1910-12-14

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 51) respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.-Mr. Ma-grath.
Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Commercial Travellers' Accident Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill (No. 53) respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Pickup.
Bill (No. 54) respecting the E. B. Eddy Company.-Mr. Devlin.
Bill (No. 55) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill (No. 56) to incorporate the Hudson Bay Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 57) respecting the London and Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Beattie.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 49) respecting water-powers.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


Mr. MONK.: The object of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to conserve as far as possible for our country, the great wealth of waterpower which we find that we possess. Since the creation of the commission on conservation a very active investigation has taken place by the commission in order to ascertain the extent of our forest, mineral, and water-power wealth. There have been different committees of that commission and the one concerning water-powers, with which I have the honour to be connected, during the first year of the existence of the commission, ascertained to a very considerable extent the amount of our water-power wealth throughout the country. The result of that investigation has been surprising and the stage that we have arrived at now is this: What can we do in order to preserve that immense source of wealth and industrial development for the country? In view of that, the present Bill has been prepared as an attempt at legislation in that direction. We have no legislation upon the alienation of this great source of wealth that I am aware of, and this Bill endeavours to surround that alienation with precautions that will ensure the maintenance of that wealth and its utilization, not for a select few, but for the public in general.
It provides, amongst other things, that when alienation has been decided upon,
either upon the petition of an individual or upon the action of the government, the question is submitted to the Conservation Commission in order that it shall furnish suggestions to the government as to the value of the water-power and the conditions most satisfactory for the country and for the public under which the alienation should take place. No alienation can be made otherwise than by lease which, in its duration, cannot exceed fifty years. There is no final alienation. When the Conservation Commission has made its report upon the different points of interest mentioned in the Bill, the government advertises the water-power for sale by auction under the conditions prescribed. Five years before the lease expires the government intimates to the lessee what it considers to be a reasonable condition for the renewal of the lease and within a certain space of time the lessee must state whether he accepts the condition or not. Otherwise, the waterpower site is sold at auction again under leasehold tenure and the former lessee is indemnified for his improvements or expenses. The government has power to pass rules and regulations regulating the administration of the law, and the Commission on Conservation itself has power to pass rules and regulations binding upon the departments and binding upon the lessee, obligating him to conform to certain conditions and all these, when approved of by the Governor in Council and published in the ' Canada Gazette,' become law. These are the principal dispositions of this new Bill.
There is a final section which says that all alienations hitherto made by the government of water-powers where the lessee or the grantee, under whatever title, has not conformed to the conditions of the alienation, either by failure to pay rent or to develop, or to conform in other respects to the conditions of the instrument of alienation, will, after the coming into force of this Act, become void absolutely, and the government can take possession once more of the powers and deal with them under the disposition of the new law. The Conservation Commission meets at the beginning of the month of January and this Bill cannot come up for the second reading until after that meeting and until after the government has had time to consider it. It seems to me that it is absolutely necessary for us, in face of the inventory we have made showing the extent of our wealth in that respect to make some provision to prevent any wasteful alienation of this source of wealth.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is somewhat in error in stating that there is no legislation on this subject. If my hon. friend will refer to the Dominion Lands Act, 1908, he will find legislative provisions there for dealing

with water-powers under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government, and based upon that legislative authority, granted by parliament in 1908, regulations have been provided for dealing with water-powers under the control of the Dominion which have been availed of to a very considerable extent, and which, I think, on careful examination will be found to have served the public interest to the fullest possible extent that my hon. friend can suggest in his Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not recently seen the account referred to by my hon. friend, but this much I know, that it is very incomplete indeed, and that the regulations that have been founded upon that Act are felt by those who have had any experience of water-powers to be absolutely impracticable. At any rate, the object of this Act is to bring into close contact the government and the Conservation Commission, which it has created, and to make that Commission of some use in carrying out the design of the government in creating it. The Act to which my hon. friend refers, will be found to be quite incomplete.


Frank Oliver: I wish to correct my hon. friend when he says that the regulations existing at present are incomplete or impracticable. As a matter of fact, an expenditure of millions of dollars is now under way under authority of these regulations and in accordance with their provisions.


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

[Stage Direction]
(The questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Frederick Debartzch Monk: As regards the cruisers of the improved Bristol type about to be constructed by the government, what, respectively, will be their displacement, length, beam, draught, indicated horse-power, estimated cost, protection, arrrfament, estimated speed, coal capacity and complement ?


Mr. BRODEUR:: The details of those ships have been supplied to the Department of Naval Service by the admiralty with the understanding that they would be kept confidential.


IMPERIAL REALTY CO.-PAYMENTS FOR LIGHTING.
Mr. SHARPE. (Ontario):: 1.	When was the last cheque paid to the Imperial Realty Company for lighting the Woods and Canadian buildings for the year ending March 17, 1910, and what was the amount of the payment?


Mr. OLIVER.: 2.	Why was this amount paid over to the Imperial Realty Company when the investigation in the Public Accounts Committee in March and April disclosed the alleged fact that the company were illegally claiming large sums from the government, and had received a large sum to which under their contract they were not legally entitled?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	April 18, 1910.
Militia (Woods) building $1,243.51 Canadian building		1,672.56-$2,916.07
2.	The investigation was not completed until May 2, 1910.


OTTAWA MUNICIPAL PLANT-LIGHTING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
Mr. SHARPE. (Ontario):: .
1.	What public buildings are being lighted by the City of Ottawa municipal plant?
2.	What public buildings are being lighted by other companies, and what companies?
3.	What public buildings are lighted on the meter rate and what on the flat rate?
4.	What is the meter rate, and what is the flat rate?
5.	Have tenders been asked for lighting these public buildings?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Canadian building, Slater street; Militia building, Slater street; Railway Commission building, Queen street.	_
2.	All other buildings owned or occupied by the government in Ottawa, are lighted by the Ottawa Electric Company.
3.	All buildings, all lighted on a flat
4.	With Ottawa Electric Company, $2.00 per 16 c. p. lamp per annum, except for first 3,000, at $2.25.
Flat rate with the City of Ottawa Municipal plant, at $2.00 per 16 c. p. lamp, per annum.
5.	No.
.CANADA'S PROPOSALS FOR COLONIAL CONFERENCE 1911.


Mr. AMES:: 1.	Has the government yet considered what matters it will submit on behalf of Canada to the Colonial Conference of 1911?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to submit for discussion and approval by this House the questions which it will present for consideration at the Colonial Conference?
3.	If so, when may the House expect to have these questions submitted for consideration?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	The matter is under consideration.
2.	When a conclusion has been come to by the government, it will be communicated to the House in due course; in the meantime the government will gladly receive all suggestions which may be offered.
3.	After the Christmas recess..


THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Have any of the contractors on the Transcontinental railway, mentioned in answers to questions of the member for South Simcoe as to defaulters on pages 387, 388, 447 and 448 of revised ' Hansard ' of last session, since completed their contracts? If so, when?
2.	Do the penalties for these defaults aggregate more than a million dollars, or if not, how much do they amount to?
3.	In the opinion of the minister, not of the Transcontinental Railway Commission as in the answer referred to, does not a penalty in the contract of $5,000 a month for default in completing tend to deter contractors from tendering or to confine offers to the friends of the government, or to increase the schedule rates of the tenderers, or both?
4.	Has the penalty been exacted or claimed by the government in any case?
5.	Is not the government's disregard of this provision of the contract calculated to encourage further delay?


Mr. GRAHAM:: The following information is furnished by the Transcontinental Railway Commission:
1.	No.
2.	4 and 5. Default not having been established, it is at present impossible to say what aggregate penalties could be legally exacted, and that matter will be considered before final payments.
3.	No.


GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS LEASED.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	Has the government made any new leases respecting buildings in Ottawa for any of the departmental offices?
2.	If so, what building, yearly rental, length of term, and size of building?
3.	Was there any demand for more space by any department? If so, what department?
4.	Does the government heat the building itself, or does it let the heating by contract?
5.	Is the government lighting the buildings by a flat, or by a meter rate, and at what price ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 4. Popham & Jarman building, Queen street, $6,200 per annum, including heating, five years from 1st June, 1910. Inside measurements of 2nd and 3rd floors are 85 feet 2 inches by 63 feet 9 inches. Grand Trunk station, $19,500 per annum, including heating, for three floors, inside measurement 130 feet by 80 feet. W. A. & J. B. Lamb, Queen street, $2,500 per annum, consisting of present building 50 feet by 70 feet, formerly leased, and addition 29 feet by 66 feet. Heated by department.
3.	Yes. Marine and Fisheries, Interior Department, Agriculture Department, Customs Department, Inland Revenue Department to be accommodated in Lamb build-41
ing, Railway Commission to be accommodated in Grand Trunk railway station.
5. Flat rate, $2.00 a lamp per year.


POST OFFICE SUPPLIES.
Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg):: 1.	Is it a fact that the postmasters in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia are compelled to send to Ottawa or Toronto for all stores or supplies?
2.	What stores are kept in stock for distribution in Toronto?
3.	Why are all the stores and supplies not kept with the other articles of stores by the department in Ottawa?
4.	To whom are requisitions required to be made in Toronto?
5.	Has the Toronto postmaster any duties to perform respecting the distribution of stores, and are such stores in his custody?
6.	Is there any special arrangement made by the government with the makers of cancelling ink?
7.	Who supplies this ink to the government?
8.	If there is a contract with the makers, what are the terms of the contract?
9.	Has the Toronto postmaster, directly or indirectly, any interest in the business which manufactures or supplies this ink, or any other post office supplies or furnishings?
10.	If it is a corporation or company, which supplies the ink, who are the members of such partnership or shareholders of such company ?
11.	If Toronto is made a distributing centre, why not have distributing centres also in the western provinces?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	No.
2.	Black, indelible, cancelling and stamping ink, mail bags, mail keys, letter boxes, parcel receptacles, rural delivery boxes.
3.	Partly because of lack of space and chiefly because Toronto is by all odds the closest distribution for the province of Ontario, and also has the advantage of closer communication with the west in point of time by from twelve to sixteen hours. In nearly every case communication may be had from all over Ontario and supplies forwarded inside of twenty-four hours.
4.	To the postmaster, Toronto.
5.	Yes.
6.	The supply is confined to the two undermentioned firms, the amount supplied to be divided equally between the two contractors.
7.	C. A. Willis and George Bailey.
8.	Yes. The terms of the contract are that they shall supply ink on a special formula meeting the peculiar requirements of the department in all cancelling ink.
9.	Not so far as the department is aware.
10.	No company or corporation in existence of which the department has any knowledge.
11.	In addition to Toronto, distribution centres are maintained. For mail bags at: Montreal, Winnipeg, Victoria and Dawson,



Yukon. For mail keys at: London, Kingston, Hamilton, Fort William, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Sydney, N.S., St. John, N.B., Charlottetown, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria, Nelson, Regina, Moosejaw, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Dawson, Yukon, and at the office of each superintendent of the railway mail service.
For stamping ink at the office of each of the post office inspectors and superintendents of railway mail service.
For rural mail delivery boxes at the office of each of the post office inspectors.
Postage stamp emporiums are also maintained in the western provinces as follows: Vancouver, for British Columbia and the Yukon; Calgary, for Alberta; Regina, for Saskatchewan; Winnipeg, for Manitoba and post offices in Ontario west of the Great Lakes.


BREAKWATER AT NEW EDINBORO, N.S.
Mr. JAMESON :: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction of the breakwater at New Edinboro, Nova Scotia? If so, in what newspapers were the advertisements published ?
2.	What was the date of the first publication of such advertisement in each of such newspapers, and for how long were such advertisements continued?
3.	What is the date of the contract with J. E. and H. Bigelow, for building said breakwater ?


Mr. PUGSLEY :: 1 and 2. Yes.	.
Place.	Papers.	Date published.Digby	Weekly Courier...	Not stated in ac.


Bridgetown ....: 
Lunenburg .   ...@: 
Wilfrid Laurier: 


WOMEN HOMESTEADING.
Mr. ROCHE :: 1.	Has the Minister of the Interior received since the close of last session any petition or petitions asking that women be allowed the privilege of homesteading?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to accede to the prayer of such a petition?


Mr. OLIVER :: 1.	No petition can be traced in the registration branch. Several applications have been received from individuals, and these have been dealt with as provided in the Act.


WESTERN FARMERS AND IMMIGRATION.
Mr. ROCHE :: 1.	What farmers have been selected by the government to go to the United Kingdom this winter in the interests of immigration?
2.	Will any others be selected?
3.	What will be the remuneration allowed?


Mr. OLIVER :: 1.	F. W. Wrigtit of Astwood, Sask.; George Stephenson, Paynton, Sask.; J. Dowthwaite, Eagle Hill, Alta.; Hugh Yake, Moosejaw, Sask.; Peter Ramsay, Headlands, Sask.; B. P. Saloway, Halcyonia, Sask.; R. Willoughby, Wood-glen, Alberta ; J. W. Brunskill, Pense, Sask.; G. Chubb, Morris, Man.; M. Peace, Wadena, Sask.; J. G. Butterfield, Forster, Sask.; H. H. Collins, Vermilion, Alta.; John Krengan, Viking, Alta.; Geo. Bin-nie, Bunessan, Ont.; H. Sampson, Brandon, Man.; James Riddell, Winnipeg, Man.; J. P. Lyle, Lloydminster, Sask.
2.	No.
3.	$100 per month and expenses, for four months.


GOVERNMENT LANDS ON BIDWELL BAY.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster) :: 1.	Ha? the government reserved from homestead any surveyed property on Bidwell bay, on north arm of Burrard inlet, British Columbia ?
2.	If so, has any determination been arrived at as to the disposition to be made of the property ?
3.	Has any person been residing on any portion of the property so reserved and making improvements on it while his application for homestead has been pending? If so, what, if any, disposition is to be made of the application ?


Mr. OLIVER :: 1.	By Order in Council of the 5th day of January, 1887, certain lands' along the north arm of Burrard inlet, including Bid-well bay were reserved.
2.	The department has decided that a certain portion considered specially suit-

*able for summer residence purposes, should be withdrawn from the reserve and offered for sale in small areas by public auction.
3.	The only persons known to the department to be residing there are R. J. Trundle and one McCormick, who have been living without legal authority in old shacks abandoned by a logging company and have made some slight improvements. No applications for homestead entry from them have been pending during such time of residence, nor has it been the intention to recognize any such applications.


FREE MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: 1.	In what cities, if any, having free postal delivery, is such delivery restricted so that it does not cover the whole corporate limits of such city?
2.	Under what authority are parts of any cities excluded from the free delivery system established for those cities?
3.	Are the population and the revenue of excluded parts included in the totals from these cities required by the department to establish the standard set for free delivery?


Sir WILFRTD LAURIER:: 1.	and 2. Free delivery by letter carriers in cities is restricted to such areas of the different cities in which the streets are properly named and graded, sidewalks provided, and the houses numbered, and in dealing with applications for the extension of the free delivery system the department is necessarily obliged to insist upon the above conditions being complied with.
3.	Free delivery is established in places where the population is 12,000 and the revenue is $20,000. The whole of the city area would be included in estimating the above conditions.


DREDGING AT BATHURST, N.B.
Mr. CROCKET:: What was the total quantity of dredging performed by the government dredge ' Nere-ous ' in Bathurst harbour, New Brunswick, during the past season, and what was the total cost of the work?


William Pugsley: 87,030 cubic yards, $9,310.48.


EXPERIMENTAL FARM-SALE OF EGGS.
Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar):: 1.	What are the names of the persons on the list to whom eggs from the experimental farm are being sold?
2.	What is the object of having a list, and why are the eggs not sold on the public market?
3.	Why should the eggs be sold to the persons whose names are on the list for sums from 25 cents to 50 cents a dozen, and the farmers can only secure them at $1 a dozen?
41 i


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	There is no list. The eggs are sold to any one who applies for them so long as they are available. The following are the names of the persons to whom eggs from the Experimental Farm were sold during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1910.
For hatching-Afllec, J.; Allen, J.; Anderson, J. M.; Armstrong, Mrs. J.; Banks,
C.	L.; Barlow, A. L.; Beauchesne, C.; Be-dore, C.; Belanger, C.; Belisle, E.; Berks, H.; Berner, M. H.; Burden, S. K.; Black, Jno.; Bostwick, H. R.; Brown, D. R.; Brown, E. D.; Cameron, H.; Cameron, H.
G.; Carnear, M.; Carr, Mr.; Caron, G.; Chatelain, H. L.; Chauvin, J.; Church, J. M.; Charette, N.; Clarke, W. R.; Cote, L. M.; Cournoyel, M.; Couture, J.; Davis, M.; Demers,T.; Donald, M.; Dunbar, E. J.; Edmonds P. J. D.; Esprit, Rev.; Eugene, Rev.
F.; Faubert, H.; Ferguson, W. T.; Ferguson, F.; Fetterley, M. C.; Ferguson, G.; Fraser, D.; Fraser, H. H.; Faubert, A; Gauthier, J.; Geddes, F.; Geroux, O.; Groulx, J.; Graham, N.; Green, J.; God-reau. Dr. F.; Henderson, Mrs.; Hetherald, M. L.; Hill, B.; Hobson, Mrs. F.; Hogan, Miss, Howe, J. S.; Jackson, J.; James, M,; Joy, M. D.; Kennedy, A.; Kirwin, W.; King, S.; Kyle, Rev. W. A.; Labrie, H. N.; Laframboise, C.; Lafleur, F. X.; LaRoche, J. L.; Laprade, J.; Lessard, V.; Lewis, Mrs.; Lever, E.; Ligault, A.; Laurier, W.; Matthews, E. K.; Muckleston, Mrs. A.; McNeil, M. N.; McRae; A. R.; McCuaig,
D.	M.; McKinnon, H.; McKay, J. A.; McGuire, M.; Mills, A.; Noel, A.; Pashley, Miss; Paquette, Jos.; Paquette, Ther.; Plant, H.; Pelletier, P.; Pillard, C.; Porter, Mrs. J.: Ranstead, Mr.; Regimbal, O.; Rivington, L.; Rougier, C.; Routcliffe, G. A.; Robert, J. B.; Robertson, C. J.; Scott, J. M.; Shook, C.; Smith, J.; Solman, Mrs.
F.	; Sparrow, J. E.; Snowden, E.; Stubbs,
C.	A.; Stevenson, H.; Switzer, A. M ; Therriault, J. H.; Vanderploeg, M. W.; Webster, C.; Webster, W.; Wright, O.
For eating-Arcand, A.; Brodeur, Hon.
L.	P.; Cramp, T. M.; Cleeves, A. H.; Dore, S. J.; Duncan, G.; Jarvis, Col.; Kerr, J.; Laurier, Sir Wilfrid; Lynch Mr.; Macoun, W. T.; Montizambert, Dr.; Mountain, Mrs.; Fenton, Mrs.; Fieldin'* Hon. W. S.; Fisher, Hon. Sydney; Fitzpatrick, J.; Fletcher, Mrs.; Fitzpatrick, Sir Charles; Fortier, V.; Fraser, A. W.; Fraser, J. B.; Newcombe, J.; O'Halloran G. F.; Plaskett, J.; Pritchard, Mrs.; Robertson, Miss; Saunders, Dr. Wm.; Woolcombe, Rev.; Saunders, Dr. Charles; Gamble, Mr.; Gibson, A.; Giguere, L.; Gilbert, A. G.; Goud-reau, Col.; Grey, D. D.; Grisdale, J. H.; Goddard, C. M.; Holz, H.; Harrison, Miss; Hamilton, Rev. C., Hill. M. A.; Spencer,
G.	; Spratt G.; Wright, Miss.
2.	There is no list in reference to the supplying of eggs other than a record of

the names of the parties who apply for them. Eggs are not sold on the public market for the reason that the Experimental Farm would thus come into direct competition with farmers who have eggs to dispose of, which is thought inadvisable'. Further, such a course would be a more expensive one to adopt, and the object aimed at in connection with all sales of Experimental Farm produce is to get full value for everything sold.
3.	Farmers and others who purchase eggs for hatching pay one dollar per setting of fifteen eggs. In selling eggs for hatching, they are carefully selected, the object being to send only perfect specimens from mature fowls, for this purpose. They are also carefully packed, which adds to expense. Such eggs are of more value than ordinary eggs sold for eating. Many complaints have been received in the Poultry Division from people in the poultry business, of the low price at which eggs are sold for hatching, and the poultry manager is under instructions not to sell more than two settings to any one individual.


PUBLIC WOBKS IN NEW BRUNSWICK.
Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the Department of Public Works undertaken the construction of any public works on the Ottallie or Otteleck stream in the county of Victoria, New Brunswick? If so, what is the character and object of the work and what expenditure has been made upon it to date?


William Pugsley: Between November 18 and 26, 1909, this stream was cleared of boulders, stumps and old trees, and about 30 cubic yards of rock were blasted. Total expenditure, $81.25.


RIGHT OF WAY AT GRAND BEND.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: Is there a roadway for the public to travel on from the western limit of the boundary between the counties of Huron and Lambton, to what is known as the Grand Bend dock at Grand Bend, Ontario? If so, when was the right of way purchased, from whom purchased, the price paid, and the amount of land contained in said purchase?


William Pugsley: (a)	Yes
(b)	July 29, 1909.
(c)	Expropriated and release (obtained from Charles A. Gibb et al.
(d)	$790.
(e)	Seventy-nine one hundredths of an acre.


DUTY ON CUT STONE.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What is the duty on cut stone entering Canada from the United States?
Mr. FISHER,
2.	What is the duty on cut stone entering
United States from Canada?	_
3.	What was the value and quantity of cut stone imported into Canada from the United States and from Canada into the United States, respectively, during the last fiscal year ?
i.	Will the government take any action during the present session with a view to raising the duty on cut stone imported from the United States?
5. What reason is assigned by the government for the retention of such a small duty on such imports, as compared with the excessive import duties of the United States?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	The duty on stone, sawn or dressed only, when imported into Canada, is 20 per cent ad valorem, under item 306, general tariff.
2.	Item 114 of the United States customs tariff, 1909, provides for a customs duty of 50 per cent ad valorem upon certain freestone, granite, sandstone, limestone and other monumental or building stone, except marble, breccia and onyx, hewn, dressed, polished, or otherwise manufactured, whein imported into the United-States.
3.	The imports into Canada from the United States for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910, of building stone, sawn or dressed, including flagstone, were 36,894 tons, value, $184,942. The Canadian exports to the United States of granite, marble and other stone, cut or dressed only, were valued at $24,774, quantity not stated in export returns.
4.	It is not usual for the government to indicate tariff changes in advance of their formal presentation to parliament.
5.	The present duty on cut stone has been fixed under the customs tariff, 1907, by Act of parliament, and can be increased only by an Act of parliament.


COMMANDER ROPER.
Mr. HUGHES:: Referring to an extract from ' Hansard' of 7th December, 1910, as follows:-' But in England Commander Roper, or whatever may be that officer's rank, would not dare to offer any criticism of any administrative act on the part of the British government, and one can only conclude that he must have been put to do that in this country by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.'
'Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Order.'
' Mr. HUGHES. That is the only explanation I can find for this language. Certainly, no officer would dare criticise an act of the government. No doubt Commander Roper, being a member of the imperial service, knew his business better than to indulge in such criticism, unless he had been put up to do so by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.'
1.	Is the government aware that the latest and best English dictionaries define the word

' faction * as always used in an opprobrious 6ense ?
2.	Was it intimated to Commander Roper by the Deputy Minister of Marine, that he should deliver himself of the ' faction ' address during the past autumn on the occasion referred to in the debate from which the foregoing extract is taken?
3.	Was the address, or were the notes of the same, talked over by the deputy minister and Commander Roper before said delivery?
4.	Were said notes or words shown to the Minister of Marine, who smiled approval, before being delivered?


Mr. BRODETJR:: 1.	The minister has asked Commander
Roper to define the sense in which the word ' faction ' was used by him in the speech referred to by the hon. member. He is informed by Commander Roper that he used the word ' faction ' meaning a large number of persons, and did not in any way attach any opprobrious sense to this word.	_
2.	Commander Roper delivered an address last fall at the Central Canada exhibition on the invitation of the directors of that exhibition.
3.	The deputy minister knew Commander Roper was to deliver an address at the Central Canada exhibition, explaining the organization of the Canadian navy from the point of view of the technical officer. The deputy minister and Commander Roper talked over some of the points of this address.
4.	No.


CANADIAN FISHERIES.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	What sum of money has been realized from fish in the Canadian fisheries for the year 1909-10?
2.	What is the extent in marine miles of the fishing grounds in Canadian waters, including therein the littorals of the Atlantic and the Pacific?


Mr. BRODETJR:: 1.	$29,629,169.00.
2.	Inland waters 250,000 square miles, inshore area on Atlantic about 15,000 square miles, inshore area on Pacific about 21,000 square miles.


COST OF MILITIA DEPARTMENT.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	What is the amount of the total annual cost of the Department of Militia for each year since 1867 to the 31st March, 1910?
2.	How many soldiers and officers are there at present in the regular militia of Canada and how many in the voluntary militia?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.1867-68	$1,013,015.69
1868-69	 937,513.35
1869-	70	
1870-	71 .. ..
1871-	72 .. ..
1872-	73 .. ..
1873-	74 .. ..
1874-	75 .. ..
1875-	76 .. ..
1876-	77 .. ..
1877-	78 ....
1878-	79 . . . .
1879-	80 .. ..
1880-	81 .. . . 1881-82 .. ..
1882-	83 .. ..
1883-	84 .. ..
1884-	85 .. ..
1885-	86 .. ..
1886-	87 .. ..
1887-	88 .. ..
1888-	89 .. ..
1889-	90 .. . .
1890-	91 .. ..
1891-	92 .. ..
1892-	93 .. . .
1893-	94 . . ..
1894-	95 . . . .
1895-	96 .. ..
1896-	97 .. ..
1897-	98 .. ..
1898-	99 . . . .
1899-	00 .. . .
1900-	01 .. ..
1901-	02 . . ..
1902-	03 .. ..
1903-	04 . . ..
1904-	05 . . . .
1905-	06 . . . .
1906-	07 .. ..
1907-	08 .. ..
1908-	09 .. ..
1909-	10 .. ..
* This amount
. . .. $1,245,972.83 .. ..	908,732.86
. . . .	1,654,255.34
.. . . 1,248,663.93 . . ..	1,122,382.27
. . . .	1,013,943.84
.. . .	978,530.41
.. ..	550,451.87
.. ..	618,136.58
. . ..	777,698.90
.. ..	690,018.93
.. ..	667,000.51
.. ..	772,811.79
.. ..	734,354.25
. . ..	989,498.22
. . . . *2,707,757.77 . . ..	1,178,659.10
.. .. f,193,692.77 .. ..	1,273,178.59
. . .. 1,323,551.56 .. ..	1,287,013.59
.. .. 1,279,513.65 .. .. 1,266,308.05 .. .. 1,419,745.89 .. .. 1,284,517.17 . . . . 1,574,013.76 .. .. 2,136,713.54 .. .. 2,413,552.95 .. .. 1,688,212.68 .. . . 2,500,101.95
	 2,077,029.30
.. . . 2,197,558.96 .. .. 2,353,455.86 . . . . 2,391,232.78 .. . . 3,551,940.57 .. . . 3,950,664.75 .. .. 5,594,000.27 .. .. 4,322,320.74 . . . . 6,796,088.25
	 6,464,716.33
. . . . 5,979,926.59 includes $1,697,851.52
Northwest Rebellion expenditure.
Figures for the years 1867 to March 31, 1909, will be found on pages 66 and 87 of Public Accounts for fiscal year ending March 31, 1909, except those for special service South Africa and Halifax Provisional Garrison, included in above and separately shown below, which will be found on p. Q.-2 Auditor General's Report for the respective years.
Figures for year ending March 31, 1910, will be found on page P.-2 Auditor General's Report of that year.
Special Service South Africa and Halifax Provisional Garrison.
Expenditure. Refunds.
1899- 00	$1,547,623.74
1900- 01	 908,681.42
1901- 02	 254,961.73 $7,220.28
1902- 03	 131,256.27	786.74
1903- 04	 6,818.15
1904- 05	 821.92
1905- 06	:	 267.08
2.	Permanent Staff-
Headquarters, Commands and Districts, 62 officers.

Permanent force, 210 officers; 2,680 men.
Active militia (non-permanent), 4,817 officers; 59,926 men; 12,119 horses.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY STATION AT FREDERICTON.
Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	Has the government yet acquired a site for the proposed new Intercolonial railway station at 1 rederieton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, from whom was it purchased and at what cost?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No site has yet been purchased.
2.	Answered by number one.


GOVERNMENT LANDS AT NEW WESTMINSTER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster)
Has a crown grant been issued for section 9, block 5, N., R. 1. W., New Westminster district? If so, to whom, and on what date?
Frank Oliver: It is impossible to trace the land referred to without the number of the township.


MAIL SERVICE ON CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	Have there been any petitions presented to the government or the Postmaster General, from the citizens along the Rosendale branch of the Canadian Northern railway, in the province of Manitoba, asking for a daily mail service? If so, why have the prayers not been granted?
2.	Is the government aware that there is a daily express on said line?
3.	Is the government going to establish a daily mail on this line?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes. The prayer of the petitioners has been granted.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


RAILWAY COMMISSION.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	Has the vacancy on the railway commission been filled? If not, why not?
2.	How long has the vacancy existed?
3.	When does the government intend to appoint a person to the position?
4.	Has the government any idea who will get the position?
5.	If so, will the person be a practical farmer?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The government has the matter still under consideration.
2.	The vacancy has existed since the death of Mr. Greenway, on the 30th October, 1908.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: 3.	Answered by number one.
4.	Answered by number one.
5.	Answered by number one.


ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. BRADBURY moved :: For a copy of all correspondence with Rev. John McDougall and all instructions given to him regarding St. Peter's Indians and their reserve; and of Rev. John McDougall's report of his investigations at St. Peter's Indian reserve.
He said : I asked a question regarding this matter, which, with the answer of the minister responsible for that department, is in ' Hansard ' of the 5th of December, at page 807, as follow :


Mr. BRADBURY:: 
Hon. Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) By the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
(b) Dr. McDougall was instructed to report as to 'the number of Indians that have removed to the new reserve; the steps that should have been taken to facilitate further removals, and also in regard to the election of chief and councillors which the Indian agent had been instructed to hold.
I understand that the Rev. Dr. McDougall visited the reserve for the purpose of hearing the grievances of the Indians. In fact, I got that impression from the reverend gentleman himself. The answer I received from the (hon. minister is very incomplete, and I presume that the Rev. Dr. has made a report covering his findings on that occasion ; hut I have been informed that he made a verbal report to the minister, so that his findings will not be on record. That is my object in asking for the papers. I would like to ask the minister if my information is correct, or if the papers I am asking for will cover everything that the Rev. Dr. McDougall reported to him regarding the St. Peter's Indians. This is an important question as I said I had a talk with the reverend gentleman myself, and if he has told the minister all he could tell, I know that his report will be a surprise to the hon. members of this House.


Frank Oliver: When my hon. friend asked the questions on the previous occasion, they were answered. One of these questions was : Will the report of Dr. McDougall be laid on the table of the House? The answer was that it would on

a motion being made. My hon. friend makes a motion to-day, and in response to that motion the papers will be laid on the table.


George Henry Bradbury: Is it a full report of this mission, or has he given the minister a verbal report, and only made a partial report of his work in writing?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is asking a very hard question. The Rev. Dr. Mc-Dougall was given certain written instructions, on which he proceeded to 'St. Peter's reserve. When he returned, he reported on the instructions he received, and both the instructions and report will be laid on the table of the House. But if my hon. friend asks me to repeat to the House or place in the form of a return all the conversations which I have had with the Rev. Dr. McDougall, I can only say that I am not able to do it. Unless my hon. friend will alter his motion and ask that the Rev. Dr. McDougall himself be laid on the table, I am afraid I cannot meet his requirements.


George Henry Bradbury: I may say for the hon. minister's information that I will give him an opportunity later on to produce the Rev. Dr. McDougall.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Henry Bradbury: -
For a return showing the total expenses in connection with the surrender of St. Peter's Indian Reserve, including moving the Indians to new reserve, sale of lands, and all the expense made necessary by the surrender.
He said: This motion is made necessary by the fact that when I put a question the other day regarding the total amount expended in connection with St. Peter's Reserve the answer given only gave the amount spent in connection with the auction of the land, some $500. I have reason to know that the expenses have reached from $40,000 to $45,000, and therefore am moving for a return.
of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to a report given out to the press very recently to the effect that the government had decided to refuse the claim of the old settlers in the northwest, who came there between the 1st January, 1836, and the 15th July, 1870, and I would like to ask either of these hon. gentlemen whether or not it be correct that the government has finally refused to entertain their claim.


Frank Oliver: The subject to which my hon. friend refers has been brought to the attention of the government on several occasions, and quite recently it was brought to our attention by a deputation which was in Ottawa yesterday. The request is that the white settlers who came into the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta between 1836 and 1870, that is, between 1836 and the transfer of that territory to Canada, should be granted scrip just as scrip was granted to those white settlers who came in between 1813 and 1836. We have given the matter much consideration, and the decision arrived at is that as the question was settled by the parliament of Canada when it fixed the dates within which white settlers would be entitled to s.crip, which dates were from 1813 to 1836, we did not think it wise, at this distance of time, to review that decision. Another side of the question is, as it was stated the other day by my hon. colleague the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), that the policy of this government in dealing with our public lands is that these lands shall pass into the hands of private owners only on conditions of settlement and cultivation. In other words, that such past action as might be considered the policy of the government with regard to the issue of land scrip for the settlement of claims has ceased.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I beg to give notice that I shall bring the matter before the attention of the House at the earliest convenient opportunity on going into supply.


THE INTEREST ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Perry Graham: In the newspapers there is an error in the report of the answer I gave to a question regarding the completion of certain sections of the Transcontinental. The date in the newspapers is 1911 and should be 1913.


NORTHWEST SCRIP TO OLD SETTLERS.
Arthur Meighen: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and the hon. the Minister
House in committee on Bill (No. 6) to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Miller.


Mr. MILLER.: When we were discussing this measure in committee the other day, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) said that in his province the term ' extension agreement ' was not commonly used. Since then I wrote to the firm of Newsome 'and' Gilbert, law publishers, of Toronto, and asked them to send me a sample copy of the extension agreement they usually sell. They sent me a copy and said that they sell these agreements in all the provinces of Canada, but more in Ontario than in the others. The agreement is called [DOT] an agreement for extension of time undar

mortgage,' and is usually shortly referred to as an extension agreement. The hon. the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) thought that the first part of subsection 1 was not clearly worded. I am not at all wedded to the wording, although I have submitted it to two or three eminent lawyers, who agree that it is quite sufficient, and if my hon. friends think that they can improve the wording I shall. be happy to accept their improvement. I would suggest, in order to meet their objection, that the following amendment should be made:-
Strike out the words in section 10a in lines 7, 8, and 9 so that the section shall read: Whenever any principal money, interest or other money secured by mortgage, made after the passing of this Act, or by mortgage renewed by renewal or extension agreement after the passing of this Act


Mr. BLAIN.: Did the hon. gentleman submit that to the Minister of Justice?


Henry Horton Miller: I did not think that was necessary. If the leader of the opposition would prefer this wording I have no objection to accept it.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The hon. gentleman slightly misapprehended the point of my objection. The point was that the term ' extension agreement ' is not ordinarily used in statutes or legal documents in Nova Scotia. Notwithstanding the authority of these law stationers, I am still constrained to adhere to that opinion after an experience of some years practising my profession in my province. The hon. gentleman's proposed amendment I shall be glad to consider. In the meantime I have had representations from Nova Scotia asking that copies of this Bill be sent to persons interested in it in that province. I have sent a number of copies and would be glad if the hon. gentleman would let his Bill stand until we can hear from these persons. I do not think that the passage of the measure will be delayed in any way thereby.


Henry Horton Miller: I had not the slightest intention of speaking slightingly of the hon. gentleman's knowledge of the law or practice in Nova Scotia when I made the reference to the extension agreement. As to that term, I do not know that it matters much by what name the agreement is called so long as the practice is a common one of using agreements by which the time for the payment of mortgages is extended. Let them call it by what name they will, I think the term ' extension agreement ' will clearly define what we mean. As to the request to allow this matter to stand over for a reasonable time I have not the slightest objection. I move that the committee Mr. MILLER.
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 7) to amend the Companies' Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to provide for full publicity by companies as to their affairs. We are living in a commercial age, and a characteristic of that age is the rapid growth and development of corporations and companies. I admit that it is necessary to the carrying on of large enterprises to have large aggregations of capital, and, to that end, to form companies and corporations. But different people have different objects in forming companies. As the members_of a company avoid personal responsibility, it is natural that people who regard the avoidance of personal responsibility in these affairs as important should turn their business into companies. Quite frequently one main object of a person in forming a company is to avoid publicity as to his interest in the enterprise. When the public, by Letters Patent, or by private Act, creates a corporation, full publicity in connection with that company should be provided for. And this is the object of the Bill. It is the law in every province, as I understand it, that companies incorporated under the provincial authority shall make annual returns to the government as to capitalization, number of shareholders and the financial position of the concern. The Bill now before the House is taken practically verbatim- with necessary changes to suit the Dominion Companies' Act-from the Ontario Companies' Act. This Bill consists of two sections. The first provides that an annual statement shall be prepared and placed in the hands of the shareholders five days before the annual meeting. Under the Dominion Act as it now stands, companies are required to prepare an annual statement and place it in the hands of the shareholders at the annual meeting for the election of officers. I submit that that does not allow those interested sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the statement so as to be in a position to ask questions or criticise the financial statement. The clause in this Bill provides that, at least five days before the election of officers, the company shall distribute a full statement of its affairs. The next section of the Bill deals with the annual statement and summary. I confess that this may not be drafted in the best possible form; it may be within the range of possibility-even of probability-that many amendments will be suggested with a view to perfecting this measure. I would suggest, however, that the principle of the Bill should be adopted by the House, and, if necessary, the measure should be sent to

a special committee, or, possibly, to one of the regular committees, for full discussion.
Hon. CHAS. MURPHY.: Hon. members are aware that there is at present before the Supreme Court a reference to determine the question of jurisdiction in regard to company incorporation as'between the Dominion and the provinces. Now, until a decision on that question is secured from the court of last resort, it is not desirable that there should be any amendments to any essential features of the Companies' Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Why?


Charles Murphy: There have been a great many requests for amendments to the Companies' Act, and I believe it has been the experience of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), as I am sure it has been the experience of many other hon. gentlemen, that legislation for special purposes very frequently leads to trouble. If the requests received from time to time for amendments of the Companies' Act were acceded to, we might find, after a decision is obtained on the question of jurisdiction, that amendments had been made in regard to matters outside the jurisdiction of this parliament. That is the chief reason. However, I was proceeding to say that the amendment embodied in the Bill of my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario), does not extend to the question of jurisdiction. As that hon. gentleman has explained, this proposed amendment has been taken entirely from the Ontario Companies' Act. He has indicated, and correctly indicated, that, in some respects, the amendment does not apply to the Dominion Companies' Act and would require to be materially altered. However, that is a matter of detail. I may just add that, in some respects, the amendment, in my opinion, does not go far enough. It does not provide for all the particulars which my hon. friend says should be in the hands of shareholders at an annual meeting, such as particulars obtained by an audit and verified by an auditor or other person appointed for the purpose. Nor does it provide for enforcing a penalty for failure to comply with such provisions. In other respects, it goes too far,-for instance, in not ^discriminating between a company of a private character and a company of ia public character. As mv hon. friend is aware, there are many companies which, for the purposes of their undertakings, allow their employees, under special conditions, to hold stock in the company. In the ordinary course of commercial business, it is found not to be desirable that the private affairs of these companies should be generally disclosed. That is another detail which can be threshed out in committee. I am disposed to act on the suggestion contained in the remarks of my
hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), and ask that the Bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, so that the necessary changes, can be made and the amendment made applicable to the Companies' Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario) moved second reading of Bill (No. 8) to amend the Railway Act. He said: My amendment to the Railway Act is designed and calculated to amend the section in regard to express companies. Express companies have been peculiarly favoured by legislation, and the object of this amendment is to require that full publicity shall be given to any unclaimed balances or any sums that are unclaimed in their hands. I understand that there are thousands and thousands of dollars in the hands of express companies in the nature of express orders that have been purchased and never been cashed, foreign bank exchanges and foreign drafts. This amendment requires express companies, at the expiration of each year, to send in a full statement to the government of those unclaimed sums remaining in their hands.
The second amendment has to do with the custody of those unclaimed balances after the expiration of one year, requiring that, instead of those moneys remaining in the hands of the company, they shall be transferred to the government as trustees thereof until the person having a legal right thereto establishes his claim and collects them from the government. As I said, express companies have peculiar privileges under our Act, and there is no reason why these unclaimed balances and these large sums that remain in the hands should become part of their assets. The term of one year has been applied to express companies, meaning that they should not retain those moneys longer than one year. My amendment to the Bank Act provides that unclaimed balances shall remain in their hands no longer than six years. The idea of fixing one year for express companies is on account of the nature of the business they are transacting. Banking, of course, is banking business. A man deposits money in the savings bank with a view of safe-keeping and receiving interest thereon. But with regard to an express company the transaction is an entirely different one. When a man buys an express order from an express company he does not deposit his money with' the idea of safe-keeping and receiving 'any'
[Stage Direction]
interest return; he buys the express order with the object of utilizing it. Consequently if he loses that order, or dies, or it is mislaid, and is never cashed in, the company gets the benefit of it. Consequently the term in this amendment is fixed only at one year, so that if these moneys remain in the hands of the express company for upwards of one year they shall then make a return to the government and the moneys shall be transferred to the government as the proper custodian thereof.
There are some features about this Bill which I think must commend it to members on both sides of the House. The principle of publicity, at any rate, even if members do not go the full extent of the Bill, should commend itself to the judgment of both parties. There is no reason why, if there is an unclaimed balance in the hands of the express company, it should not be put upon the same basis as an unclaimed balance in the bank, and the express company should report it annually to the government the same as the banks do at the present time. Whether the House will go with me so far as to say that these moneys should be transferred to the government as the custodian thereof, is another question. That might be considered by a special committee. Let the Bill receive its second reading, and then be passed on to the Railway Committee, or some special (committee, which may fully discuss the principle of the Bill.
Mr. EMMERSON.: I would like to ask my hon. friend if it provides some form of procedure by which the claimant may establish his claim?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: No, that would be a matter of departmental regulation. I think details of that kind could not ba profitably set out in the Bill.


George Perry Graham: There are probably some merits in this Bill, although I admit I do not thoroughly understand it as well as I would like to. The returns my hon. friend requires to be made by the express companies seem to me to be along the line of the returns made by banks. There is a difference in the interval allowed for accounting. The banks carry their balances over five years, under the Bank Act, if I am not mistaken.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: They make a return every year.


George Perry Graham: But the amount of the balances is accounted for every five years. I will not enter into a discussion of the Bill now. The suggestion of my hon. friend seems quite reasonable, and we might refer it to the Railway Committee.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


Mr. SPROULE.: The Banking and Commerce Committee?


George Perry Graham: Possibly. It must be remembered that this is a Railway Bill, it is to amend the Railway Act, because the express companies have been brought under the Railway Act in order to make them amenable to the Board of Railway Commissioners. It might be well to send the Bill to the Railway Committee and from there to a sub-committee, most of whom would be members of the Banking and Commerce Committee.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARVELL moved the second reading of Bill (No. 9) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act. He said: The object of this Bill was set out to some extent at its first reading. It is simply to provide that when potatoes are offered for sale by the barrel, the barrel should contain 160 pounds. We have no standard under our Inspection and Sales Act for the sale of potatoes by the barrel. We have a standard of 60 pounds to the bushel, and there is also a provision that in the province of Quebec when potatoes are offered for sale by the bag, the bag shall contain at least 90 pounds. That went on for some time, and no hardship resulted. About five or six years ago the people of New Brunswick commenced to send potatoes in large quantities to the markets of Quebec and Ontario, and there, by custom, they are sold entirely 'by the bag, a bag containing by custom, not by law, 90 pounds. The result was that the merchants put two bags together and called them a barrel, and by custom potatoes, in the province of New Brunswick, and I think also in portions of Nova Scotia, are bought entirely by the barrel. As long as those potatoes were sold in Quebec and Ontario by the pound it didn't make much difference, because if a merchant bought 180 pounds and sold two bags for a barrel, that made 180 pounds and no hardship was suffered. But during the last two years especially a very large business has been worked up in Cuba. I may say that from my own constituency last year there were at least 200,000 barrels shipped to Cuba, and from the whole province of New Brunswick quite 300,000. This year there is a large quantity being sold also, and some are going not only to Quebec and Ontario, but as far west as Calgary. It works out in this way : When a farmer sells potatoes by the barrel to a merchant it must contain 180 pounds. The merchant sends a barrel of those potatoes to Quebec and Ontario, in which he gives 180 pounds to the barrel.

He sends another barrel of those potatoes to Cuba. At the present time the United States market will not admit Canadian potatoes. When he sends potatoes to Cuba he gives 160 pounds to the barrel. The result is that the merchant is saving 20 pounds on every barrel of potatoes he buys, which he sells to Cuba. I think the law of the United States is 160 pounds to the barrel. In some portions of Nova Scotia, I understand, potatoes are bought and sold by the bushel, but even there, when sold to the Cuban market, they are handled to a great extent by the barrel. Therefore this has become a burning question at least in New Brunswick, and I think it would be a benefit even to Nova Scotia, and no hardship anywhere else, that when by custom potatoes are bought and sold by the barrel, there should be a standard barrel, and every person then will know what he is doing. I realize that the merchant who buys by the barrel of 160 pounds does not, of course, sell again by the barrel if the goods are going to Quebec or Ontario. He sells by the bag, but if he sells the goods to go to the United States he sells by the barrel. He makes no profit out of the farmer to which he is not entitled and he is under no disability when selling to the other markets.
Mr. MICHAUD.: In many places in New Brunswick, and especially in Victoria and Madawaska purchasers, going around buying potatoes, say: We will pay so much for a barrel of potatoes and a barrel contains three bushels. A flour barrel contains less than three bushels, or about two and a half bushels. I want to establish the point that the purchasers of potatoes really pay for two and a half bushels and get three. I think that if there were a standard measure established all through Canada those who are interested in the shipping of potatoes would be benefited by it and I therefore support the Bill of my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. FOSTER.: What minister is this under?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know anything about the local conditions in the various provinces, and I offer no opinion as to this measure, but, I think the minister in charge of the department which administers this Act ought to give us some information on the subject, or else the Bill should stand over.


Mr. CARVELL.: Just before the minister replies, I may state that last year I gave notice of a motion, but at the request of the Department of Trade and Commerce
I withdrew it, and this very section was incorporated in an amendment brought down to this House by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) acting for the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). On account of the press of business during the latter part of the session that government Bill was withdrawn, I had not sufficient time in which to bring the matter up and the result was that it went over. I went to the Minister of Agriculture before the session opened and he told me that he was very much in favour of the principle and advised me to introduce this Bill myself as a public Bill. I have done so, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce are fully acquainted with the provision of the Bill and, in so far as I know, are entirely in accord with it. If you look at the records of the last session of the House you will find a Bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture containing this exact provision.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister or some one ought to say so.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let it stand.
Progress reported.


CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK moved the second reading of Bill (No. 11) respecting Co-operative Credit Societies.
Mr. OSLER.: There are some things in this Bill to which I am opposed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Mr. MONK moved that the House go into committee on the Bill. He said: Perhaps my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) would like to look over the Bill before it takes the committee stage. The Bill was thoroughly examined by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and reported favourably. I do not see my hon. friend here now. It is in charge of the Secretary of State, and he may perhaps wish to look it over, although it has been carefully examined by Mr. Mulvey.
Mr. KING.: My hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) informs me that he is quite agreeable to have the Bill go through the committee to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
On section 5,
Under this Act, societies may be incorporated having for their object or purpose the receiving of moneys on deposit from members and the making of loans to members with or
[Stage Direction]
without security, defined by the petition signed on application for incorporation.
Edmund Boyd Osler: This section gives unlimited power of receiving deposits, which I do not think is contained in any other Act. There is no restriction on the amount _ at all. Further on it is provided that this company may be incorporated by seven persons with one paid up, one dollar, share, apiece. Then they can lend money to themselves with or without security and the amount of money they may take on deposit is absolutely unlimited.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is mistaken in regard to that. There is this limitation, that the only depositors in the funds of the society are the members themselves. That is the rule that obtains in co-operative societies all over the world. The Bankers' Association declared, when this proviso was inserted in the Bill, that they had no objection whatever, to the incorporation, if the taking of deposits and the making of loans were restricted to the members themselves. There was inserted last year by the Banking Committee, a special clause, saying that the minister administering the Bill, that is the Secretary of State, may limit the number and amount of deposits even by shareholders, so that the point of my hon. friend is absolutely badly taken.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, it is true that the money can be received on deposit from a member only, and loaned only to a member, but all that is required of any one in order to become a member is to pay one dollar.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where do you find that?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The shares may be $1 apiece.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no such provision in the Act, by paying a dollar.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The shares may be $1 and seven may be the incorporators.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In all the big banks too, they do very strange things sometimes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: They do. If I wanted to borrow a large sum of money from this company, the company having been incorporated and in existence and receiving deposits of money, I could not borrow that money unless I was a shareholder; but I could become a shareholder, with the consent of the directors, by paying one dollar or taking one $1 share. I say that is no protection at all. This legislation is quite right, if it is carried out in the spirit and the meaning of this Act, but I say that this Act gives an opening for the worst kind of wild cat companies that it is possible to conceive. I understand from the promoter of the Bill that it is intended for the establishment of banks in certain Mr. KING
localities in the province of Quebec, and that it will be a most useful Bill in the districts where it is desired; what I object to, is the possibility of applying this Bill to Ontario and to mining companies and to promoters who would take advantage of such an Act. I say it opens the door to the wildest kind of companies, something which should be most carefully guarded against.
If I remember rightly, the Finance Minister last year was very much exercised about that power, and thought it might be got over by strictly limiting the capitalization in each case, to whatever might be the requirements of the locality, and then from time to time the capital might be increased with the consent of the Minister of Finance, if it was shown that it was going to meet the requirements of the localities where the organizations were brought into effect and required; but without some such restriction as that, this Bill gives the wild-catt promoters and the man who wants to swindle the public, the opportunity of doing it, as no other Bill on the statute-book of Canada does. It would enable any seven people in any locality in Ontario to devise a scheme for the defrauding of the public and to carry it out successfully.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not see why my hon. friend insists in maintaining that by paying a dollar a man can glide into these societies and organize frauds that have never been practised anywhere and which he fears can only be practised in the province of Ontario. This is a form of law which has obtained in every country which has adopted co-operation. They have it in England, in France, in every country, and it is not right to say that by paying in one dollar you can get into such a society. You must become a shareholder. Under what conditions can you become a shareholder? Not by paying a dollar, but by applying for admission into the society and fulfilling whatever conditions may be prescribed for entrance.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the amount of the share?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The shares are fixed by the statute of incorporation, but they may be $5, $10 or $100.


Wilfrid Laurier: Or they might be $1.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They might be $1.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is provided that the share shall not be less than $1, so it may be $1.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not conceivable that one could attach such a small criterion as $1. The objection of my hon. friend was submitted to the Banking Committee last

year, gone into fully and overruled, because it was not thought right to refuse in this country the privilege of co-operation because frauds might be committed. Every precaution has been taken, the law has been extended so as to cover every possible attempt at fraud. The minister has continuous control over all the operations of the society. He has a right to inform himself of what the society is doing and to control its operation, but it is no more possible to exercise fraud and crime with a society organized in this way than it is in the large banks, where fraud has been committed every day by wealthy people. The public is robbed in spite of whatever may be in the law. Because it might be possible, because it is conceivable that some gigantic fraud might be made under this system of law, are we going to refuse" the public of Canada the advantages of cooperation? If my hon. friend supposes that a society composed of seven men, who would have each put in $1, might be able to obtain deposits all over the country and perpetrate the most gigantic frauds on a capital of $7, I do not anticipate that the people in our province of Quebec or in any other province of the Dominion would be liable to be led astray by such capitalization as that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The question of capitalization does not count for very much nowadays. You see every day trust companies holding out their prospectuses and receiving deposits and issuing debentures with no capital stated and no directors named, incorporated by Act of parliament. The object of this Bill, as I understand, is to enable the organization of comparatively small co-operative concerns, absolutely proper and good, and of a nature that should be established. On the other hand, this Bill does not limit it to working in that way. This Bill says that:-
A society may create a capital divided into shares, and the amount thereof, the number of shares and the calls or other payments thereon, shall he determined by its rules, but the amount of each share shall not be less than one dollar. I
I am not assuming for a moment that the object of the promoter of this Bill is to permit the organization of companies that would allow fraud to be perpetrated or outside shareholders to come in promiscuously; but it is provided that no member shall have more than one vote, so that a man with one share would have the same voting power as a man with 10,000 shares. I am not assuming that there will be mismanagement in the honest intention of the men who organize societies under this Bill; but it happens continually that men come
into such societies deliberately to perpetrate a fraud. Under the Bill seven men can become incorporated and open an office, and they can say that they are incorporated under an Act passed by the Dominion parliament. They are not obliged to say what their capital is. They may borrow all the money that people may be willing to deposit with them; they mav borrow without limitation as to amount, and without limitation of interest. We have had cases in Canada of ordinary companies sending men out all over the country from Halifax to Vancouver to canvass for deposits, and these men have been getting a commission of 20 per cent on all the money they got, to the extent of millions of dollars. One of these companies at Toronto had respectable men connected with it; I think it had 10,000 and 15,000 shareholders in Canada. That company has for several years been in process of being wound up by the National Trust Company; and its manager was tried and sentenced to penitentiary. It is much more difficult for such a company to obtain money at present than it would be for a company incorporated under this Act. We have a very strong speculative element in Canada, and a great many unscrupulous men are exploiting that element. Under this Act seven men may form themselves into a company without capital, get a license and open offices. Then they can advertise that they are entitled to take deposits under a special Act of the Dominion parliament; and they are entitled to lend the money so deposited on any security, personal or real estate, or without any security. All that is necessary is to make the borrower a shareholder in the company; and, as the shares are only one dollar, the borrower, by paying one dollar, may take all the funds of the society without any restrictions whatever. That may occur after hundreds of thousands of dollars have been obtained from the public, and before the year is up when the statement required by the Act has to be sent to the government, the fraud may be committed, and the unfortunate depositors may be left with nothing. I would like to see this Bill meet the requirements which I know its promoter has in view; but I am perfectly certain that the Minister of Finance was exceedingly anxious about it, and was giving serious consideration to the question how he could approve the Bill and at the same time have some check over its operation. The check suggested was that the license should limit the capital of a company to whatever might be the requirements of the locality. From time to time that capital could be increased by order in council, if necessary. But if this Bill is passed as it is now, you will simply be placing a premium upon fraud, from one end of the country to the other, where-

ever a combination of seven men choose to form one of these societies.


Wilfrid Laurier: There seems to be force in the objection of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). There may be an answer to his objection, but I do not think the answer has been given in anything that has been said by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. My hon. friend observed that there might be fraud on the part of any corporation, however big it might be. We know that there have been frauds and losses in connection with banks with large capital. But the answer of the hon. member for West Toronto is that the difference between one of these companies and a bank is that the bank has a large capital stock in its treasury, which is a guarantee to the depositors. The hon. member for West Toronto points out, to put an extreme case, that we provide here for the organization of a company which may have nothing but merely nominal capital. Seven members can organize a company, and as the shares may be one dollar each, all the capital stock of the company may be but seven dollars; and upon that the company is allowed to borrow hundreds or thousands of dollars, and all that the depositors have to depend upon is the capital of seven dollars. To that objection there may be a good answer, but the only answer I have heard from my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is that the experience of Europe, where such laws are in vogue, has not shown that there is ground for any such fear. Even if that be so, it does not destroy the strength of the objection made by the hon. member for West Toronto; and I know, as he has said, that the Minister of Finance has the matter in mind, and, if I recollect well, he was not altogether satisfied that there was not some danger. I suggest that my hon. friend had better let that clause stand so that the department might, be consulted in the matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no objection, if it be the desire of the right hon. gentleman, to let this clause stand, but I desire to say a few words with reference to the measure itself. I did suppose that, after having been presented to the House five or six times in five or six years and after it had been shorn last year of every possible objection, after its operations had been limited to credits among the members of the society itself, we would meet with no more objections. The main opposition we have had has come from the retail dealers, a very powerful organization. Every year when we ask for this legislation at the request of the labour and agricultural societies throughout the country we are met by the retail dealers association and our attempts are defeated. Last year we restricted the Mr. OSLER.
measure to co-operative credit societies. It, went before the Banking and Commerce Committee. The Minister of Finance was present at the meetings, ne watched the progress of the Bill, and he did not dissent from the final decision of the committee to approve it, after the assistant Secretary of State had carefully gone over its provisions from a legal standpoint and put it into shape to avoid any objections. It is therefore rather disheartening to find this year the hon. member for Toronto West, (Mr. Osier) objecting again to that clause after he had objected unsuccessfully to it last year before the committee. My hon. friend supposes an extreme case and he might just as well suppose a similarly extreme case under our Banking Act. But he does not speak of the possibility under our Banking Act of banks perpetrating huge frauds throughout the country. We know however, that some of them have done so, and we shall have to alter that Banking Act if we want to avoid such frauds. There is no such danger under the legislation I am proposing. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister spoke of the possibility of a company with $7- capital obtaining deposits throughout the country and making large loans. But how could that be possible under this Bill? A credit and loan company is organized for a particular locality. Its locality is strictly circumscribed, it is limited to a certain village or town which is defined by the Secretary of State at the time of incorporation, and outsjde that locality it cannot carry on its operations. It is also obliged to render an account whenever the Finance Minister requires one. It is obliged every year to send in a statement of its deposits and loans, at any time the minister may insist on its giving a special return, and at any moment he can cancel the society or suspend its operation, so that it is continually under his immediate control. These societies have been organized in other countries and have been eminently successful and do a great deal of good among the poor people. They are to be found in the United States, England, Germany, Denmark-in fact in all the civilized countries of the world. Why then cannot we have them in Canada? Is there greater risk in Canada in allowing our people to continue and form credit and loan societies than there is to other countries? We are told by one hon. gentleman that if we grant incorporation similar to that given in other countries, we will see this country sink under an ocean of fraud. But what evidence is there of that? My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) has referred to a loan society in Ontario, organized under the Ontario law, which had power to do business and did business everywhere, which did obtain loans in every city and defrauded the people. But what analogy is

there between a company of that kind, and the kind contemplated by this Bill? Cooperation is something due to the poor; it is something which our labouring classes have been demanding during ten years. Any number of resolutions have been sent the government asking for this legislation, and it is legislation calculated to do an immense amount of good. I do not think that we should object and prevent its passage particularly at its present stage simply because an hon. gentleman, who is interested in another form of banking totally different and who has very little experience of this particular kind of banking, stands up and declares it is dangerous.


Henry Horton Miller: As far as this Bill is concerned, I think it will be most dangerous. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) says that it is supposing an extreme case when we suppose that seven men, contributing each $1 to the stock, may be incorporated into a loan and credit company. But suppose 7,000 men become incorporated, each contributing $1, you will then have a capital of $7,000, and might obtain deposits amounting to $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. Whether your capital be $7 or $7,000, which in such case would make practically no difference. My hon. friend points out that the Secretary of State has authority to have the books and business inspected at any time. Well, that might be a further aid to the company in defrauding the public. They might put that into their circulars and other advertisements so as to convince the public that, as this society is under government inspection and the minister may inspect it at any time, it is a very safe place in which to deposit money. That provision would therefore increase rather than diminish the danger. My hon. friend says that, under the Banking Act, banks sometimes defraud the people, but that only goes to show that, take what precautions we may, people will be sometimes defrauded, and it only is a lesson for us to be all the more caTeful to protect people against possible fraud. The hon. gentleman further says that a great precaution is in the fact that the loans can be made only to members of the society. That, however, does not mean anything. Suppose a man applies for a loan of $100 and is told that he must be a member of the society before he can get it. He will at once pay in his dollar and become a member. We had an instance of this possibility of easily defrauding the public in the hon. gentleman's own city of Montreal, where a man named Sheldon, without the protection of any legislation, defrauded the people of many, millions of dollars. We do not want any repetition of this, and I cannot think of anything that would better aid a repetition of Sheldonizing than this proposed legislation. My hon. friend gave us to understand that the Minister of Finance
consented to this legislation before the Banking and Commerce Committee last session.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly.


Henry Horton Miller: I cannot take that conclusion simply because he was in the habit of attending the meetings of the Banking and Commerce Committee. I am not sure whether he was present at the meeting at which this Bill finally passed or not. But I know that that particular Bill was before the committee at many sittings last session, and that it was with very great reluctance the majority consented to allow it to pass at all. And they did so, I think, more out of sympathy with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who had, several times before, had the Bill before the committee. I believe they thought it would be well to allow the Bill to pass to be more freely discussed when it came to the House for third reading. I do not think the Minister of Finance was ever personally in favour of this legislation. True, we know that, on more than one occasion, the Committee on Banking and Commerce has gone contrary to the expressed wishes and opinions of the Minister of Finance, and has done things to which he was utterly opposed. I think he was opposed to this legislation, at any rate that he was not at all an advocate of it. I agree with the view expressed by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). I do not think that hon. gentleman has spoken against this Bill because he was afraid that any institution that he is connected with would suffer by it, but because his great knowledge and experience of financial affairs has led him to believe, as I think any man of financial experience must see, that this is exceedingly dangerous legislation.


Mr. PERLEY.: It is only fair for me to say that I understand this matter as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) does. I understood, last session, when this question was brought up in the Banking and Commerce Committee, that the committee was agreeable to this legislation, and the Minister of Finance was agreeable to it also, in the form in which it was finally settled. I asked the hon. member for Jacques Cartier whether the Bill, as proposed, reads verbatim the same as the one passed last session by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and he tells me that it does. I am not particularly interested in this Bill, except that I was a member of the committee, and I think it only fair that I should make a few points plain as I understood them. In the first place, this Bill was intended to allow incorporation only for one electoral district. That is to say, a society incorporated for the city of Ottawa could neither take money from nor lend money to a person who did not live in the city of Ottawa.


Mr. NESBITT.: It is not so provided, I think.


George Halsey Perley: That is the way the Bill read at first, at any rate. There was objection to that from both points of view. Some people said it might be desired to cover two electoral districts, and on the other hand it was said that an electoral district might be too large a 'territory. It was suggested to limit it by districts-giving each society -a -territory of not more than so many miles across. But it was thought that that was not practicable. _ It was agreed, and provided, under section 29, that the minister, when giving the certificate of incorporation, should limit the district within which the society might carry on its business. I think that the Bill was first made to read that the minister ' shall ' limit. All the members of the committee felt that the work of one of these societies should be strictly limited to a specified area; and, under this section, we leave it in the hands of the minister to see that that is done. Another point is covered by section 33, which provides that the society shall neither lend money to nor accept a deposit from any person who is not a shareholder. If a company were incorporated for my county, for instance, Argenteuil, it could only do business in the county, and it could neither borrow nor lend money anywhere else, nor could it go outside its own membership. The feeling of the committee, as I understood it, was that neighbours in a country district'-for this is peculiarly adapted to the country, though it could be used in the city as well-would know one another's circumstances and could safely bring in their funds to such a society knowing that the money could be loaned only to members. It would be a small society with a limited area and could not go beyond the county to do business. I certainly would oppose this in every possible way if it were permitted to these people to go all over Canada to do business- that would be an utterly impossible situation. But, take, for instance, one township in my county. I cannot see what harm would be done if, in that township, a few men went together, put in their little savings and lent them to those of their number who had use for money. If the area is not sufficiently limited under section 29, make it still stronger in this respect. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), who is chairman of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, said that this Bill was passed last session out of sympathy with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. That is not my recollection at all. I understood that the members and also the Minister of Finance were satisfied with the Bill in the shape in which it was passed, and the committee reported it with the hope that it would go through this House.


George Halsey Perley: 


Mr. BEATTIE.: How would you limit this as to distance? The charter covers the entire province, as I understand it.


George Halsey Perley: Section 29 of the Bill provides that the minister, by certificate of incorporation, may limit the district within which the society may carry on business. The intention was that the minister should limit it. Suppose a society were incorporated for the city of London, it would neither receive deposits nor lend money outside the limits of the city.


Thomas Beattie: I do not see why Woodstock, Strathroy or any other town should not have a similar society. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk! referred to the loan societies of Ontario. I do not think that is fair. We have a large number of loan societies, but each of them has a capital of $1,000,000 or more, and these societies are limited as to deposits, according to their capital, and generally are on a very different basis from the societies as proposed here. This society has no stated capital, nor is it limited in the amount it may take on deposit. I think it is a very dangerous thing. It might work out very well in the province of Quebec, but I do not see that it could be useful in the province of Ontario. In our province, any man who has any property at all can get a loan when he requires it at very favourable rates. The effect of these institutions would be to interfere with the work of the loan societies. In the city of London we have three or four loan societies, each with *a capital of from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. They loan money at favourable rates. I have not at hand the exact facts as to how they are limited in their deposits 'and in their borrowing powers, but these points are carefully guarded. But a society such as is proposed here could be composed of seventy men putting up $1 apiece, and they could receive any amount of money.


George Halsey Perley: Only from their own members.


Thomas Beattie: But anybody can become a member, and they could loan any noney of depositors practically without any security at all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: According to my memory, this Bill was the subject of a great deal of discussion in the Banking and Commerce Committee last year. I do not remember whether clause 5, as we have it before us now, is the same as it was passed last year : I take the word of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that it is. But I must say that it looks to me like a very dangerous clause, as illustrated by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), who has had a great deal of experience in this sort of

thing, and whose opinion I value in questions of finance. My memory is, answering the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Per-ley), that we did pass the Bill through committee ; and I told my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier that I agreed to its going through the committee, in order that it might be well discussed in this House, (but that so far as I was personally concerned, I would oppose it in the House. I think he remembers that. The main clause I objected to was clause 24 allowing the withdrawal of capital. I thought that was a most dangerous clause, and I distinctly remember telling my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier that I would oppose that in the House.


Mr. STRATTON.: , When the Bill was before the Banking and Commerce Committee last year it was regarded generally as a dangerous measure. It is true that it has been somewhat improved since it was first brought before the committee, but it still seems to me a dangerous measure. I do not care to say very much against it, in view of my relation with many financial institutions, for fear that I might be accused of opposing the Bill from some sinister motive. But relieving myself of that charge, I desire to say that I think clause 29 is a very dangerous clause. It may be all right in the province of Quebec, and in some of the smaller provinces, but it would not be desirable as a Dominion law. Now clause 29 says :
The minister by the certificate of incorporation and notice thereof in the ' Canada Gazette/ may limit the district within which a society may carry on its business by means of offices or other places for carrying it on, or by means of agents, canvassers or otherwise.
Now, supposing an application came in from the city of Montreal, or the city of Toronto, or the city of Winnipeg, or the city of Vancouver, from an association of seven persons, and toy a small subscription on their part offices are opened and they begin to take deposits and advertise themselves as a loan company, with the powers of a loan company, practically with the powers of a bank. Then the clause referred to toy the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has to be taken into consideration, under which a part of the capital may be withdrawn at any time. So that a person depositing in one of these co-operative institutions, if I understand it correctly, has no means of knowing what the real capital of the company might be. I think the measure is a dangerous one. If it is to become law it should be surrounded with such conditions as would inform the public exactly what the capital really is. I only make these one or two criticisms, because I do not mean to say that 42
I am opposed to the Bill if it is surrounded with the necessary safeguards. But at present, it is open to criticism, and liable to deceive the public as to its capitalization and regular order of business.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am willing to accept the suggestion of postponing the consideration of the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: Only that clause, we can go on with the other sections.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid that the committee as constituted, has not looked over the Bill carefully. It is not a Bill to organize loan societies, it is a Bill to permit poor people to help themselves locally by co-operation. The general idea seems to be in the committee, judging from what we have heard, that this is a scheme for making money. My right hon. friend knows enough about co-operation to know that it is no such thing. It is ito permit seven or more poor men in a village, in a small parish, or in any locality, on application to the minister, to put their liittJe resources together for mutual assistance, instead of having to submit to money shavers to get the accommodation they require. If you start with the idea that it is a scheme to organize a financial company, to make loans, to obtain deposits, you depart altogether from the principle of co-operation. I would suggest that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed; because, if we go on to consider other clauses, we will always be coming back to the discussion of the principle involved, which is one of mutual help amongst poor people, not a money making scheme at all. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), submitted this Bill to the Bankers' Association, with the result that he was satisfied when it came before the Banking Committee., I do not know if the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy), was present at the last meeting. I am not aware that the Bill was passed by the committee merely for my own sake. Although I am a poor man, I am not poor enough to need the assistance of this parliament. This Bill is asked for by a large class of the population in all the provinces. It is not a Bill for the province of Quebec alone, as some hon. gentlemen seem to think, it is a Bill that has been in successful operation in England, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, in fact in every other country except this one. It seems to be capable of working successfully everywhere, except in the province of Quebec, and probably, in the city of Toronto.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the hon. member for , Jacques Cartier is mistaken. Certainly for my part, I am entirely in sympathy



with the object of the Bill. I think the object of the Bill is one that ought to be provided for, either by this Bill or some other. We must consider what the effect of it might be by designing persons getting hold of the powers conferred by the Bill. In discussion before the committee the question was asked as to the probable amount of capital that would be accumulated under it, and I think the answer was that $20,000 would be a large amount, and $80,000 would be the ultimate sum that these societies have in view. I say without any hesitation, that as the Bill is drawn now, it will facilitate fraud. No doubt within three weeks after the passing of the Bill, there will be 50 societies incorporated, with officers and canvassers going round to get money.


Mr. BURRELL.: I do not wish to discuss the merits of this Bill, but I want to utter a slight word of protest as to the method in which it has come before the House. It seems to me that the Prime Minister himself, has always taken the position that this House should accept the recommendations of the standing committees which were expressly constituted for the purpose of sifting out all the difficulties and objections, and drawbacks to the various measures that are brought before those committees, in order to facilitate the work of the House. Now the member for South Grey has laid down an entirely new doctrine, that is the reverse of flattering, either to the committee or to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. He has stated that this Bill, after an elaborate discussion before the committee, after close scrutiny, was reported to the House out of sympathy for the member for Jacques Cartier. If it was reported for that purpose, the sympathy was withdrawn after it got into the House. But the fact remains that the Bill was reported and actually receive the sympathy* and endor-sation of ministers during its discussion in committee. Yet, after passing the committee and coming to this House, hon. gentlemen, including even the member for South Grey, who was chairman of the committee, get up and discover that it is the most dangerous measure that was ever brought before the House. I do not think with all due deference, that these hon. gentlemen have done justice to the hon. member who has introduced the Bill or to the hon. members of the House, who are satisfied to take the report of the standing committee.


Henry Horton Miller: I did not introduce any new principle. Last session there was a certain Bill before the House that was referred to a special committee who reported almost unanimously in favour of the Bill. I remember that the right hon.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) voted, according to the finding of that committee, for the Bill, but that the majority of the House voted against it. I do not know whether that principle was ever introduced before or not, but certainly it was introduced and acted upon last session, so that it is not a new position.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is quite evident that in this House we are all in favour of the principle of the Bill, evert the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr., Osier). But the Bill, I understand, wast considered by the Banking Committee and reported favourably last session. That ought to be sufficient-it is for me, at all events-but when a gentleman so eminent in the world of finance suggests the reconstruction of a clause which has been adopted, even by the Banking Commit-* tee, I think, in the absence of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), I owe it to the House to say that the Department of Finance should be consulted as to the effect of this clause. It may be that the Finance Minister ha^ come to the conclusion that the danger that appears upon the face of it would be eliminated from the fact that this Bill is intended to apply only in one locality1 simply amongst friends, men who know each other, and it may be that thfe Department of Finance may have come to the conclusion that the Bill should be allowed to pass. I simply suggest that) this clause should be allowed to stand so1 that I may consult the Department ofi Finance and have their view upon it. If my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) prefers that the matter shall not be proceeded with until we consult with the Department of Finance, well and good. I have suggested that Tve might go on with the other clauses, but if my hon. friend prefers that no progress be made until this point is settled, I am in his hands as far as that goes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am quite ready to pro-* ceed.	I


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My impression in the committee last session was that a great many clauses were passed because of the opposition of a certain individual whoi seemed to turn the proceedings into a' sort of burlesque. As soon as a clause' was read he would get up and offer objections, but the clause would be carried apparently regardless of him. He was the one who appeared to be fighting the Bill and the committee did not take much stock in what he said. But the impression left on my mind was this: Whereas the Bill is intended for a good purpose, and probably, if honestly worked

out by honest people, would effect a good purpose, dishonest people might make use of it for a very bad purpose and get capital out of people. Designing people could go to others and influence them to join a_society, pay in $1 or $5 each, and by promises of large interest on the money deposited in this society induce individuals to deposit a lot of money. They might deposit just as much as any designing person could get them to deposit. Supposing that half a dozen people wefle working together, that the limit of this society was the limit of the city of Toronto, that they got a thousand people in Toronto to join the society and put in $5 or $1 apiece, with perhaps a dozen people becoming members of the society and putting in $10,000 or $20,000, what is there in the Bill to prevent these individuals lending the money out between themselves and dividing it up? As far as I can see there is nothing at all. The provisions of the Bill would seem to be capable of allowing such fraudulent transactions to take place that afterwards the community would wonder that such a thing should be allowed in the country. I think that is the dangerous part of it. I have seen no clause in the Bill that would provide a sufficient safeguard against this danger.


Thomas Beattie: I am not taking a different course with respect to this Bill from that which I pursued last year. I was opposed to it last year because I did not think the Bill was wanted in the province of Ontario where we have no necessity for suoh a Bill. I would like to ask on what security this money would be loaned. Suppose a gentleman comes and asks for a loan of $5,000 or $6,000, what security is he required to give?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He takes it without giving any security.


Thomas Beattie: I would be very sorry to have any money of mine in a concern that would simply give a man a thousand dollars and take his note for it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) ask if a stranger coming to the society could get a loan?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, but one of themselves.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A member of the society coming to the society for a loan could only get the money from his associates.


Thomas Beattie: By paying $1 he becomes an associate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend say that by paying $1 he is entitled to go and get a loan of $5,000?
42i


Thomas Beattie: There is nothing in the Bill about the security which he would give for the money that he would borrow, so that it is unguarded in that way. The members of the board might lend the money amongst themselves.


George Gerald King: The remarks of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the discussion that has taken place in the House, demonstrate, I think, the wisdom of acting on the suggestion made by the right hon. the Prime Minister of proceeding with the Bill clause by clause. The hon. member for East Grey has just said that he did not see sufficient safeguards in the Bill. The safeguards of one kind and another will become apparent to the committee as it proceeds. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) spoke a moment ago of how the operations of these societies are restricted, first, as to area of operations. He pointed out further wherein their operations are limited as respects the number of people who can borrow or lend in connection with each society. But there are two or three other sections of the Bill to which attention has not been drawn in the committee. Section 35 says:-
Every society shall, at its first general meeting, elect from its members a board of credit of at least three members who shall not be members of the committee or board of supervision or officers of the society, and the president of the society shall be an ex officio member of such board.
2.	The members of the board shall hold office for three years and until their successors are appointed. One-third of the members of th board, who, in the first two years and until the order of seniority begins, shall be chosen by lot, shall retire annually, but shall be eligible for re-election.
3.	No member of the board shall borrow from or be in any way liable to the society.
Then subsection 4:-
4.	It shall be the duty of the board to consider and approve of all loans and investments of funds of the society.
In other words, the only men who can borrow from the society are men who have put some of their own money into it. When a member applies to the society for a loan, the loan has to be approved of by a board chosen by all those in the first instance who put their money into me society, approved of by that supervisory board. But there is a further clause, section 36, which says that there shall also be a board of supervision, and in subsection 3 it is provided :-
The board shall, from time to time, ex amine and audit the books of the society and deposit books of the members; shall supervise the operations of the committee and board of credit; and shall check the cash investment* and securities of the society.

So that you have, first of all, the work of the society limited to men who are known to each other, who are all living in- the same locality, being able only to borrow money which they themselves put into the society, all loans supervised by a committee which they have chosen for that very purpose, and this committee in turn supervised by another committee chosen also from those members who are working altogether to watch the operations of the society. I think that as the committee proceeds with the Bill these various sections which have been inserted to meet just the situation which has been pointed out by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) will become apparent and possibly by the time we have reached the end of the Bill the members will have a very different view as to its purpose.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I had not looked at that section. But that is assuming that the incorporation under this is honest. The point that I take * is that it _ enables dishonest men to become the chief officers of the society and to check themselves. There is no check on that, whatever officers they have control the entire society, they have the appointing of the supervisors, and if they go in to deliberately defraud there is no check except,by the men whom they themselves appoint.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: What provision would the hon. member (Mr. Osier) make in regard to the objection he raises? The trouble is this: The object of the society is to secure co-operative action among different parties intending to borrow money among themselves from some particular members of the community. You may make provisions such that you cannot carry on the work of the society. There must always be some risks and the question is, are the risks greater than they ought to be? If they are greater than they ought to be those who oppose the Bill should be in a position to say how they would guard against undue risk, what provisions they would make and still carry out the provisions of the Bill.
What is the primary object of the Bill? It is a co-operative society to get money cheaper for neighbours amongst themselves. You make all the provisions possible for the purpose of guarding against frauds of any kind, but you may make so many provisions that you cannot loan the money. The trouble is that you cannot make it perfect, you cannot accomplish your object without running some risks. Are the risks greater than they ought to be? If they are greater than they ought to be, some one who is objecting to the Bill ought to give a practical illustration of how he intends to guard against them.


George Gerald King: 


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the risks are infinitely greater than any benefit that could possibly accrue, assuming that all the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) says is right. I think there is only one way of checking this. It was discussed last year, and I thought the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) had agreed to it. That is to strictly limit the amount of capital. It was stated by the promoters of the Bill last year that probably in any district where they proposed to organize such a society, for a year, or, perhaps, two years, the deposits, all told, would not be more than $80,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I never could have made such a statement. It would take them ten years to get a capital of $4,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Then I am not over the mark. What I gathered last year from the promoters of the Bill was that it was intended to operate in a small way among poor people with an absolutely proper object, and that it was a very good way of promoting savings. It was suggested that the Finance Minister, or whoever issued a certificate, should in the first place make some inquiry as to the district, and that the outside capital which would be obtained by borrowing should be limited to some amount, say $20,000. I think one of the men promoting the Bill gave as an outside possibility a deposit of $80,000


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is a very large exaggeration.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If that is the case, while there is, of course, a certain risk, as in all things, you absolutely prevent that Bill being applied to other parts of the country for the purpose of fraud. As the promoter of the Bill says now, $20,000 would be an outside estimate for the first capitalization. If the operations grew from year to year, application would be made to the Finance Minister and to Council and a certificate given to increase the capital, tout if we should limit what is really in the mind of the promoters of the Bill, to say $20,000 to begin with, we would have a maximum amount of money which would absolutely prevent any temptation to people elsewhere to take advantage of the Bill. That is a simple solution and if that was accepted most of the other clauses would be quite safe, and we could thoroughly trust the people who organize and go into such a society to guard themselves.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let clause 6 stand?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I -was going to suggest that it would be an advantage if members of the committee had time to read over the Bill. The Minister of Labour is familiar with this Bill tout many of the members I of this committee have not read it and I

think time would be gained if we could postpone its consideration altogether. I am in the hands of the committee. I am not seeking this legislation for myself -but for a large class of people and I would say to my right hon. friend and to the committee that similar legislation exists in almost every country. This Act is copied practically from the English Friendly Societies Act and there is similar legislation in France, Belgium, Austria, Germany and Italy ; in fact I do not know of any country in Europe where they have not such legislation. They have it now in the United States. They are passing a Bill absolutely similar to this in Massachusetts at the present time. If I mention that it is because it seems to me that if such legislation has been found useful and necessary in other countries, we can afford to consider it here. What co-operation has done in European countries is known, I suppose, to some members of this House. It has worked miracles, it has enabled poor people to get rid of shavers and others who loan money at very high rates of interest. It has completely altered the population where it has been established and helped to build up local wealth. The trouble is when one comes to consider this legislation one is apt to think that this is a society established with a view of making money. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) speaks of a limit of deposits of $80,000 or $20,000, These societies start in a small community with a capital of $200 or $300. No one would be foolish enough to deposit a large amount with a society having a capital of $200 or $300. We started one in Levis. It is twelve or fifteen years old, and it has to-day a financial movement of about $75,000 ; but that represents fifteen years of patient work in a population that is rather well-to-do and in a society that has been encouraged. In addition to the checks mentioned by the Minister of Labour, there are the returns to the minister. This legislation has for its object to permit poor people to do what big people are doing every day-organizing banks and financial associations. It establishes a link between these institutions and poor people. If hon. members of the committee will take time to read the Bill and analyze its clauses, the discussion will be shorter.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the members of the committee who have not read the Bill are waiting for an opportunity to do so, this is the time. If they do not read it now, they will not read it at all. If you proceed with the Bill clause by clause, perhaps the objections will be dispelled, when we see the precautions taken to prevent aJbuse of the legislation.
On section 20,
Every officer of a society who receives or has charge of money, shall, before taking upon himself the duties of his office, become bound, either with or without a surety, as the committee may require, in a bond according to one of the forms set forth in Schedule C to this Act, or such other form as the committee approves, or shall give the security of a guarantee society, m such sum as the committee directs, conditioned for his rendering a just and true account of all moneys
received and paid by him on ^^Lunint society, at such times as its rules appoint or as the society or the committee thereot requires him to do, and for Tie Payment bj him of all sums due from him to the society.


George Eulas Foster: Take the words ' either with or without a surety as the committee may require ' does that make the requiring of sureties optional?


Mr PERLEY.: As I understand it, there must be a bond, but the committee may say whether that bond shall be with or without surety.


Mr STRATTON.: I suppose that the real object is that in a locality there might be an individual acceptable to and they might allow him to take the office without giving a surety.


George Eulas Foster: But a bond is obligatory.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, he gives a bond. In the beginning of the society the amount received is so small, that a surety may not be required.
On section 24,
The capital of the society may, subject to the rules, he increased by subscriptions for new shares or the admission of new members, and it may he diminished by withdrawals.


George Eulas Foster: Can withdrawals be made without reference to the minister?


Mr MONK.: It is absolutely necessary to allow members to withdraw or you might as well give up the whole Bill. When a man puts in his small amount, it must be understood that he is able to withdraw it when he sees fit, otherwise it would be impossible to get these societies started. That is the experience of co-operative societies throughout the world. Why should he not withdraw the amount he has put in? When he enters he pays something as a right of entry, and an amount is retained on the profits which he loses if he withdraws. All he gets back is the amount he puts in.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is where the trouble
arose in the committee last year. It is perfectly right to allow a member to withdraw his deposit, but absolutely unfair to allow him to withdraw his membership. All the members might withdraw, and no notice is required. The hon. gentleman will not find that in the English Act.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I assure my hon. friend there is such a provision in the English Act.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot find it, and I looked for it. If a man wants to leave the society, let him sell his membership, there will be no difficulty in his doing so especially if there are any profits coming to him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A man joins one of these societies and takes, say, a share or two. On entering he pays a small fee, and every year there is withheld a certain amount on the profits that constitute a reserve. He does not withdraw his membership fee, but only the amount he put in.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not want to prevent his withdrawing his deposit, but he should not be allowed to withdraw his share or right of membership.


Wilfrid Laurier: If one can withdraw, so could any number, and how would that affect the credit of the company?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No doubt if they all combined together to withdraw on the same day, they have the right to do it. But that has never happened. A man wants his capital back and he withdraws. If you suppose that on the same day, by common consent, they all arrange to withdraw, the society is broken up. But they are all in the same box. No one can make a deposit unless he is a member, and no one can make a loan unless he is a member, and you must trust to a certain extent to their common sense. They do not withdraw in that way in other countries, and if they should they would all suffer.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is considering what has happened in other countries, but these societies have not been in vogue in this country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We held a long inquiry which went into the working of these companies as they exist in other countries, let my hon. friend read that.


Henry Horton Miller: My -hon. friend has said that these societies will serve -a good purpose in small communities among men of small means, handling small sums of money, but there is no,thing in the Act to limit the amount of shares which any one person may hold. These small communities are the very worst possible points in which to get up a panic. Until a few years ago we had in Ontario a considerable number of private banks, many of which went into liquidation, not because they were not solvent, but because for some reason or other the people became suspicious and panic ensued. Now, in just the kind of communities that my hon. friend expects -Mr. NESBITT.
these societies to operate in, if the man in charge of the funds is seen some day driving a new carriage or doing something else that his neighbours may consider extravagant, they will very likely jump to the conclusion-some of them at least,-that this is being done with the money of the society. And thus, not through conspiracy, but through fear, they may rush to withdraw the money they have put in. A panic is sure to follow. They will not be able quickly to realize on their assets, and there will be a loss, greater or smaller, as the money in the treasury may be more or less.


John Graham Haggart: We have in this discussion a most anomalous position. My hon. friend from Yale-Oaribou (Mr. Burrell), brought it out in what he said with reference to the standing committees of this House. Here is a Bill reported back by the leading standing committee of this House, and the ohairman of that committee rises and opposes the very principle of the Bill. That is a thing that never occurred in this House before. The duty of the government is clear, as laid down by my hon. friend. It is to support the report of the committee unless-a very exceptional case-some amendment has been found necessary between the report and the bringing of the matter up in the House. In such a case, they should be prepared with a statement on the subject, and should move to refer the Bill back to the committee for the purpose of amendment. But surely it is an anomalous, and, fortunately, an almost unheard-of thing, for the chairman of a committee to oppose a Bill that has been passed by that committee and sent to this House for approval.


Henry Horton Miller: I do not think there is any anomaly in the matter. If any one member of this House has a better right than another to object to this Bill now, it is I, and for the very reason that I am chairman of the committee. This Bill was before the 'committee last year. Being in the chair, I had not an opportunity to object to it as I have to-day. But my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), must not blame me for doing that which he, himself, has done. Last session, a Bill was referred to a special committee. That committee reported favourably, but when the matter came up, he voted against the BUI and against the report of the committee.


John Graham Haggart: What analogy is there between the two cases?


Henry Horton Miller: The cases are parallel.


George Halsey Perley: Did the chairman of the committee vote against the Bill in the House?


Henry Horton Miller: No.


Mr SPROULE.: The case cited by the hon member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has not very much force here for this Bill has not been sent to a committee this session. It was last year that the Bill was submitted to a committee and reported favourably. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) might very properly, in the meantime, change his mind with regard to the whole Bill and oppose it this session at every stage.


Edmund Boyd Osler: This section 24 should be left over, as it is one of me greatest consequence. A society may be formed for Toronto, Winnipeg or London, and may have a capital of half a million. The shareholders put in their money, and the society receives a deposit. There is nothing to prevent any large depositor from taking out his money without notice. That, surely, is not right.


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as I am concerned, the argument that would induce me to vote for the clause is the statement of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that this is a copy of the existing law in England. I see great force in what is stated by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). But my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier says that the experience in England is against it and that this is a copy of the English law.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think I am correct as to the law in England. You cannot possibly organize a society of this kind in a poor district if a man is not sure that he is able to withdraw his money when he desirese to do so. My hon. friend from West Toronto is always imagining societies of hundreds of thousands of dollars, with great depositors suddenly withdrawing their money and so on. All this is theoretically possible, I suppose, but it is not what the Bill contemplates. I will get the English law with regard to withdrawals.


Wilfrid Laurier: The object of this Bill, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) says, is to permit a small company to be organized in a rural district among the poorer classes of the community. That is a good object. But I see great force in the objection of the hon. member for West Toronto that there is no limitation in the Bill. There is nothing to prevent speculators organizing a society on a large scale and speculating in it. _ If there were in this Bill any provision-which I fail to see-that it is to be limited only to the class of people spoken, of by the hon. member (Mr. Monk), I could see much greater force in his case. But the Bill is so framed that the objections raised by my hon. friend from West Toronto are not met.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The check against anything occurring such as is contemplated by my
hon. friend from West Toronto is in the fact that in these societies each shareholder has only one vote and there is no voting by proxy. The result is that nobody embarks any large sum of money in them. That is. essential to a co-operation society of tJi.s kind. It stands to reason, and it has been found by experience that, with a provision of this kind, no large ^capitalist or speculator will embark in the enterprise, for they have no more voting power, man for man, than the other shareholders.


George Gerald King: There must be some mistake on the part of my hon. friend, the member for Jacques Cartier. I have here a copy of the Industrial and Provident Societies " Act of Britain, under which all the cooperative societies of that country, I think, are incorporated. Section 19 provides:
No registered society which has any withdrawable share _ capital shall carry on the . business of hanking.
I think, under the circumstances it would be well that this clause should stand to be considered when the other clauses we have reserved are taken up later.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no objection to that. But what my hon. friend (Mr. King) says reminds me that there are other reasons in connection with the English Act m support of this clause which I can point out when the clause comes up again.
On section 25:	, ,
Any other corporation may, if its constating instruments permit, hold shares m a society; hut the society shall not lend any part of its funds to such other corporation until the minister has given his consent to such loan.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It means that an agricultural society, for instance, may take shares, but the co-operative society shall not loan any of its funds unless the minister gives his consent to such loan. It often happens that a small agricultural society, or local circle, may desire to take some snares in this society, and it may do so, but the society itself cannot loan any funds to such corporation unless the minister permits it.
On section 26-votes and proxies.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That also applies to a small company.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is my hon. friend opposed to voting by proxy? Because that is at the very basis of co-operation. There must be only one vote. But you must make an exception if the society happens to hold shares in a co-operative society.


Edmund Boyd Osler: All these objections should be removed. If the company is limited to the small field that it is intended to cover, that clause might pass. But if it is to apply to large companies permitted under this Bill, I think it is entirely objectionable. If

you say that the certificate issued bv the Finance Minister limits the capital to $20,000, and if evidence shows him that the business is extending satisfactorily, they may increase the capital to $40,000 or $50,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is already the Act. The minister, in authorizing the company, may fix a limit beyond which it cannot go. But if my hon. friend wishes to fix it at $20,000 I am willing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If you do not fix a limit you allow companies to be organized in Montreal or Toronto with an unlimited capitalization.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What this clause consecrates is a principle universally admitted, that there must be one vote and no proxy. We have reserved a couple of clauses which will enable us to limit the capitalization.
ance Minister to extend the privileges of these companies?


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. member has been arguing all the way through that this will involve only small transactions and that no large sums wall be risked.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend has read anything with respect to the development of these societies in Europe he will know that there has been an accumulation of a hundred million francs in some cases.


Henry Horton Miller: I have read a good deal and I have listened a good deal. I have listened to the claim set forth that it will only be a business of small transactions. I have listened to the hon. gentleman himself say that in Milan and elsewhere the transactions went into millions. He cannot argue one way one time and another way another; he cannot blow hot and cold.


George Gerald King: The objection of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is fully met by the provision which requires the minister to approve of the rules, and among the rules is one stating the maximum number of shares which shall be held by a member, the maximum amount received by a society on deposit, and the maximum amount which may be received from or loaned to a member.	[DOT]
On section 27, Register of members or shares.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the meaning of the words ' or agreed to be considered as paid on any such shares '?
Mr. MONK moved that the words ' or agreed to be considered as paid on any such shares ' in the seventh and eighth lines be struck out.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the intention is to confine the work to small places, why not put in a limit of $20,000? That would prevent the organization of any larger company.


George Gerald King: The minister can always refuse to incorporate a company and'limit the scope of its operations, the Act gives him that power.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is it the intention of the promoter that the society shall have more than one vote?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The society has but one vote, but the society votes by proxy.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If it is accepted that the capital be limited in the first issue to $20,000, I am willing to let the clause pass.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it should be left to the ^ minister, as suggested under the observation of the Minister of Labour. When the Finance Minister grants existence to a society, he fixes the limit beyond which it cannot go. Why should we not leave him that discretion? Why should we say that these few poor people should be limited to $20,000, although their affairs may be prospering, and that they should not go beyond $20,000, as rich people may? Why should we not treat poor people as well as rich people? In Milan, Italy, banking societies have raised their funds to millions, by dmt of perseverance and care. Why should we not leave discretion to the Fin-


Edmund Boyd Osler: Section as amended agreed to.


George Halsey Perley: May I be allowed to ask a question with respect to section 26? It has been suggested that the word ' member ' might not include an incorporated company. The intention of this was that an agricultural association would only have one vote and should be counted as a member. I thought that the clause was plain enough, but it has been suggested that it should be amended so as to make it perfectly clear that no company should have more than one vote. I think the word ' member ' should be explained.


George Eulas Foster: It is not explained in the interpretation.


George Halsey Perley: I looked at the interpretation clause and it is not there.


Martin Burrell: It does not leave it very clear as to whether in incorporated societies there should be a number of votes corresponding to their shares or whether an individual member shall only have one vote.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The interpretation might be amended easily enough-.
On section 28, dues of members.


George Halsey Perley: With regard to section 26, I move reconsideration and I propose to put in after the word ' member1 in the first line the words ' individual or corporate/ This is a point that I think should be made very clear. This is one of the main

things in this Bill which recommended it to me that no association, no matter how many shares it might hold, would have more than one vote. This is a very essential thing with regard to the Bill.


Henry Horton Miller: While you are reconsidering section 26, I think it is very vaguely worded in other respects.
No member shall have more than one vote, and voting by proxy


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I rise to a point of order. It seems that my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) is out of order. We have reconsidered section 26 for a particular purpose and, that purpose having been disposed of, I do not think my hon. friend is at liberty to proceed.


Henry Horton Miller: The motion was to reconsider section 26.
No member shall have more than one vote, and voting by proxy shall be allowed only when shares are held by an agricultural association

And so on. It seems to me that one meaning that might quite clearly be taken is that when any of the shares are held by an agricultural association, a municipal body, or a school board, every person may vote by proxy. I do not want to obstruct, but I think the meaning is not clear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the section is perfectly clear.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is proposed to amend the first section by adding, after the word ' member,' the words ' individual or corporate.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall the section as amended be agreed to?


Henry Horton Miller: I would like to have time to prepare an amendment. I, with other members sitting around me without endeavouring to obstruct the Bill, Would like to give some meaning to it and I would ask the promoter of the Bill whether he does not think that the meaning that I have suggested might be taken from it. I think that, with the section as we have amended it, it is clear that if any shares are held by an agricultural association, or a municipal body or a school board, every member may vote by proxy.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not understand it in that way. I understand that proxies can only be exercised in favour of those bodies when they hold shares.


Henry Horton Miller: If that is the meaning it does not express it. If the section could be allowed to stand with the others I think an amendment might accomplish what my hon. friend desires it to accomplish.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no objection.


George Gerald King: I move that the section be amended striking out the words in the second line ' when shares are ' and inserting in lieu thereof the words ' on shares ' so that it will read ' voting by proxy shall be allowed only on shares held by an agricultural association,' &c.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 29, district may be limited.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it would have been better to have put in the word ' shall ' instead of ' may ' in the second line. I therefore move that the word ' may ' in the second line be struck out and that the word ' shall ' be inserted in lieu thereof.
- Amendment agreed to.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I also move that in the last line the words ' canvassers or otherwise ' be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Halsey Perley: This is one of the crucial clauses of the Bill. Originally, this clause was limited distinctly to one electoral district. It is left now to the discretion of the Minister. By changing the word ' may ' to ' shall ' it would be so clear that any Minister of Finance would understand that he was expected to limit the distrifct within which any particular association can act. But it would still be within his power to give a license to one of these associations to cover a whole province. That ought not to be. . I sympathize very much with some of the things which have been said by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), in that particular. The York Loan Company has been instanced. In considering this Bill, one of the main things I would have in view would be to prevent anything like the York Loan happening, and if this Bill was properly drafted, the great losses which occurred on account of the York Loan, could not occur through an association incorporated under this Act. I still do not like that clause exactly as it reads. I think, if possible, there ought to be some way of so wording it, that the minister could not give a license to an association to act throughout a province. I think my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is quite satisfied with that view of the case, but there is difficulty on account of the wording of it. Personally, I would prefer to see that clause further limited than it is at present.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no difficulty about the point raised by my hon. friend. The problem we had to cope with was how to limit it. It is very easy to say, for instance, that a society of this kind shall limit its operations to a parish or to a

counity, but it was pointed out that there are poor people in cities too, workingmen who might like to organize themselves into a co-operative loan and beneficial society, and it would be difficult to limit such a society by an electoral district, so we thought it best to allow the minister himself to fix the limit. For instance, in a city like Montreal or Toronto, the minister would say: Your operations are limited to the cities of Montreal or Toronto. It would be difficult to set down as a limit in the statute, the electoral district, but if it has to be limited, I have no objection if my hon. friend can suggest something.


Edmund Boyd Osler: There we come exactly to the danger I have been insisting on. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), has stated that I have been raising simply a shadow of a danger, that the operations of this Bill are going to be confined and are confined to small areas and districts. He now objects to the limitation because, forsooth, this must be made applicable to larger cities like Montreal and Toronto. If the Minister is. applied to for a license, under this Act for the organization of a company in Toronto or Montreal, or Winnipeg, or any large city, it would be almost impossible foT him to refuse a capitalization of two or three or five hundred thousand dollars. Here is an Act of which people are invited to make use. There are a lot of people in Toronto and Montreal who might apply under this Act to incorporate a company on the only scale that would be of any use in that district, and that at once gives the opportunity of perpetrating these frauds that I fear would take place.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no proxy in voting, each shareholder has the one vote.


Edmund Boyd Osler: For a small concern, that is quite right, but for a laTge concern, that gives the very power they want, they can control it, having seven votes, no matter how many others have. That is absolutely a danger in a large concern.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It has never been found to produce that effect anywhere in the world.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It would be found to produce it here very quickly, there is no doubt about that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no objection to any clause limiting it in any way if any one will suggest the clause.	.
_ Mr. KING. In connection with the loans in cities, I think it desirable to make an observation that comes to my mind in connection with the remark of the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie). He said that in all large cities there were any number of loan societies from which a man could obtain a loan. That is perfectly true, Mr. MONK.
if he has security to give, but what about the man whom this Bill is intended to make provision for, who had no other security to offer than his personal character, or the vouching of some personal friend, it will be seen that this suggestion does not apply. For instance, at the beginning of a building season a man engaged in a building trade may want to get a kit of tools. He may have no money to get the tools with, but he is known to the other members of the society; he goes to them and asks an advance without security, promising to pay back the money at the end of the year, or, perhaps, at the end of the building season. They know him, they have their money in the society and they say: We know you; we will advance this money to you. Then, at the end of the season, he pays back the loan he has had, with interest; but in the meantime he has been able to get his kit of tools and go on with his work. What man thus situated could get that loan from a loan society in a large city? That is -why it is important that this Act should apply to cities as well as to the country. For my part, I think_ it will be taken advantage of in the cities even more than in the country.


Edmund Boyd Osler: One of the great reasons advanced in support of this Bill was that this was to be applicable to country districts where members of the society would know each other, would have confidence in each other and would take each other's word. I have had some experience in city life and know something of mechanics. Mechanics are changing about constantly, and there could be no such combination among mechanics in cities. No good mechanic wants to borrow money to buy tools. The condition to be found in country districts where the members know one another's characters are not at all applicable to city life, to the great body of workmen.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend certainly does not know anything about it, because there is nothing truer than what the minister has stated. It is in cities where cooperation exists that it does the chief good, and when I heard the member for London (Mr. Beattie) saying a moment _ ago that there -were plenty of loan companies in Ontario which could fulfil this mission it seemed to me that my hon. friend from London did not know very much about it, because down in Montreal, or in any other city, a workman who wants to purchase a set of tools, or to finish his house, or to buy a little lumber to commence the erection of a house, does jiot get that money from a loan company; the loan company would not give it to him; every one knows that. He will get it in these credit societies, where he is known, and the loan is made, not upon any security, because he has none to offer,

but on the guarantee of his moral character. So there is great need, indeed, of societies of this kind among the workingmen, or else why should they have asked yearly for the last ten years for the enactment of this legislation? Is it because they have loan companies in abundance prepared to furnish them with accommodation at a low rate? Evidently not. It is useful in the country parts and in the cities for the reason indicated by the minister, but I say again there is no objection to the Minister of Finance limiting the scope of each society. I think we ought to have some confidence in the party who is charged with the administration of the law. He can perform no end of fraud, but we have confidence in him; we manifest that confidence in statutes which we pass every day. Why should we not leave to the Secretary of State, who has charge of the administration of this law, the defining of the limits? Is he also dishonest? Is he necessarily going to perpetrate or lend himself to a fraud? It seems to me we may leave it to him, but if any one can suggest a way by which the scope of the society can be restricted there is no objection at all to such a restriction.


Mr. VERVILLE.: We have one of these societies in Montreal, and I know that it is doing a great deal of good, especially among the working people. Before it was established, any man who wanted to borrow a little money hatd to go to a money shark, and in order to get it he would sign almost anything. It was to prevent abuses of that kind that these societies were authorized under the provincial Act. The society lends money to poor men to buy homes or to furnish their houses, and the only guarantee it asks is the good-will of the borrower. This has worked so satisfactorily among the working people of Montreal that we have not found a single dishonest man borrowing money from the institution. This is due to the caution exercised by the committee or the board. This thing is demanded, not only by the working classes, but by the farmers. A number of men in Montreal have homes of their own which they would not have had but for this society. It has a charter under the provincial Act, but that is liable to be withdrawn at any moment, and we believe it would be more safe guarded under a federal Act. I know that all the hon. members of this House want to protect the workingmen, but some of them only look at one side of this measure, ignoring the good side of it. I do not think you will find, in Montreal or anywhere else in Canada, any workingmen who will be likely to act dishonestly in connection with one of these societies formed under this Act.


George Halsey Perley: I propose that the following be added at the end of this section: ' But no society shall be allowed to do business over a greater area than that comprised in one electoral district.'


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We had that proposition in the committee, and we could not agree to it there, because the head office of a company might be on the border of an electoral district, and there is no reason why its area of business should not extend across the border.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The argument of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that we can surely trust the Secretary of State to carry out the Act, does not appeal to me with great force. It seems to me there ought to be something in the Act itself which would indicate the principle on which the rule should be applied. While the present Secretary of State may be quite familiar with what is intended by this law, after hearing the arguments here, there might be another Secretary of State at some future time who had not heard these arguments would be guided solely by what he found in the Act.


George Gerald King: As pointed out by the hon. member^ for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt! there might be a group of men living side by side, divided only by a line defining an electoral district. In these cases some officers of the department would examine the application and report upon it to the minister. The minister is not likely to give his sanction without a careful examination of the situation, and it seems to me it would be safe enough to leave that measure of discretion with him.


George Halsey Perley: There is nothing in the Bill to show that it was the intention of parliament that an association should be limited in its operations to a small section of the country, instead of being allowed to do business say over the whole province of Ontario.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Suppose the area were limited to a radius of ten miles from the office.


George Gerald King: The words of the section indicate that it is the intention of parliament that the area should be restricted.


George Halsey Perley: Suppose the Secretary of State decided to limit the area to the province of British Columbia. That would not be the intention of the Act.


George Gerald King: I think the sense of responsibility of the minister would be sufficient to cause him to use great caution.


Henry Horton Miller: It seems to me that there is nothing in the wording of the section

to prevent a society, within the limits of the territory fixed by the minister, by means of circulars or newspaper advertis-ments, gathering in business from the ends of the earth, so that the Sheldon business might be repeated over and over again.


George Gerald King: The sending out of circulars would not have any effect on the business
of the society, unless it brought about by an addition to the membership of the society, and the addition to the membership is circumscribed by the limitation which the minister puts on the business. If the minister decides that a society shall do business only in the city of Toronto, the sending of circulars all over Ontario would not have any effect, because only persons resident in Toronto could become members of the society. The fact is to be kept constantly in mind that operations are limited to persons resident in the district and who put their money into the society.


Henry Horton Miller: I do not think that in the Act it is provided that no one can be a member unless he resides within the limited area fixed under section 29. I do not believe there is any one in this House opposed to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier carrying out the object he seeks to accomplish, but I fear that he does not see the danger that may be contained in this measure. I think it would foe wise to refer this whole Bill back to the committee or at any rate such sections as are held over, and that the hon. memoer for Toronto (Mr. Osier) the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) and the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) should be members of that committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot accept that proposition at all. A Co-operation Bill has been before parliament for nearly eight years and passed these stages on two or three occasions. Last year it was put through a very serious examination in the Committee on Banking and Commerce. This year it was agreed that we should take it up in Committee of the Whole and my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) even suggested that we should go on with the Bill reserving certain clauses for further consideration. To that I have no objection, but to ask that we should begin all that labour again is not fair to those who are promoting the Bill and is particularly unfair to the working classes who have asked for this legislation.


George Eulas Foster: Where does the Minister of Labour get his authority for saying that membership must be restricted to a particular area defined by the minister?


George Gerald King: The clause might restrict its business to a certain area.


Henry Horton Miller: 


George Eulas Foster: But not its membership. The membership may foe gathered from all parts of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That may be limited in the rules but is not in the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: The Bill does not provide that the society cannot take any business or membership outside of that. Again there is a motion to strike out the words ' by means of agents, canvassers or otherwise.' That requires some thought. It seems to me that membership can be taken outside the district and if every member has a right to deposit, there are no restrictions as to where they shall get their deposits from or to whom they shall make loans.


George Gerald King: I had in my mind that the words ' by means of agents, canvassers or otherwise ' would remain in the section.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: On the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier these words were struck out.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There seemed to be so much difference about these co-operative societies that I thought it would foe well to get rid of the idea of canvassing. In Europe there is no provision limiting the operation of these societies to a particular locality. That would be considered absurd. I am not familiar with the English law but on the continent that idea never entered the minds of any one. The idea of limiting the operations of these societies has only originated in this country and this legislation is entirely new and strictly Canadian.


George Gerald King: I would suggest that we should allow the section to stand as it is with these words in.


Henry Horton Miller: Add to that the suggestion of the hon. member tor Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) to which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier agreed and say that no man shall be a member unless he resides in the district.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment in my hands is that the words ' no society shall be allowed to do business over a greater area than that comprised in one electoral district ' be added to the end of the section.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This is most objectionable. If these societies are beneficial they should not be limited to one electoral district. Take a small city with two representatives such as Hamilton, why arbitrarily limit the society to an electoral district. As the hon. member for North Oxford pointed out the head office of the company might be situated alongside another electoral district. Why, therefore,

limit it to the one? I should leave that to the discretion of the minister.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would suggest that the clause toe reinstated in its original form and passed. We had all these arguments for hours before the committee and I remember distinctly that the word ' may ' was put in in place of ' shall ' because at times it would not be necessary for the minister to restrict, and we added purposely ' canvassers or otherwise ' so that they could not canvas by circulars. I would suggest that we leave the clause as it originally stood.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved that the clause read as follows:
The minister, by the certificate of incorporation and notice thereof in 'The Canada Gazette,' shall limit the district within which a society may carry on its business by means of offices or other places for carrying it on, or by means of agents, canvassers or otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 31,
Every society shall lay aside at least ten per cent of its yearly net profits in order to establish a guarantee fund to meet losses, and until the said guarantee fund is equai to the maximum amount at any time of the paid-up share capital and deposits; and if the said maximum amount of paid-up capital and deposits is reduced by withdrawals the said fund shall be maintained at the said maximum amount notwithstanding such subsequent reduction, and the said yearly addition to net profits shall continue to be laid aside until the said guarantee fund has reached the aforesaid maximum amount of paid-up share capital and deposits, or in case the said fund is impaired by losses, after it has reached the said maximum, the said yearly addition shall be again laid aside until the said fund is completed.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I desire to state the circumstances under which this was added. I now remember that it was pointed out that in England, in a co-operative society that does any banking business, withdrawals are not allowed. There is a clause to that effect which the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) quoted a few moments ago. On the continent, it is the uniform rule to allow withdrawals without restriction in these credit and loan societies. There is also the fact that credit and loan societies have not been very successful in England, at any rate not as successful as on the continent. Co-operative trading societies in England have had an immense success, but the credit and loan feature has not been as successful as on the continent-I mean people have not gone into them in England as much as on the continent. We thought that this clause would be a fair compromise-to set aside ten per cent of the net
profits as a guarantee fund, that fund to be added to until it equals the total amount of paid-up capital. The shareholder is obliged to contribute to the guarantee fund, and, that done, withdrawals are allowed. I think that is a very fair compromise. The section was examined with great care last year.


George Gerald King: I would suggest that, as we have held section 24 and as this section, number 31, relates to it in a way, we might let the section stand also to be considered when section 24 is taken up.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall the consideration of section 31 be postponed? Carried.
On section 32,
A society shall invest its guarantee fund in public security of the government of Canada, or of a province thereof, or of a municipal corporation, school board or fabrique d'eglise, or may loan from such fund to such municipal or incorporated bodies upon the security of their general credit-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose this society loans from its guarantee fund to a municipal body upon the security of its general credit, would that be regarded as reducing the guarantee fund below what is provided for in the previous section? Suppose the society had a guarantee fund of $1,000, and loaned $500 to a municipal corporation on the security of its general credit, would they have to make that up to meet the conditions?
On section 36,


Henry Horton Miller: I cadi attention to the first line of subsection 3:	' The board
should from time to time examine and audit.' It seems to me those words mean nothing. I would suggest: 'The board shall from time to time, and at least once in every quarter.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is provided for further on in the Bill by the yearly audit.


Henry Horton Miller: Does the hon. member think that is carrying out the intended meaning of section 3?	' The board should
from time to time ' would be considered to mean more frequently than once a year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no objection to accept the hon. gentleman's suggestion. That is generally determined by the laws of the society.
Progress reported.


George Eulas Foster: What will be taken up to-morrow, provided government orders are reached?


Mr. PATERSON.: To-morrow is not a government day.


Mr.   POSTER@: But suppose government orders are reached to-morrow, what do the government propose to take up.


William Paterson: There is very little op-portimity of reaching them with all these public orders on the Paper. But the Prime Minister left word that if government orders are reached, we will go on with civil government estimates.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
_ For a return showing what total amount has been annually expended in each province since 1880 by the Department of Public Works for harbours and rivers, together with the annual totals of said expenditure for the whole of Canada; also that the Department of Public Works prepare and lay upon the table of this House with this return a map for each province, showing the location of all wharfs, piers, breakwaters, &c., constructed or purchased by the federal government, and presently owned by the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Ames.
For a return showing all applications made to the government during the period of agreement with Japan concerning Japanese immigrants, to admit such immigrants for special purposes; together with a copy of all correspondence in connection with the same.- Mr. Taylor (New Westminster.)
For a return showing how many applicant0)18 have been received from Canadian citizens for service in the proposed Canadian navy, as officers, and as able seamen or bluejackets, respectively, and how many officers and men, respectively, of the British navy made application for such service.-Mr. Jameson.
For a return showing the cost of the Senate of Canada for each year since the fiscal year 1896, under the headings of number of senators, indemnity, travelling expenses, printing, staff, and contingencies.-Mr. Foster.
For a return showing the total payments made by the government to the Eclipse Manufacturing Company, Limited, for year 1909-10, and how these contracts were let; the total payments made by the government to the Office Specialty Manufacturing Company, Limited, for year 1909-10, and how these contracts were let; the total payments made by the government to Messrs. Ahearn & Soper for year 1909-10, and how these contracts were let.-Mr. Sharpe (Ontario).
For a, return showing what; amount has been paid by the government during the last fiscal year for cab hire and street railway fares in the City of Ottawa for the following persons, with the names and the amounts in each case: ministers of the Crown; Speaker of the Senate and House of Commons; civil servants of all grades from deputy ministers down; all other persons employed in any government work or other service.-Mr. Taylor (Leeds).
For a copy of all orders in council or other authority, appointing members of the Canadian section of the Joint International Waterways Commission, together with all reports, recommendations and correspondence submitted to the government, or any depart-Mr. PATERSON.
ment thereof, by the said Canadian section, or any member thereof. Also a statement of the total expenses of such Canadian section up to date, with particulars thereof.-Mr. Macdonell.
For a copy of all correspondence, specifications, tenders, orders in council, and other papers relating to a contract or contracts entered into by the Department of Public Works for dredging in Miramichi bay, New Brunswiok, since the close of the last fiscal year.-Mr. Crocket.
For a return showing what amount has been paid by the government during the last fiscal year for travelling expenses with the names and the expenditure in each case, under the following heads, viz.:	railway,
steamship, and other lines of transportation; private cars; Pullman cars; tips to waiters; meals and hotel expenses, for the following persons: ministers of the Crown; civil servants of all grades; immigration agents; and other persons employed by the government on any special or other work.-Mr. Taylor (Leeds).
For a return showing the names of manufacturers in Canada of turned kiln-dried maple boot last and shoe last blocks, in the rough, for making manufacturers' boot and shoe lasts.-Mr. Hughes.
For a return showing how many employees of the custom house at Montreal have left the service since the 1st of July, 1896, up to this date, with their names, duties, salaries and ages, respectively, and date of their leaving; the names, ages, salaries and duties of those who have replaced them, the date of their present salaries.-Mr. Wilson (Laval).
For a return showing how many wireless telegraph stations are owned by the government, where are they located, the cost of each* and the revenue derived from each; what stations are leased, to whom they are leased, the amount of rental received each year and the period covered by said lease.-Mr. Armstrong.
For a return showing what ministers of the Crown were abroad in 1908, 1909, and 1910, on public business and on what business; what expenses were incurred by each while engaged on public business- what persons, if any, accompanied each minister on public business whose expenses were paid by the government, and the amount of such persons' expenses.-Mr. Sharpe (Ontario).
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents and papers relating to the strike of the employees of the Cumberland Coal and Railway Company, Limited, not previously brought down.-Mr. Rhodes.	[DOT]
At six o'clock, House adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 15, 1910.