forth that an officer of the government, it may be a minister of the Crown


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


George Eulas Foster: An officer of the government, it may be a minister of the Crown, was cognizant of these proceedings. I cannot say to the man who is prepared to give me an affidavit setting forth the facts: Cut out this word, or do not use that word. He must make his affidavit, for it is his statement and he is swearing to it. I bring that affidavit into the House and upon that-


An hon. MEMBER.: Make a charge.


George Eulas Foster: 'Make a charge,' my hon. friend says. Let me make my own statement. I put the facts before the House, reading the affidavits and I ask the House to appoint a committee to inquire into the whole matter. As I make my statement I must read the bases upon which I make it, and one of those bases is the affidavit. When I make my statement I am at perfect liberty to show that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or the Minister of Public Works, has been lax, has lacked foresight, has lacked direction; I can go on and say that he has lacked in fair and honest supervision in the matter. I can make these statements in the House, I think I can make them the basis for asking for an investigation committee. The rules of the House allow that. Under the present ruling that is proposed by the Speaker, I ask you where you would be with reference to investigating anything, and where an opportunity would have any locus standi. Now when you come to read this resolution you will find that it is a resolution asking for the appointment of a commission for a specific purpose; that specific purpose is to look into and make an investigation under oath, get witnesses and bring documents. Investigation into what? Investigation into certain transactions whereby a contract was

got from this government, and whereby a person who was outside the contract entirely, got a rake-off, as we call it, of five cents per cubic yard. That is what is to be looked into, and that is all that is to be looked into.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: Now, let us be quiet for
a moment whilst I state what takes place, according to the affidavit.


Wilfrid Laurier: If it be a motion as to whether there has been a rake-off, is it not a fact that the motion would be just as complete without any reference to the Minister of Public Works?
Mr- FOSTER. The reference is not to the Minister of Public Works. Now, we have heard a lot about that affidavit. All men are fallible, the Prime Minister and myself not excluded.


William Pugsley: That is a belated admission on the part of the hon. gentlemen.


George Eulas Foster: All men are fallible; Mr. Mayes made an affidavit which he swore to, and which affidavit was read in the city of bt. John on the 12th of October. In that affidavit was the date 1907 instead of 1905, as Mr. Mayes declared it was his intention to make it. We will say for the sake ol argument that it was read as 1907. An attempt was made at that meeting to have Uie date corrected and make it 1905. But it was read 1907, and so it came out. The Minister of Public Works says:	That is
absolutely false with reference to myself; it was in 1907 that I was Minister of Public Works, and in 1907 that thing did not take place. But just as soon as the affidavit was published the man who made it, and who ought to have knowledge, made the correction, and said, 1907 is wrong; I did not mean 1907, I meant 1905. Now, was that or was that not the fact? I appeal now to the Prime Minister. He can read the documents and see for himself. I myself, in the city of Toronto, read in the papers of the 13th, the next morning, that Mr. Mayes himself had made the correction, and said that he meant 1905.


Mr. NESBITT.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order; the hon. gentleman has spoken twice before.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to finish my statement with reference to the point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the member for North Toronto is speaking now with the consent of the House.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He is not speaking to the point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The House must either proceed with this matter or not. My ruling has already been given. But as this


George Eulas Foster: is a matter which may affect any member of the House to-morrow, I want to apply rule 19, which says:
No member shall use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof-nor speak beside the question in debate.
The moment offensive words are read to me by any hon. gentleman I shall have to stop him. They may be read in a public meeting at St. John, but they cannot be read here, without the hon. gentleman assuming the responsibility thereof, as a matter of public procedure. He cannot lay a charge against the Minister of Public Works without assuming responsibility therefor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What responsibility?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The responsibility of the member himself, speaking from his seat in the House.


Samuel Hughes: Has any one assumed to lay a charge against the Minister of Public Works here to-day?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand the amendment contains one.


Samuel Hughes: The charge was made against a former Minister of Public Works, and not against the gentleman who got the contract. There was no charge made against Mr. Pugsley the private member whatever.


George Eulas Foster: When I was cut into by my hon. friend over there, I was going on to show what were the facts of the case. I was showing that an error had been made by Mr. Mayes; Mr. Mayes corrected that error, as I said, on the 13th, when the affidavit was originally read on the 12th.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has already spoken once, and I for one object to him speaking again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Several points of order have been taken. I think the hon. member for North Toronto is speaking now on a matter in which the House is interested.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I for one object. The hon. gentleman should not speak oftener than the rules of the House allow. He has no right to speak twice.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the member for North Toronto is in order. Several points of order have been raised, I have not kept a record of them. A number of members have spoken, and it seems to be the sense of the House that the hon. member for North Toronto should be privileged to speak again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That is where I raise the point of order. The hon. gentleman has no right to speak twice on the. same subject. If he raises another point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I cannot say that the hon. member for North Toronto has spoken 8n this particular point of order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: We want to know what he is speaking about. I for one want to know what he is speaking about.


George Eulas Foster: All I have to say now is that if we aTe really a parliament and not a madhouse, let us make up our mind which we are. I leave the whole matter in the hands of the right hon. gentleman who leads the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: It certainly devolves upon me as leader of the House to give my opinion on this matter. It is a duty which is not always pleasant, but it is a duty which we have to discharge. At all events, we must endeavour on both sides of the House to bring this matter to a conclusion, with a proper sense of the dignity of the House and a proper application of the rules of the House. If I may refer to a past debate of only a few days ago, I said that I should give an example myeelf, and I will give it again. The rule of the House is that no one is allowed to speak disrespectfully of another member. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) the other day put the matter in a more complete form. He said that no member should be allowed to use words which were not only offensive but painful to another member. If we accept that interpretation we should have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion upon this matter. But, there is an exception to the rule that no member is to be spoken of disrespectfully. If a member rises in the House and says:	I charge Mr. So-and-so, a fellow member-that, in itself is offensive, and under such circumstances the rules of the House allow it. But that does not give a member of the House, under ordinary circumstances, the right to speak of another disrespectfully. If he says that, acting under his sense of duty, he brings such and such an accusation against a fellow member he subjects himself to certain conditions and certain penalties. It is expected of him that he shall prove the charge and if he does not he will render himself liable to very grave censure. That has been done on more than one occasion in this House. Taking the cases historically, it was done on the occasion of the Pacific scandal when Mr. Huntingdon, a member of this House, brought a charge against certain members of the administration. It was done at a later date by Mr. Tarte when he brought a charge against a member of the government of that day. It was done on a subsequent occasion by Mr. Edgar when he brought a charge against a member of the government. Upon all these occasions the member was allowed to speak disrespectfully
and offensively of another but it was upon a charge being made. Now, as I understand it, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) does not make any charge against my friend and colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). He wants to bring in a motion to have certain matters investigated in which the public interest is concerned, and, as I understand, by reason of certain transactions which have taken place the public revenue has been defrauded of a certain amount of money.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well, my hon. friend has the right to make such a motion. I do not know whether his motion should be granted or not-I express no opinion upon that-I have not heard it- but, if it is in order to have such a motion made and to have such an investigation entered upon, is it allowable to him to make an insinuation against a fellow member? Is it allowable that he should say of a certain member things which are offensive and painful? According to the rule of the House, as I understand the Speaker to lay it down, it is now allowable for him to do so. Certainly, he has the right to say everything that is conducive to the motion which he has in view, that is conducive to the object which he has in view, but I do not think he has the right to say anything offensive of a fellow member. That is the position that I would take. If my hon. friend wants to make a motion to have a certain investigation, or, to use the hon. gentleman's own words, more particularly an investigation into a transaction which it is said took place between Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity and which resulted in a certain transaction in the Department of Public Works I think he has a right to make that motion. I do not know whether it would be granted by the House or not, but if this is so, as far as I can see, it does not violate any rule. But, I think we should pause and consider before we acquiesce in the introduction of any matter that is offensive to the Minister of Public Works. The matter is one which is of great importance. Mr. Speaker has taken it into his consideration and he has given his ruling. I think my hon. friend ought to proceed with his speech, keeping in view always the caution which has been given him by the Speaker that it shall contain nothing offensive to a fellow member. Keeping that in view, he has the right to proceed with his motion. But I would appeal to him, to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and to the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), who are old parliamentarians, that if we want to preserve the dignity and respect of this House the well known rule that no

member should speak offensively of another ought to be rigidly maintained.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: May I ask the Prime Minister what are we going to do about that affidavit? A man makes an affidavit in which he tells the story showing that the people of this country have been defrauded of their money. Are we going to garble the reading of that affidavit and are the public and the members of this House not to have the benefit of it?


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend wants to have an investigation made there is no necessity of him reading that affidavit at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then it would be said that there was no evidence of any body having done anything wrong.


Wilfrid Laurier: No; if the hon. gentleman says he has reason to believe that these things took place from that affidavit he can bring in anything provided it is not offensive to another member. If the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) believes that the Minister of Public Works has been guilty of improper conduct it is open to him to make a charge against him, but he does not make a charge against him. He says I want to prove that the public revenue has been defrauded to a certain extent. He can bring in any statement provided it does not reflect upon another member of the House.


John Graham Haggart: This is a question with regard to which we have had a good deal of experience in this House. It has been said that a charge to be made against a member of parliament, must be such as to affect the seat of the member in the House, that if he is convicted of it he is to be turned out of the House and that it is a sufficient objection to a charge against a member to say that it does not affect his seat. Any charge made must be made on the personal responsibility of a member. We hear a good deal about personal responsibility. It is a thing of the past. There is no penalty imposed upon a member of parliament for making a charge against another, none except a feeling in the House against a party making a charge which he cannot prove. He is put into what, in the old country, is called Coventry. No member of the House associates with him for making a false charge, but there is no penalty. Look at the position in a case of this kind. There is no charge in the affidavit, which, even if it were 1907, would affect the party's seat in the House


William Pugsley: If this took place in 1907 I could not sit in the House.


John Graham Haggart: You were acting i as an attorney in 1905?


Wilfrid Laurier: 


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose it is | proven up to the hilt that you made an ar' rangement with this contractor and with ' the government of the country by which he 1 was to get an extra price and you divide the money; you were not a member of the House at that time. Had you not a right to make that arrangement with the contractor?


William Pugsley: I did not happen to have made it.


John Graham Haggart: It might have been wrong or anything else, but it is nothing upon which a charge might be made against a member of parliament which might affect his seat in the House. The charge, if the other part of the affidavit is true, is something that we have the right to inquire into and which we ought to have the right to inquire if any one, solicitor or contractor, made an arrangement by which a certain sum of money was filched out of the public treasury for what purpose we know not. We have the right to inquire into it, and we have the right to inquire who the individuals were who benefited by it, even if one of those individuals at the present time is the Minister of Public Works. If he was not the Minister of Public Works at the time


William Pugsley: At what time?


John Graham Haggart: In 1905; have we not the right to inquire into it? Are we going to abridge and restrict the rights of this parliament because it may be said that something is offensive to a member of parliament? The idea of urging rule 19 against the introduction of an affidavit of this kind is absurd. The rule says:
Nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.
It is not an offensive word against a member of the House. Even if everything is true that is in the affidavit it does not come within the description of language contained in the rule. ' Offensive words ' means statements made in the House reflecting upon the character or honour of a member of parliament. This does not come within that category at all. This is a childish objection to the introduction of the affidavit which has been repeated in the House again and again. The minister says that the affidavit which was read in the city of St. John bore the date 1907, and that it was a reflection on him as a minister at the time because he was then the minister. The correction has been made again and again. It is childsh; it is boyish; it is babyish! The affidavit has been corrected.


William Pugsley: It may sound all right to my hon. friend, but I would not think it all right.


John Graham Haggart: But the affidavit has been corrected. It was corrected on the floor of the House in which it was read.


William Pugsley: No, Sir, and it was published broadcast throughout Canada.


John Graham Haggart: I will take the statement of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel), who says he was there, and on his honour states that it was 1905 that was mentioned.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman state that he was there?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: He has said that he was there over and over again.


William Pugsley: I have the statement of half a dozen people who were there and it was read 1907.


John Graham Haggart: Talk about the rules of the House! My hon. friend gets up and says that he was "there and the Minister of Public Works gets up and questions the accuracy of his statement.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The statement of the hon. gentleman from St. John will have to be accepted.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman from St. John tells me he was present-


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have already told you that.
Mr. PUGSLEY-and that he heard the affidavit, I will accept his statement.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Did the hon. minister not hear me say that I was at that meeting and hear the affidavit read.


William Pugsley: I did not hear my hon. friend say that. I heard the hon. gentleman say there was an attempt made to correct it but I did not understand him to say he was present. Now let me ask the hon. gentleman this question: If it was corrected that night at the meeting how came it to be given to the morning papers in St. John and telegraphed all over the country with the false date to it.


John Graham Haggart: Did the hon. gentleman not hear the hon. member for Toronto say that the correction was made next day in the Toronto papers.


William Pugsley: It was made in the evening papers after I had corrected it, but no correction came from Mr. Mayes until after I had made the correction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock. Mr. FOSTER. Just one moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: Just one moment if the House will allow me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: I appeal to the Prime Minister now. I want to ask the Prime Minister and the House not to consider such a decision made as the Speaker has intimated he will make. It won't harm us to think this matter over until we meet here another time. It is so grave that I do not want to see it go as the Speaker has intimated it is possible it will go.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker has given no such ruling as I understand.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask the Prime Minister one question. He said it becomes a matter of imperative duty to maintain the dignity of this House; does he not think it is equally important to maintain the privileges of this House?


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, April 15, 1909.